Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 65
 | 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 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC in both Jan Smithers article and in WKRP in Cincinnati article and should be removed. @Marchjuly: I'll let you handle what you feel necessary per your comment below. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:25, 27 May 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 screenshot from WKRP in Cincinnati is used in four different articles. In Jan Smithers, it is used in the infobox to show what this living person looks like. Clearly invalid. In Andy Travis and Bailey Quarters (both fictional characters), it is used in the infobox, which is probably okay. In WKRP in Cincinnati, it is used, along with two other screenshots to show the main characters. I'm less thrilled about this usage. B (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for "Jan Smithers". She's still alive, so it is possible for somebody somewhere to take a picture of her. It can be also argued that it fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a for "WKRP in Cincinnati" since it shows only 5 of the main cast members (there's no screenshots of Tim Reid, Gordon Jump or Frank Bonner) and it would probably be best to replace these screenshots with a non-free image of the entire cast if such an image is deemed essential to the article. Perhaps one of these would work?- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the screenshot from "Jan Smithers" since it clearly should not be used there. FWIW, usage also failed WP:NFCC#10c since no non-free use rationale was provided for use in "Jan Smithers". Will wait the outcome of this discussion before deciding if the same needs to be done for "WKRP" article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 1 April 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.
No discussion in over 30 days. No consensus established. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:26, 27 May 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.
Tagged as a fair use screenshot from Foolish Wives, a 1922 American movie. Am I missing a reason that this isn't PD? B (talk) 02:02, 1 April 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.
No discussion in over 30 days. No consensus established. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:27, 27 May 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 page contains too many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 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.
No further discussion in over 30 days. No consensus established on whether the image's copyright was renewed. Someone will need to check the publication. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:28, 27 May 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.
Also affected: File:GE Turboencabulator pg 2.jpg.
Any chance that this was renewed 28 years after it was published? Seems unlikely to me. Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- We'd need to check the affirmed publication, the GE Handbook (based on the linked source page). Yes, unlikely but we need to affirm that. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 6 April 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.
Consensus is the image should be used only in the article about the bikini itself and the article about the character herself. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:30, 27 May 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.
I would like more views on whether this meets WP:NFCC in all the articles in which it is used. Specifically I am concerned with respect for commercial opportunities, and whether the image actually adds to readers' understanding. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- You could try and describe the picture and how it fits into an iconic scene in Dr. No as prose, but it would be rambling, disputed, non-neutral and steer dangerously close to soft porn. What commercial opportunities do you think are being exploited here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Images like this wikipedia should make agreements with the film producers over and be able to freely use. The image is very important to the reader's understanding and it's a scaled down one at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Given that the image already has an article devoted to it at White bikini of Ursula Andress, references to the image would need to be made via links to that article rather than display of the image itself. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. I've removed the image from Bond girl, replacing it with the free license image File:MuralBondGirls.png which was already on the article. I've removed two rationales from the image description page for articles where the image was not used (Bikini and History of the bikini) and for which a valid rationale could not be given, per NFC #6 above. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the only two places this image can be used is on the character's page and on the bikini page (though I would argue the latter could be merged into the former, but that's not the place for that). Links to the image from other articles are sufficient per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 15 April 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.
Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC in Jencks Act article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:31, 27 May 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.
There is no discussion of the poster in the Jencks Act article, and the film isn't even discussed in the article. I've removed it once, for failing NFCC #8, but was reverted per A E Francis. Further feedback requested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- The poster provides context to the larger story of Jencks, the Jencks Act and his life. A E Francis (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- First, there's no rationale for it's inclusion at Jencks Act, which fails WP:NFCC #10c. Second, it fails WP:NFCC #8 in that the image on Jencks Act has no contextual significance. The cover is not discussed, much less in a meaningful way, and its omission does nothing to limit the user's understanding of the article. The article already links to Salt of the Earth (1954 film), where the image is clearly displayed in the infobox. I am removing the image from Jencks Act. Please do not restore it. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 15 April 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.
Non-free images in 2022 FIFA World Cup
The offending images have been removed from the article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 27 May 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 article contains too many non-free images of future stadiums which is probably unnecessary. --Wcam (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- All of the proposed stadium artist renderings need to go (and I'll likely remove them myself if I find time). Most of them fail WP:NFCC #10c, lacking a rationale for the use here, and the ones that do have a rationale saying the purpose is "illustration". If that's a sufficient rationale, we can use non-free images all over the place with no problems whatsoever. I.e., it's a vacuous rationale. More importantly, the stadium images all fail WP:NFG and also fail Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. The logo of the event, in the infobox, is fine and justified.--Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since all the stadiums have separate articles the images are appropriate on those separate pages but not on this one. Once the stadiums are constructed free images of them can be dropped into the world cup article, but not now. --MASEM (t)
I've removed the artist renderings of the future stadiums. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 15 April 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.
Consensus is the image should only be used on the Roberto Goizueta article per WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:33, 27 May 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.
The image is marked as fair use for use in a bio article Roberto Goizueta only; however it is used in Cuban American and Cubans additionally. I think this may be outside fair use guidelines and should be reviewed. – Brianhe (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, no need to use in a gallery on those pages. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator added: Appears to violate WP:NFTABLE prohibition on non-free images in galleries. — Brianhe (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed from Cubans, as File:Benny_Moré.jpg for the same reason. Also removed from Cuban American. As an aside, I note the ridiculous growth in such images in infoboxes of articles of this type. Just two years ago, this article had 9 images in the infobox [1]. Now (after the removal of one violation) it has 29. Everybody wants their favorite person in such infoboxes. I expect it will breach 50 in two years. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- And of course it was reverted in a way it can't be easily undone on Cuban American. This is one of the many reasons why WP:NFCC enforcement is utterly futile. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:38, 24 April 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.
