Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

File:CheDelToro3.jpg

Image of a living person. The image is being used solely as decoration on the Benicio Del Toro article, as there is nothing in the article which discusses his appearance, nor even addresses the image. Fair use rationale is not correct. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As the uploader I dispute the diagnosis of "decoration". I uploaded the image to display his role for which he won a Cannes and Goya award for. Part of the consideration for his awards, was his personal transformation to play the character ... that is best seen through an image.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is now a mention of the image in question in the article's text.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is borderline, I'd say. It's not "just decoration", as the article does seem to discuss how that particular role was iconic for him; likewise, the FUR isn't totally convincing either, as the article doesn't seem to say much specifically (caveat: I only skimmed briefly) about how visual appearance was important to that role. Nevertheless, I think I'm leaning towards keep... if this were a FAC I'd definitely say it needs some work, but for a regular article I think it at least meets the bare minimum threshold for inclusion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

International_Union_of_Pure_and_Applied_Chemistry#Publications

{{resolved}} I removed 20 book covers from this article per WP:NFLISTS (WP:NFG also applies). Further, the images were missing rationales for this use, in violation of WP:NFCC #10c. I've been reverted, and the reverter claims this is legitimate use [1]. I've explained to him that it isn't legitimate use. Other people's input? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You reasoning was well phrased on Salamakajakawaka's talk page but additionally several of the images have no fair-use rationale at all so fail on that count too. They need to be tagged for deletion for that reason. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please help explain to him? He doesn't agree with me [2] (latest from my talk page). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal seems legitimate: some of these images have valid NFCC uses, but most of them will have to be deleted. Feel free to point the user towards WP:CHEMISTRY to discuss which publications are actually notable. There's at least one other NFCC problem on the IUPAC; I'll try to sort that one out myself. Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm making zero headway here. See User_talk:Hammersoft#IUPAC_book_cover_images. Would another editor please step in and help educate this fellow? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The editor in question removed them after seeing a peer review advocating removal. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Elektra Records#Company logos

Is it OK according to WP:NFCC to have a gallery of eight old non-free logos that this record company has used in the past? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think yes, it is. Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Ignore Jheald. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So nice to see a reasoned response here... Jheald (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a new discussion every time another article abuses our non-free content criteria. When you're sitting here trying to defend this kind of usage after you've spent so long hanging around in places like this, it's clear "reasoned responses" are pretty much worthless. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have a case, then take them to FFD. But one-sidedly trying to bulldoze your way is not convincing. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. If you want to change policy, you go and do that. But one-sidedly preventing any change to an article is not convincing. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP has appropriate venues to settle content disputes, rather then edit warring. In this case, it's FFD. So use it. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It takes two sides to make an edit war. —teb728 t c 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is explicitly forbidden: WP:NFCC#6 says, “images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.” And Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries says, “Fair use images may never be included as part of a image gallery” [original empasis]. —teb728 t c 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a reference from WP:NFC to WP:IUP to walk round explicit more nuanced consideration of this in WP:NFC, and WT:NFC in the past, doesn't make a lot of sense. I've update WP:IUP to reflect the current (heavily discussed) wording at WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NFCC and IUP are both official policies. I mentioned NFCC only because the OP asked with reference to NFCC. I think you are totally out of line in making a change with no prior discussion in something that has been uncontested policy since 5 November, 2005. BTW, the guideline NFC does not supersede the policy IUP. —teb728 t c 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More generally, if the article had sourced critical commentary on the old logos, and if it were necessary to see an old logo to understand the commentary on that logo, the logo might be shown in the margin of the paragraph discussing it. But there is a clear, longstanding policy that non-free images may not be used in galleries. —teb728 t c 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If you want to go legal about it, because of their close relation to the subject, we consider logos to enhance the overall "critical commentary" the article provides about the topic (ie the understanding it brings to the reader about the subject), even when there is no discussion of the logos themselves. Hence the different treatment of logos in the list at WP:NFCI, which specifically does not require critical commentary on the logos. Jheald (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe most users would agree that your rationale for logos may apply to one logo appearing at the top of the article, in say an infobox, and does not equally translate to historical logos or galleries (especially when we have prohibition of non-free images in galleries). We do not (nor should not) allow a hypothetically infinite amount of non-free content. You only need one logo to identify the subject of an article, any more would fail WP:NFCC #3a and arguably WP:NFCC #8, without further justification or rationale (cited sources/critical commentary would help). The rule of thumb you cited about the general understanding we have of logos with or without discussion of the logos themselves only applies to one image (similarly, this applies to one album or book cover, one movie poster, one TV show title screen, etc), not multiple non-free items. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that doesn't fully understand the position. The rationale for including logos is essentially twofold:

• reader recognition, confirming to the reader that they have reached the right article (or part of an article)
• (perhaps more importantly) to show to the reader the image that the company has chosen itself for identification, to encapsulate its identity

These motivations may apply as powerfully to past logos, as to present ones; particularly, as in the case of Electra, if the label is most significantly known for its "glory days" in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, rather than a present attempt to get a bit more cash out of an old name. In such a case it may be the old logos which are more valuable for reader recognition, and the sequence of identifications for the company at its height which is more valuable to document.

• It's also not true that there is a "ration" of one per article, come what may. NFC policy doesn't work like that. Rather, the important thing is that each logo must add something useful to the understanding the reader can get from the article, so that it passes NFCC #8; to be balanced (as the rising scale at WP:NFCI indicates) against the quality of copyright taking the image represents. Since logos are deliberately designed to be as widely publicised and used as possible, and there is no commercial damage in using them, the quality of the copyright taking is minimal. That is why they come right at the bottom of the list, and they are the type of images we can be most permissive of. So, for example, in a long discussion of the history of a company, there's little disagreement that it is acceptable to include a particularly representative logo to reflect each main "era" -- even if there is no specific discussion of the logo, and nor is the visual design of the company the headline topic of the article.

(As regards album covers, there is also broad consensus that additional cover art can be shown if it is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" (Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion)) [3].

• As for NFCC #3, it is useful to note that the language of #3 is primarily legal in origin. The word "minimal" is taken straight from jurisprudence on the third U.S. Fair Use factor, where courts have defined it to mean "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified". It is perhaps useful to remember that Wikipedia's lawyer has essentially said that appropriate use of old logos is legally okay [4].

Of course, even if legal, we don't want Wikipedia to feel dominated by other people's content. So it's very important that we agree that such content is serving a good purpose, if we are to agree to use it. But this brings me back to my opening post above: in this case this content is serving a good purpose. It is valuable, and validly encyclopedic, to trace the branding history; it is valuable, for the "identification" reasons above, because these were the glory days of the label; and it is valuable because it gives people a way to immediately date records they may own to distinctie eras of the label's history. So for the key test, NFCC#8, this material does indeed significantly improve the reader's knowledge and understanding of the topic. And that is why it should substantially be kept. Jheald (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's implied that the presence of such logos enhances the reader's understanding, but as there is no discussion of how the branding of the company affected it through the years, the rationales for the logo changes, or anything else, it leaves the question to the reader to figure out why they are important, thus failing NFCC#8. If the historical logos were a critical component of the company's direction, then I could see that (for example, why add a butterfly? what did that do?). Now, there is one case here that I valid, and that is based including the old stencil E that, according to the caption for the new logo in the gallery, was the basis for that new logo. Presuming that can be sourced, then there's a valid reason to keep the stencil E one (which based on the timeline, is also the logo with the longest use span, and thus the second most significant after the current logo). But for all the other logos, there's no impact on the reader and provide no new comprehension on the article. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not needed, fails to meet our image use requirements. --John (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1966, Elektra Records was known as a folk music label as can be noted by the "guitar player" logo used prior to that year. In 1966, when Elektra broadened itself by adding rock music to its offerings, the original "stencil E" logo was added as can be seen at [5]. In 1983, it switched to a new logo shown at [6]. In 1989, the label changed its name to Elektra Entertainment at which point the "double E" logo was used until the label went dormant after it was absorbed by Atlantic Records. The full story can be found in the official Elektra web site at [7] which looks as if they borrowed some of the logos from Wikipedia so there is a reason to keep the logos because the subject of the article uses the material. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it doesn't suddenly mean we need a gallery of non-free logos. Discuss the history of the label with references to reliable sources. If, after the discussion has been written, it becomes clear that an image of a logo or two would be beneficial (don't just force discussion of logos in with dubious sources, that doesn't help anyone) then the logos can be added. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I add some context to this discussion. To declare my interest, I am a long-standing 'student' of the label, friend of Jac Holzman and I produce the so-called 'Master' discography that documents the label up to Holzman's departure in 1973. Several of the logos that used to be on the page were sourced (without permission) from my web site ... and I have a licence from Elektra to use them. I refrained from correcting and completing the images because it would have broken my licence terms. Masem raises a very important point. Elektra was one of the first (if not the first) labels to actively use its design to enhance promote and add a cohesiveness to its output. The labels and logos do document that although, to be pedantic, it is the labels more than the logos: they are connected but not entirely. The corporate design strategy of Elektra (through William S Harvey and Jac Holzman) included full-colour album sleeves (front and back), band logos, high-quality sleeve design and innovative advertising. If they were indeed first to do such things strategically then a separate section (or even article) on the design would be appropriate. In that context the evolution of logos would fit since the article would be reviewing the design and therefore fair use would be for the purposes of review and/or criticism. I am inclined to agree with Masem's suggestion that a single logo to 'identify' the brand fits best with a purely historic piece and the stencil 'E' is the one I would choose also. Delverie (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Images deleted. Clear violations of WP:NFCC. Rettetast (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

File:Sofiarotarukaravan1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue3.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue4.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (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:Jean Last Stand.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Non-free screenshot of a living actress, used in the biography article to show what she looks like in her role in X-Men: The Last Stand. I have removed the image from Famke Janssen only to be reverted with the argument that since it is used in another article, X-Men: The Last Stand it can be used in Janssen's article (my characterization.) There is not the critical commentary necessary in the Janssen article to fulfill "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents" from the licensing agreement. Aspects (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The image shows her looking quite distinctly different from her usual self, as far as I recall that is a justification for fair use. It is one of her most high profile roles, a role she played in three films, probably more notable even than her role in the Bond film. The image is also very small and low resolution.

It seems very strange to me that anyone would not want to recycle and get the most possible use of out an image when it is already being used. It seems no more necessary to the Jean Grey in other media article than it does to her article. Surely the article a real person is more important than a fictional character.

If anything I'm surprised the Jean Grey includes no picture of her portrayal by Famke Janssen and I'd suggest the image should be used there too.

If the image is considered unsuitable despite being very low resolution and there being some justifications to use it then I expect it to be removed but not including it and reusing it when it is used elsewhere seems unfair and inconsistent and a waste of a perfectly good image. -- Horkana (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We judge each use of an image on its own merits. We don't just use it related articles because it has already been uploaded. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn is correct. Simply because we have a fair use image available on the project does not mean we reuse it as often as possible. The encroachment on the m:Mission of the project is every use, not the fact it's been uploaded. Every time it it used, it makes us less free. In the case of Famke Janssen, the image is being used to support two sentences, which note only that she appeared in the film in question and that she won a Saturn award for it. There's no discussion of her appearance, costume, mode of expression, anything. The prose of the article doesn't mention the image in any respect. That's a blatant fail of WP:NFCC #8 and #1. If we permit this image to be used, there's really no reason not to permit a screenshot of every film role she'd had. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a reason to improve the text not delete the image. If the text explained it someone would probably argue the image wasn't needed because it was already explained so well. As I said it is arguably her most famous role, one she played on in three films and received an award for (iirc her only award), and a role where she takes on an image different from her usual appearance so it certainly does not open the door to screenshots of every role she has played.

The justification for keeping it in Famke Janssen is at least as strong as the justification for keeping it in the other article (an article already loaded with non-free images), I cannot see how you could justify deleting one instances but not the other. -- Horkana (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Simple. We already know what she looks like and do not need a non-free image to convey that. Also, we don't modify text to support an image. That's jury rigging it. The point is, how is THIS image so incredibly important that we must include it in the article? Is there secondary sources citing her visual appearance in that movie transcending the one movie? Further, if someone wants to see what she looked like in that movie, what's stopping them from going to the movie page? Please take this in the spirit it is intended; the arguments you are presenting have all been put down before in similar cases. There just isn't an argument that supports this usage within our policies here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Image is unnecessary, fair and square. This discussion has been had over and over again for all sorts of actors/actresses, and the results in cases like this are almost always the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Execution in China.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} This image is being used in the articles Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China. Some people seem to be unhappy about this image being present on Wikipedia (check the article histories if you're interested...). Recently, the file has been tagged first {{db-nopermission}} (which I removed; for "fair use" images we don't need permission, but we need a rationale), then both {{db-nopermission}} and {{db-f6}} ("no rationale", despite the file having rationales—though I won't comment on their quality—for both articles it's used in: removed again), and then {{di-replaceable fair use}} ("is not irreplaceable").

I've removed all these speedy tags in favor of this nomination here. I don't think this is a speedy deletion case, and this repeated tagging without discussion is counterproductive. I do not see any discussion on the talk pages of the two articles that use the image about whether the image should be used at all; the only related discussion about that topic that I could find is at Talk:People's Republic of China, where it was deemed inappropriate.

As to the sourcing: see the talk page of the file.

What are your thoughts about this image and its uses? "Fair use" applicable or not for the uses in the two articles? Lupo 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This image is used without any permission from the japanese website.Polylepsis (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Polylepsis, please read on fair use and Wikipedia's policy on it. Permission is not needed under a "fair use" usage. Killiondude (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it fails our non-free content criteria because it doesn't convey any information beyond what the text of the articles it's used in do. --Carnildo (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Polylepsis (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we delete this file ? Polylepsis (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wang meng.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Non-free screenshot of a chinese speed skater, Wang Meng, used in the biography article to show what she looks like. I couldn't find an other image. Polylepsis (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly replaceable. She's still alive and apparently actively performing, so anyone could go to an event and take a picture of her. --Carnildo (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Bugs Bunny.svg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} This image may not comply with WP:NFCC rule #1: No free equivalent. If the sole purpose is to identify the subject of the article, Bugs Bunny, free images such as File:Falling hare restored.jpg, File:Falling hare bugs.jpg or anything else listed in Commons:Category:Bugs Bunny could be used. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been completely unaware of the existing free images, so I would endorse deleting the one I've uploaded. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Dimitrov-mausoleum.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Resolved

 – deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A free alternative for this image is now available at Commons here [8], so this one can be deleted. Preslav (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no disputes over this image, so there's no need for a discussion here; in the future when this happens you can just tag the image with an appropriate speedy deletion template (in this case, you would remove the image from articles where it's used and then tag it with {{di-orphaned fair use|date=~~~~~}}). This page is more for settling dispute. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mechamusume.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} No fair-use rationale, nor do I think one is possible for the article in which the image is included. Powers ^T 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So tag it as {{nrd}}? -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought there was a template for that. But this page didn't mention it so I just followed the instructions. Powers ^T 15:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Sunni Gummi Drinking Gummiberry Juice.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Does not add anything that can't be described in words.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Dancing On Ice Hayley Tamaddon.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} This publicity image used on Hayley Tamaddon and Dancing on Ice (Series 5) has its source stated as being ITV.com but has been given a public domain licensing tag. A link to the ITV.com terms and conditions has been included, but this appears to provide no evidence of any basis for assuming a release into the public domain or even free use.

A google image search shows the same image appearing on a couple of news sites, for example:

• Daily Mail
• EntertainmentOdds.com

but I don't think that that constitutes release into the public domain.--DavidCane (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. That's an obvious copyright infringement. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:300 monster.poster03.jpg

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Asking for a review at Talk:300 (film)#Second film poster. I don't think the use of this film poster is warranted in the article and I've outlined what changes need to be made in order to make the use of the poster acceptable. Can I get some more opinions? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the argument actually being presented is that while an image is indeed in keeping with NFC, the concern is primarily over using a screen capture from the film as opposed to using the poster. The argument against using the poster details that the copyright infringement is less when using a screen cap (as opposed to using the whole poster). The argument in favor of retaining the poster is that, because the film was banned in Iran, a screen cap could not possibly have had any part in the resulting outcry from the Iranians, whereas the posters - freely available online - were the only place the outcry could have arisen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:AGascat.png

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} The image is a screenshot of actress Ariana Grande performing in character. However, the usage is to illustrate Grande, not the character. WP:NFC#UULP states that "Pictures of people still alive…provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image" is an unacceptable use, and that is the case here: a free replacement image of Grande could be taken for use in the article, so the use of the non-free screenshot is disallowed under the guidelines for non-free content, as criterion WP:NFCC #1 is not met. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blatant case of replaceable fair use. There's really no room for wiggle here. The actress is alive, and we don't use non-free images to depict living, active actresses. I've removed the image from the article, tagged as with {{rfu}} and {{orfud}}, and advised User:Barneystimpleton of the problems in using this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Windows Live Essentials

A short article about a software product. The article uses six different screenshots, and a total of seven non-free images. I can not see that all these images are needed to understand this article. There is no commentary on the screenshots in themself, and one of them are in the words of the editor who reverted my image removal; off "a completely separate product". Rettetast (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Images such as the screenshot of the download website has a very weak FUR, and the website itself is only very briefly mentioned in the article; I think their use are incompatible with NFCC#3a and 8. decltype (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say take the whole article to AfD. It's not even about the Windows Live software, it's about the install wizard for Windows Live. How is this notable? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it as having too many non-free images- hopefully a regular editor there will be interested in cutting it down. If not, take an axe to it. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is resolved or not. Images in article have been cut down to 3, though they are all non-free. First is the logo/icon for the software, and that seems ok. Next is a screenshot of the software installer. As mentioned above, it still has a very poor FUR. But if this article is about the installer itself, I guess a screenshot of it may work. The last image is a screenshot of the Microsoft webpage for this program. I see no reason to include that image. I mean, don't we already link to the webpage itself? The article isn't about the webpage, nor does it appear to be discussed. At least there are no longer 7 non-free images.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed from all articles other than UCLA Bruins, UCLA Bruins football, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, and UCLA Bruins women's volleyball as failing WP:NFCC#8. Using the team logo to decorate the many articles about various seasons' versions of the teams isn't a viable fair use under our criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. As I did with Arkansas and LSU previously, I've created File:UCLA athletics text logo.svg, which should be an adequate text-only (i.e. PD-logo) image with which we should replace the non-free instances.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem there is that it is frequently the case that such logos are not the actual logos of the university in question. In this case, and this case only, it can be considered to be so. See page 14 of this document, where it says "The UCLA script, with or without a tail..." and this is the UCLA script without a tail. People should avoid making logos that are not actually the logos of universities. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would never create a logo that was not the universities (at least not on purpose). I agree 100% with your sentiment, but resent that some of it may be aimed at me personally. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• None of it was aimed at you personally. I've seen people create logos for universities before that were not in fact the university's logo. That's fine if it's a userbox. Not fine when it's article space (and yes, I've seen this done). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed. Even if there isn't a PD-text replacement, the non-free image needs to leave those individual season articles. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed too. But, 100% agreement doesn't exist. It's time to take this to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the sports logo dispute never got resolved, but isn't this a pretty clear-cut case that we have a free logo that can serve the same purpose (identify the school) as the non-free one? howcheng {chat} 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom will accept this, I can hear "decline, content issue" immediately. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I already felt them out about this, and I think it would be accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. I don't believe this logo is eligible for copyright protection (argument made on image's talk page, so I'm not going to rehash it here), so NFCC#8 doesn't apply
2. If it did, I would have no problem replacing it with Andrew c's logo as it is one of the UCLA logos and sold on UCLA merchandise, but the problems remain as to how to define things like this so we don't have these arguments (or at least minimize them to images that are complicated).
3. 100% agreement (or even 70% agreement) doesn't easily exist on how they should be treated. I would like to take another shot at Mediation. Hammersoft and others didn't like the way I phrased some of the last request. I recommend at least trying to do another mediation before going to ArbCom; feel free to phrase it how you so desire. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with BQZip on this. I don't see how any of the letters, including the tail on the "a" are anything more than typographical ornamentation, which is not eligible for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Andrew C, what font did you use to create that new image? Stifle (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  No font, auto-traced a logo. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine image you've created, Andrew c, and it illustrates another protection of copyright, described here in Derivative work.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying my image is still a derivative work and therefore not PD? Derivative work of non-copyrightable elements (i.e. text-only) is still not any more eligible for copyright than the original constituent parts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, with all that above, it's got me second guessing myself. What I did was take the largest logo file I could find on google images, which was a helmet drawing from here, that has the tail. I then cut the tail from the trace, took a smaller non-tail logo, and hand traced the terminal of the "a". I finally added the outline, but no drop shadow (similar to this). But now I noticed that the helmet logo, which isn't outlined, seems to be thinner than the basic text used in the outlined versions. So I believe I may have done what I was talking against above, creating a logo not used by the university (A thin, outlined logo.). While they do officially accept versions of the script logo without a tail, I have not been able to locate any from an official source, and a google image search apparently comes up with not-so-official logos. I'd be totally fine with scrapping my version altogether because of this, or re-doing it or making modifications if others can offer suggestions or better source logos to use. Maybe if I simply removed the outline it would be better, but then again, are there any uses of the thinner script without a tail? Sorry about all that. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've created another file, from scratch, using a different source. I still had to draw on the terminal of the "a" by hand after removing the tail. Not sure what others think about this new one, or if the previous one was even problematic. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the PD claim: the Copyright Act requires that a typeface must have an "intrinsic utilitarian function ... for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". While the "UCLA" or "Bruins" elements would certainly meet that requirement separately, the work must be evaluated as a whole and it seems incorrect to conclude that this is a mere "compos[ition of] text" or "cognizable combination of characters" (the latter in terms of the spirit of the definition). Admittedly this is a grey area on which reasonable people may disagree. It is important, however, to err on the side of caution as, among other reasons, not to misinform our readers. Although a much more clear-cut example, ASCII images demonstrate that the whole, at times, can be more than the sum of its parts (i.e. in certain instances, collections of elements themselves ineligible for copyright may become eligible by virtue of sufficient creative arrangement, etc.) Эlcobbola _talk 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Elcobbola, your opinions are certainly important here. I concur that reasonable people may disagree, but the question remains as to how we should proceed. I have to say that I based most of my opinion on your page, so clarification about your points is certainly important. I agree that ASCII art such as this is a clear-cut example to the contrary. You agree that the "UCLA" and "Bruins" components each are PD, correct? It seems to me that adding two PD images result in another PD image. The "U" is being used as a "U" and has no other function than a "U". The same goes with each of the letters. Writing letters on a circle doesn't suddenly make it copyrightable. Why would writing it on another letter? Where am I wrong on this?

  As a further example, what would you think about the PD-ness of this image? Should it be PD? I am unaware of a key that combines a K, Y, and another Y. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with that is someone can take PD work, change it a bit and give it a new copyright (at least on the new work). Copyright is automatic now; I do agree that some elements alone are public domain, but from looking at the total package, I believe the image is copyrighted. As for the season articles...hmm... User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]" I view the elongated tail of the "a" as a variation of typographic ornamentation, hence it is not eligible. The same goes for the "Bruins". — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  I see where you are coming from, but I just don't see the tail design as simple ornamentation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  It doesn't mention "simple" ornamentation, but ornamentation in general, much as in the Coca Cola logo (another example of a PD image)...and while we're on the subject, it is extremely similar to the ornamentation on that logo, only that it goes in the opposite direction.

  On a related topic, you unilaterally deleted the UT&T logo. Why? Even having the wrong license is correctable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Texas Tech or something else? The Coca Cola image is PD due to age, which is a different reason all together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The Coca-Cola one may be old enough to pass that magic 1923 mark, but it has been a PD-trademark for some time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, the Texas with the U and T overlayed; it is restored as of now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  There are also several others:

  File:ASUinterlock.gif

  File:AzSt.gif

  File:Colorado.gif

  File:Tulane shield web.png

  File:Akron.gif

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  File:Tulane shield web.png was not me; it was also not claimed in any sort of PD license. The others, I will look at it later. It's almost 2 am, I need sleep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "PD-Trademark"? Yes, it's PD, and yes, it's a trademark, but please try to understand that the Coca-Cola logo is not subject to copyright because of its age, and not because it is too simple. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is labeled as such (and only recently so), but as numerous people have pointed out, labeling somethign doesn't make it so. This is logo is made from a specific font, by any definition a typeface, and is therefore completely ineligible for copyright. Its date of creation is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

←There's a suggestion above that a combination of PD works remains PD. This isn't true, because the composition and arrangement of the PD works, and any modifications made thereto, attracts a copyright. Reminds me of the proof by induction that all men are bald. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, but there are certain things that cannot be copyrighted. A square is not copyrightable. The letter "A" when used as an "A" is not copyrightable. Putting an A in a square is merely an arrangement of things that are not copyrightable. Take a collection of letters and make them into art and you have ASCII art which goes beyond its use as an "A", beyond its utilitarian purpose. Take a collection of squares in various colors and you get the basic construct of a bitmap image. The question is, was, and remains, where do we draw the line? There is reasonable disagreement on where we should do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a deeply disturbing, shocking, and unnerving thought; has anyone thought to contact UCLA for their opinion on the copyright status of their logos? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the sarcasm.

We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image. Like I've said ad nauseum, spend the same amount of effort on a mediation request and we can take this whole issue there and either resolve it or go on to ArbCom and be done with it much sooner. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go to ArbCom to settle the issue, as long as no one is going to have editing restrictions or any punishment of sorts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BQZip, there's no reason to conflate this issue with the issue regarding copyrighted logos on season articles. Further, asking the holder of a work about the nature and extent of copyrights they hold on that work is hardly out of line. If you don't want to do the work, fine. But, don't extend that to mean we shouldn't, can't, and that it is against our principles. There's nothing about asking a source holder questions about the source that is against our principles. Zscout, arbitration is probably premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to just this logo. Six others are mentioned above as well and they apply to all of them. It also applies across Wikipedia and it isn't simple.

ZScout, you and I do not agree on this, but I think we could work together and present an accurate discussion to start the ArbCom process. Are you interested? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom won't take it, BQZ. I talked to a few last night and they told me they will not legislate copyright law. Plus, I took image issues before the ArbCom and it was rejected. I am dealing with some IRL issues at this moment, so even if they would take the case, I am not sure what I can physically do in the next few weeks. But I stopped any of the edits to images and began asking a few questions off wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about legislating copyright law, but to define what we use within Wikipedia as free and non-free images. I personally don't care one way or another, but we need to have something concrete to make appropriate edits. Current discussion is about 60-40, not a clear consensus, but we will continue to have these problems until a solution can be worked out (either directive from ArbCom or throught agreement by a sizable percentage). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is how they see it, but I will try again soon. If I had my way, I would not use college logos in userboxes or anything like that, and I frankly not concerned about trademark whatsoever. Trademark law makes my head spin. But as an admin, and one who deals with images, I need a clear boundary to say what is good and what is no go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're not going to get a concrete line in the sand that says "This is free and this is not free" on these logos. Why? Because there's no concrete line in law. It's a case by case basis. In this case, we can't agree if it's free or not, so it needs to be marked as non-free. The only way around that is to contact the rights holder (UCLA) and find out their stance as to its copyright or lack thereof. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  That is how I was told to operate; assume non-free unless otherwise proven. Is this written somewhere in Wikipedia policy? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  I went looking for it recently and couldn't find it coded per se. But, it's implied in things like {{nld}} and {{nsd}} and CSD F11. It is how we operate here though. If we can't prove something is free, we delete it unless we're using it under a fair use claim. I think we can make reasonable assumptions of something being free. But, when the community can't agree something is free (and we don't here), we have to either use it under fair use or be done with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  "If we can't prove something is free, we delete it..."

  1. You have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy to make such a statement
  2. The problem is that even if we accept this is that there is no standard for "proof". Making such a demand isn't appropriate as this isn't policy. I have no problem with creating such a policy, but let's set up some basic structure by which to come up with this proof or give guidance to other Wikipedians. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. That was how it was explained to me in the past, but I cannot seem to pull the quote given to me. But if I can make it simple, if it cannot go on the Commons without certainty, we should assume unfree until we get evidence. However, a lot of our license changes came from people above me. It took a Jimbo order in May of 2005 to get rid of images used under a license of non-commercial. It took the Foundation itself to talk about the EDP policy or your upload will be disabled (thus forcing it to the Commons by default). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone who believes we are a free until proven non-free project fails to understand what our basic ethos is. It's blatantly obvious. BQZ, you've been shown this multiple times. It's like everyone is telling you the sky is blue, and you're insisting it's a neat shade of green. It's pointless to debate this further with you. Baring consensus, this image will remain tagged as unfree. I fail to understand why the proponents of this image being free refuse to contact UCLA. What harm could it possibly cause to ask, you know, the people who actually OWN the thing? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted Texas Tech about their logo to solve the issue. If anyone else decides to contact a school about a logo, do say that we KNOW it is TRADEMARKED, but what about copyright? As I pointed out constantly, copyright is automatic under US law and we need to show proof that it is indeed non-eligible for protection in the first place. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing; I was pointed to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others tonight. I wish for all to read this quote: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." This is a statement that we must treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the quote. My point is that they fall into the public domain. We don't treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. We make the call on many of them where copyright status isn't explicitly stated, such as statues created prior to 1923.

Hammer, I do not believe we are a free until proven non-free, period, but you (and no one else in this discussion) has provided an avenue to prove whether this image is free. If I contact UCLA and tell you that is what they said, then I would expect that you would then demand an e-mail and subsequent OTRS verification stating this. It simply isn't how things are done. These are your personal standards, not Wikipedia's. Demanding that everyone acquiesce to you and cave to your demands for proof (which you haven't even stated what would prove it to be so) isn't appropriate, IMNSHO. Barring consensus, it doesn't mean we default to what you want and nothing in Wikipedia states so (feel free to prove me wrong). I'm not saying it means it should be PD, but a lack of consensus doesn't mean we default to non-free. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about OTRS because I'm part of it. So if UCLA tells you it only has trademark protection, then I will believe you. As you mentioned, a lot of the problems with fair use is because A agrees but B disagrees, like in this one. I don't think this specific UCLA logo is in the public domain (the sports one with the tail; the new UCLA logomark is in the public domain due to the font issue you mentioned). I just think with the design of the tail and the way the letters are arranged, it is does have some copyright protection. For some of the images, such as the publication before 1923, we generally go by a checklist mentioned by Cornell University. If you have not seen the checklist, I will send it to you on your talk page or any other method. But this checklist will allow myself and other users to just be able to see if it really does fall under PD-US-1923 rules (such as known author and publication date). If the author is unknown, there are more requirements. If the publication date is unknown, we have more hoops to jump through. I think my own personal problem is one, I used to be very crappy at copyright and everything is a learning experience to me, two, a lot of fair use issues were discussed when I was away from WP (which I need to study up on, including the RFC in June) and three, I come with a mindset as a Commons admin (which we are very harsh to images). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As an OTRS agent myself, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to forward correspondences in, and we can reference that ticket # on the image page. It may help quell any future issues that may come up, unforeseen, years down the road. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Echo that. I personally would rather have the correspondence passed through OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, this isn't a simple way to use such images. Are you seriously proposing we cannot use PD logos unless each and every legal department from every Univeristy/sports team/corporation/etc respond via e-mail? That isn't workable and provides significant problems. While you "prefer it", it is your own preference, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I'd love to see the checklist Zscout. Pls e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yet we're in disagreement over this logo. So you would have us presume it's free and make no attempt to contact UCLA to ascertain its status? If we're all in agreement something is free, there's no debate. We treat it as free. That's not the case here now is it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• So someone has to make a phone call on every logo for which someone disagrees that it is non-free? That's thousands of unnecessary calls. Follow the guidelines that have been established by consensus: text and/or simple geometric shapes=PD (no matter color, arrangement, or ornamentation). It really is that simple. If you don't like that, that is fine. Please start a mediation on the subject. You didn't like the "format" of my request. Fine. You are welcome to submit your own, but it's been almost 6 months and no proposals. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "you would have us presume it's free" No, I wouldn't have you "presume" it is free (that is twisting my words), I would have you listen to my rationale and agree that everything in this logo is text. The fundamental purpose of this logo's components is to provide letters, no matter how ornate. Those letters do not form other images and they are not used in other such capacities. As such, the letter's "intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text" (this is verbatim from the 1976 U.S. copyright law) and is ineligible for copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The tail of the "a" forms an image of a banner/flag, a very common motif in design, which isn't simply a geometric shape. Take for instance an image like this. It seems like you are saying that if the banner in that image was attached to the tail of a letter, it somehow stops being a decorative element, and becomes entirely utilitarian? Regardless, this seems very similar to the topic below Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Four_images, where comments like "Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template" and "It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go." seems apt in this discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about the banner image mentioned above: it is a ribbon of some kind. As such it certainly is an object and not part of any letter. Ergo, it is part of a drawing, not a geometric shape.

As for the tail of the "a", it is part of the letter and is ornamentation of that letter. One could argue that it is simple a variation of underlining and, in any case, is part of the text. "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]". I don't believe it to be a "shape", but rather ornamentation as it is clearly connected to the letter. I am not arguing that another image, if changed, would be part of another letter. I would handle it on a case-by-case basis. At some point, an artistic drawing connected to a letter would certainly meet the criteria for copyright status, but in the case of the UCLA logo, this isn't it. Other logos are also in the same category and have the same type of flourish: Cal logo Idaho logo. If they were copyrighted, there certainly would be a copyright lawsuit over the matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument that this image should be free of copyrights too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is an essay (not guideline) on deletion discussions, not copyright status. Moreover, citing examples of other free images is the only way to make a comparison to illustrate certain points of view. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes think using other free images with the confusion we have right now over what is simple or not is, in my opinion, not the smartest move in the world. If we were comparing images based on a standard that is clearly defined, such as location and time, I can see that approach working. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ, I'll simply state this; this is yet another permutation of our lather-rinse-repeat arguments on this project. You insist you're right. I insist I'm right. There's no in between. This is why discussion with you is futile from my perspective. It never gets anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been talking about this now for more than a week. Not one person but BQZ believes this image qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. BQZ, I know you disagree, and feel you have strong reasons for your disagreement. But, after more than a week of you being the most prolific poster in this discussion, not one of us have been convinced you are correct. I think this discussion has run its useful course. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it is PD: [9][10].

As for me convincing anyone, ZScout and I have come to an agreement on several other restored logos.

Why would anything I say sway you in any way after a week? This discussion has been ongoing for nearly a year, but you seem to dismiss any form of dispute resolution. Let me ask you point blank: Will you submit a proposal to mediation or ArbCom? I prefer the former than the latter.

I have asked dozens of questions above with no answers other than "You're wrong" as a response (I'm paraphrasing here). I've quoted policy, law, precedent, examples, legal opinions, etc, but all have been ignored. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• And once again you attempt to conflate this issue with that of fair use logos usage. They're not the same issue, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BQ asked me elsewhere a few days ago to take a look at this. I'm not able to support his position as regards use on English Wikipedia (sorry BQ! :) In my very humble and massively confused opinion after the last twenty browser windows, I feel that the "tail" comprises a sufficiently artistic element that copyright devolves. Someone appears to have done more than just arrange simple text, they've put some thought into how to unify the text using a novel arrangement of graphic elements (well, putting text into a tail isn't exactly novel, but neither is it a slavish copy of extant work). The text shadowing is much more iffy, but the "tail" seems clearly designed to connote an actual animal tail (though it's more of a beaver-tail than a bear-tail). More broadly, I don't feel that our role here is to conduct "shadow litigation" to determine these points, when we already have fairly well-defined procedures on how to act.

I'll remain open to persuasion if specific outside legal opinions or even better, precedent-setting case law on this can be presented. In the absence of specifics, I feel we're better off to follow SOP. Also, I'm not good enough with the UCLA site and the TESS system to find which actual RTM's of UCLA incorporate the various elements.

Even more broadly, I'm not clear on exactly what the distinction is between copyrighted and trademarked images as far as non-free content criteria goes. We explicitly license our content for commercial re-use, but I read in Section F [11] here "All commercial use of Campus Names and Trademarks... is permitted only by license or authorization...". So the use at this site seems to me clearly NOT FREE, unless we have license or authorization - so why aren't we using strict application of NFCC? I'm even more alarmed by Andrew C's adaptation which preserves the sacred circle-R in what appears a non-trademark-registered copy. If I was an IP officer at UCLA I would go nuts when I saw that - but I'll address that elsewhere.

I understand all of BQ's points and agree with most of them. BQZip01, I do disagree with you on your "literally thousands of phone calls" comment - since that's something we can actually do, it's what we should be doing first. And in that same post, where you say "We don't need a lawyer's input on every image" - well, yes we do, but we'll never get it. :( What we have to do instead is establish broad guidelines, then show due diligence in enforcing them, then we will never get sued over some stupid and arcane point of law that takes every single donor's cash to defend for two years. It would be great if it was all different, but it just plain ain't...

Anyway, long and rambling, but there's my opinion on this. The interpretation of wiki-policy is purely my own, but I'll stand to be corrected if I've misunderstood the relevant US law and rulings of precedent. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my version alarmed you. Would it be better if I hadn't copied the logo 100%, and left the ® out of the image? It is really simple to delete elements from SVG files. Please forgive me for failing to find out how a completely text element found in the source image, when copied, somehow discredits our claim of PD-text. Could you explain that one to me? Do you feel like the image would never qualify for PD-text, or that by adding the circle R, then made it ineligible for PD-text? I'm sorry that I don't get it, but I really want to learn more. I'm just familiar with other logos that we either copy directly from the source, or convert to SVG, and claim PD-text: i.e. File:Copernic-Inc-logo.png, File:Auburn-logo-Transparent.png, File:Blackstone Group logo.png, File:CHTV1.svg, File:Converse logo.png and not the R, but TM File:Cuse_logo_ubx.jpg, File:Colorado.gif, etc. So I'd really like to know if there is anything I could do to the image to improve it in your eyes (like remove the circle R), and what is the basis of that view. I think if I where a company, I'd be more appalled to see my image being used on a site with the registered or trade mark notifiers removed. But I may be missing something. Thanks for the feedback. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that unless UCLA has registered the exact graphic you present (in which case it must always be represented with the R), then yeah, you should remove the R from your clipped and modified version. and explain on the image description page that it is a modified and clipped version of a registered mark of UCLA. It's quite possible that UCLA has in fact registered a mark with just the "ucla" script, but then that's the one you should be copying. I wasn't able to find such a registration in the USPTO database, but like I say, I don't understand it that well. I also couldn't find anything on UCLA's site. Basically, the R applies to the entirety of the registered mark, not individual parts of it.

You're absolutely right that mark-holders want to see the notifier preserved, in the case of the R, integrated into the graphic image, for the TM, preferably on first or most prominent usage but at least in footnotes. My concern is whether or not what you've uploaded is indeed a registered mark of UCLA. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you are saying. The official design guidelines PDF linked to above only has a picture of a "with tail" logo, but specifies that version without the tail are approved. That said, I've found versions of the tailless logo online with the registered mark, but they do not necessarily come from an official source. I'd gladly remove it if you think it is best, but I wanted to note it is present in some sources (i.e. [12] and [13] and [14] and [15]). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on those examples, I did a little more digging and found this, where I can find "UCLA® by itself requires a ®", and the script logo is included under the definition of "UCLA", so I'll withdraw my objections. I also found some other stuff about appropriate use of Pantone colours, not altering graphics &c and I'm still a little concerned about you having [possibly, and in good faith] synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo, but it's far enough down the scale to not matter. Maybe you could just include a link to that FAQ on the image description page so that others would have a convenient link to read. Other than that, I'm fine with it. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added [bracketed cmt] in response to cmt below. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The PDF guide provided colors, in pantone, RGB, and CMYK, and I chose my colors 100% based on their specifications. I really do take "synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo" very seriously, and I myself have been highly critical of users doing this and even deleted files in the past based on cheap knock offs. I'd gladly make any changes to my file that you or anyone else seems fit based on those lines of arguments. I really did try my hardest to be true to the brand. But all this talk is probably off topic. So sorry for derailing conversation and thanks for your constructive criticism. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the semi-diversion above, I did discover this link. It contains the text "Bruins by itself or separated from UCLA® by distance or a design element does NOT have a ®". Since the Ucla script and the BRUINS text don't appear to be separated by any distance and the ® appears next to Ucla, it seems clear that UCLA itself thinks that this logo contains a "design element", otherwise the ® would be near the "BRUINS" part of the logo. Whether or not this "design element" constitutes a creative work to which copyright would accrue is an open question. I'll reiterate that IMO we should not be litigating these questions here. There are two easy ways out: treat the logo as NFC; or contact UCLA directly for their opinion on whether or not they feel copyright holds. It's not like UCLA hasn't faced this question before, and it's not like an unsatisfactory answer from their IP office would prevent anyone from finding someone in UCLA tenured faculty who would be willing to stand up for the truth. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ's response to that is "We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image." I suggested interested people contact UCLA before, and that was his response. I doubt his opinion has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and replaced the 20 or so non-free uses in the by-season articles with the free SVG. I know there isn't 100% agreement on the non-free or PD status of this image. But it is still tagged as non-free, and there is no evidence it is PD, so for the time being, we need to err on the side of caution. Hopefully, this solution is acceptable to all parties, and we can move on and consider this resolved. If not, then I don't know what further steps need to be taken. More input may be needed, and clear evidence of PD status would be great. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's a fine solution, and the method should be applied to many other instances of such heavy overuse, such as File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg and File:MarylandTerrapins.png. This reduces the reliance on non-free content while still allowing logos for those who feel they must have them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, I've created File:Maryland_Terps_logo.png, and I'll see what I can find for the Longhorns. I'll update again once I have something for them, and then we can proceed replacing the non-free overuse with free alternatives.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm... I've been looking through this, and nothing has jumped out at me as a good text-only logo for athletics. Maybe the "T" by itself or the "UT" could work[16], but the design guidelines say it is for internal purposes only. Maybe we could use the "Texas" by itself which appears above the longhorn logo, but again I haven't found a decent sized image to work with. We still shouldn't be using the longhorn logo so much, because it is still replaceable by a text-only equivalent. Just because we don't have one uploaded yet doesn't change the replaceability.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to use some of these images...User:BQZip01/FBS_Trademarked_logos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I agree with you. But, this argument has been going on for almost a year now. I raised this red flag back on 10 December 2008 Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_39#Severe_overuse_problem. See also [[17]] and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images in History of Blackpool F.C. (1887–1962) and History of Blackpool F.C. (1962–present)

Most, if not all, non-free images used in these articles, including a lot of portraits, appear to be decorative and serving no encyclopedic purpose. Images in question are:

• In History of Blackpool F.C. (1887–1962):
  • File:Allan Brown injury.jpg
  • Image:Stanley Matthews.jpg
  • Image:Major Frank Buckley.jpg
  • Image:Joe Smith (football manager).jpg
  • Image:Jock Dodds.jpg
  • Image:Jimmy Hampson.jpg
  • Image:Jackie Mudie.jpg
  • Image:Jack Cox.jpg
  • Image:Harry Johnston.jpg
  • Image:Harry Bedford (football player, born 1899).jpg
  • Image:George Farm.jpg
  • Image:Bloomfield early 20th century.jpg
  • Image:Bloomfield Road, 1905.jpg
  • Image:Bloomfield Road from above.jpg
• History of Blackpool F.C. (1962–present)
  • Image:Bloomfield Road facade.jpg

These images are generally used elsewhere as well, with proper non-free use rational, so they shouldn't be deleted altogether, but they should be removed from the above articles. --Mosmof (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few images from a few articles. Bloomfield Road needs a serious looking at, and it would appear a lot of the images on that article are used with questionable legitimacy elsewhere... J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on images used in articles about Blackpool F.C., I noticed that several season articles use non-free squad photos:

• File:Blackpool F.C. 1986-87 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1904-05 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1906-07 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1908-09 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1920-21 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1929-30 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. squad 1946-47.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1957-58 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool F.C. 1968-69 squad.jpg
• File:Blackpool with the FA Cup.jpg

Now, I understand the fair use rationale that would be made in these cases, that they provide visual identification. But the article subject is the season, not an object that can be visually identified, and there's less value in these squad photos as visual descriptors than portraits in articles about individuals. Are these acceptable uses? --Mosmof (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Apple Computer Logo.svg

{{discussion top}} Image moved to Commons. First published in 1977 without a copyright so it falls under {{PD-US-no notice}}. See this page for further explanation. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the use of this image on Rob Janoff and History of Apple comply with WP:NFCC#8? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Apple I would say certainly: the coloured logo was iconic of the height of Apple's first success in the 1970s and 1980s.

Rob Janoff I would say also yes: it is his most famous work, and currently the article on him is substantially devoted to discussing what may or may not be symbolism in the logo.

I question whether the logo needs to be as big, though. Smaller logo with more white space might be better. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it would be legitimate on Rob Janoff, if that content was a little better sourced, but it would be better in section rather than at the head of the article (where an image of Janoff himself would be best). The lack of discussion or even, as far as I can see, mention is not consistent with the claim that the logo is "iconic"- I cannot see why it is being used in that article. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before Stifle added the CSD notice, there was a caption which read "The Apple logo in 1976 created by Rob Janoff with the rainbow color theme used until 1998."

IMO showing the original form of the logo, naming the creator, describing when it was changed, taken together as a package does add significantly to the subject of the article, "History of Apple".

As for it being "iconic", that was just my automatic reaction having been around at the time. It's an assessment of significance being offered by me as an editor, and as such germane to the discussion. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption is not enough- it's fairly obvious that the caption describes the image. This reminds me a little of Russell's paradox- using the logic that the caption describes the image, you're basically saying that, if the image is there, it is needed- if it isn't, it isn't. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption can be entirely enough. There is no requirement at WP:NFCC for any text at all discussing an image. The requirement is for the image to significantly add to the understanding readers get from the image. This image does that. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While a sourced discussion is not specifically mentioned as a requirement in WP:NFCC, the significance still needs to meet WP:V, which would require discussion sourced to a reliable source. Otherwise, simply claiming that an image is of importance to an article would be WP:OR or WP:POV. --Mosmof (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and OR are content policies - it's just fine to make unsourced statements in a meta-discussion like this. We all know (anyone who was around at the time) that the rainbow apple logo was an icon of its era. If we want to improve the article with a sourced statement to that effect, surely it's out there somewhere. The general take on historic logos is that they're okay if used to illustrate a sourced discussion of the branding, logos, and identity of a company (where that is germane to an article), but not okay as a mere gallery of images. By comparison with other visual artists, it's okay in the bio of a graphic designer to include a few well-chosen examles or famous works, if accompanied by sourced discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me - I was talking about content in article space. My point is that:

1. Non-free content needs to be subject of critical commentary
2. Critical commentary, like all article space content, needs to be sourced to meet WP:V and WP:NOR
3. Therefore, there is an implicit requirement for non-free content to be accompanied by sourced commentary.

And if we wanted to use the rainbow Apple logo as the designer's representative work, we would need a reliable source to verify that it is considered to be the defining work of the designer's, right? --Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Who I was just about to quote, from this discussion, and even more on-point the one immediately following it, in the archives at WT:NFC.

WP:NOR is about text in article space. It does not apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy space, etc. The question of significance is a judgment for the community to come to. It does not depend on citing sources. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. If the logo is as important as you claim, it will be worth discussing in the article. If there's discussion in the article, it may be worth including the image. You can't cut out the middle man and slam in a non-free image just because you consider it iconic. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for the community to consider whether they find it iconic (or more precisely, significant). Per WP:BRD "slamming in a non-free image just because you consider it significant" (and expect the community to agree) is exactly what you can do. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Yeah, wow indeed. I think the comment is a pretty good illustration of exactly how not to approach non-free content use and the fair use principle, that I see with many editors. They think of images as an afterthought or an accessory that you add to an article. Rather, non-free content needs to be an integral part of the content, so much so that the discussion couldn't exist without it. It's not so much that non-free content requires accompanying commentary, but rather, the non-free content must be part of the commentary. --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

back to the game. Like many who were around at the time, the image is significant to me though for what it reminds me of rather than what it tells me. There should be sourced commentary in both places (not hard to do) as without it, particularly in History of Apple the logo adds precisely nothing to the uninformed. I just got someone here to read the section with the logos as an experiment (someone too young to remember the logo)...result was that the inclusion of the logos was meaningless. To those arguing that things are significant, without commentary in the article, this sort of experiment is most instructive. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The logo is an important part of the optimism of the era where it was created, it's historical significance is inseparable from the era where it was created, and its use is integral to discussion of Apple Computer, or its's designer. It is one of the most recognizable corporate logos in the world, and inspired the design of the later Apple logos. The IBM logo's significance would also be subject to similar justification. rhyre (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of galleries to display former Apple logos in the Apple Inc. is disgusting, and without a doubt, does not meet the criteria for non-free content. Fair use images of any kind shouldn't be in galleries at the end of the section, they should be in the context of articles. Not only that, but the article only talks about the original Apple logo and the rainbow colored logo. And in the article is says:

In 1998, with the roll out of the new iMac, Apple discontinued the rainbow theme — supposedly at the insistence of recently returned Jobs — and began to use monochromatic themes, nearly identical in shape to its previous rainbow incarnation.

Bearing that in mind, why do we have to have 4 apple logos that nearly look the same in gallaries when the current logo is in the infobox? — ℳℴℯ ε 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the 4 logos you are referring to are the rainbow, the monochromatic and the current "glassy" logo, then you are mistaken, they do not look "nearly the same" but are significantly different as noted in copy. They should be kept for both Apple and history of Apple.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The images in the gallery are accompanied by commentary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The images for the company history and company are so iconic that if they don't fit the rules, the rules need to be changed. Rob Janoff is much more problematic. I removed the image and added a wikilink to the section in the Apple article that talks about the logos. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (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:Ronald McDonald.jpg

I believe this image is replaceable by taking a picture of Ronald McDonald when he makes a public appearance. Powers ^T 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought there would be something suitable at Commons:Category:Ronald McDonald, but they are all plastic and have distracting backgrounds. —teb728 t c 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are even worse, since they're pictures of works of art. A picture of an actor in costume, though, could be freely licensed. Powers ^T 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: I stand corrected; the pictures of statues are okay because they were taken in the Netherlands or Thailand, where photographers have "freedom of panorama". I agree, though, that a picture of a costumed actor would be preferable. My original point stands, of course. Powers ^T 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Shirleylottery.jpg

{{discussion top}} This image is currently in use in four articles—Shirley Jackson, The Lottery, NBC Presents: Short Story, and The Lottery and Other Stories—and its use in all four seems to me to violate WP:NFCC #8. It's clearly tangential to the topic of NBC Presents: Short Story; and, as a book jacket, it seems inappropriate as an author photo in Shirley Jackson and superfluous as an illustration in The Lottery (which already contains another supposedly fair-use image of a book cover). Its use in The Lottery and Other Stories might be debatable, but I think that whereas an image of the first edition (Farrar, 1949) might be justifiable as an illustration of the article's express topic, this image of one of a number of later editions is not. Deor (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it completely fails the required criteria in the first three cases and ought to be removed from those articles. For The Lottery and Other Stories, however, while in general a first edition would be preferred per Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Image I feel that it is an acceptable use until/unless a different cover is available to replace it. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've little experience in this area; how does one go about doing this? I can obviously remove the image from the three articles, but does one also remove the corresponding FURs from the file page or what? Deor (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the files from the articles and the other FURs from the file should be everything. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. This is resolved. Deor (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The file was removed from three articles where it was not directly related to the topic. Retained in the fourth pending a preferable book cover. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (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.