Consensus is since the image could be reproduced in a photograph released under a free license, the image fails WP:NFCC#1. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:53, 30 May 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.
Would this fail WP:NFCC#1? As there's no proper artwork - its only noted packaging detail is the red sticker on the blank jewel case and plain CD, couldn't a user-taken picture of the packaging qualify as a free image and replace this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, as long as it is only the front cover, an editor can take a photo of the simple case + sticker and licensing it free, as PD-ineligible. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would say it passes the criteria, because while the cover for the physical CD contained only a red sticker, the image we have here is the digital album cover. It would not look the same if someone just took a photo of a CD in a case. This was also reviewed previously where it was determined it fit the criteria. Calidum T|C 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The "digital cover" is basically the equivalent to the picture of a product on an online store, no? –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's the album art that goes with the digital release of the album. Calidum T|C 11:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the digital release cover is merely a non-free photograph of album packaging that a free photograph could replace...? That is why WP:NFCC#1 was brought up. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you read the previous debate on this, you'd know how wrong you are. This isn't merely a photograph of a clear CD case with a red sticker as you claim. It was previously determined that the artistry behind the digital version (which is likely not a photo) is such that it can't be reproduced with a free image. Nothing has changed since then. Calidum T|C 15:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're citing an old discussion but we're having a new one, and two users have already disagreed with you. And regardless of whether the digital cover is separate, the matter is whether or not a photo of the physical packaging – which communicates the exact same idea as the digital cover – can replace it, which would mean this fails NFCC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you read the previous debate on this, you'd know how wrong you are. This isn't merely a photograph of a clear CD case with a red sticker as you claim. It was previously determined that the artistry behind the digital version (which is likely not a photo) is such that it can't be reproduced with a free image. Nothing has changed since then. Calidum T|C 15:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the digital release cover is merely a non-free photograph of album packaging that a free photograph could replace...? That is why WP:NFCC#1 was brought up. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's the album art that goes with the digital release of the album. Calidum T|C 11:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The "digital cover" is basically the equivalent to the picture of a product on an online store, no? –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, Calidum, I've just looked at that discussion, and it was regarding whether to template the existing digital cover as a free image. This discussion is about whether or not to replace that image with a free photograph of the physical packaging. Not the same thing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- From my reading of that discussion, several users argued it qualified as fair use because the image couldn't be replicated by simply taking a picture of it. That argument stands regardless of what the rationale for initiating it was. Calidum T|C 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- That argument is poor seeing as the defining feature of Yeezus' artwork is that it has none (as the article's lead clearly states); it does not have a booklet with the image featured in the infobox. The image that needs to be conveyed is that of the blank jewel case with the red sticker and that can easily be accomplished by taking a picture of it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- From my reading of that discussion, several users argued it qualified as fair use because the image couldn't be replicated by simply taking a picture of it. That argument stands regardless of what the rationale for initiating it was. Calidum T|C 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, Calidum, I've just looked at that discussion, and it was regarding whether to template the existing digital cover as a free image. This discussion is about whether or not to replace that image with a free photograph of the physical packaging. Not the same thing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree that if the cover on the physical copy was the same as the digital image (a image to look like a black CD in jewel case with colored label) that would be creative enough due to how the light plays on the CD tracks - the copyright belongs to the photographer. But we can take a physical image of the CD cover (which in this case is just the red label) which is ineligible for copyright. A photo of the jewel case + label would be again an image that the photographer would have control over, and they could release that image as free for our purposes. And since we are still talking about a product released in retail, this works for us. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 25 April 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.
Consensus is the non-free image could afford to be smaller, especially since it is not used in the article at its current size. As a side note, this is not the place for a discussion on whether the rule for the image standard size for non-free images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:56, 30 May 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.
I believe this image should be resized to 0.1 megapixels in line with WP:IMAGERES, but User:Koala15 believes that the image is too blurry when reduced to that size. Any other opinions on this? James086Talk 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- In the article, which is the only place where a contention of blurriness would carry any weight whatsoever, it gets resized server-side to 250x375, so that's the only defensible resolution. I've observed Koala15 edit-warring on many, many other nonfree images - probably close to every one that ended up on my watchlist (which mostly only happens by accident) and that's he's touched - but didn't think it was worth the effort to fight over. —Cryptic 22:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the text of the image will be lost, but as that pretty much is all production details that should be detailed in the prose, that's not an issue. This is a case where resizing is perfectly fine to meet what NFCI#1 allows for, identification of the imagery used to market the film. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- That said, 300x450 size is not so far out of whack to edit war over the file size. Yes, its outside 0.1MP, but not so far outside to scream a problem. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- My line of thinking was: "You can't read the cast and producers etc. but in my opinion that's information that will be in the article and isn't necessary to get from the poster. I feel that if you could identify a high resolution version of the poster, by looking at the low-res version on Wikipedia, then it has fulfilled its purpose, that is to help the reader identify the film." diff. This does seem like a lot more hassle than it's worth, but if we don't stick to 0.1 MP then image sizes start creeping up and up per the argument other stuff exists with that resolution. James086Talk 22:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- That said, 300x450 size is not so far out of whack to edit war over the file size. Yes, its outside 0.1MP, but not so far outside to scream a problem. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- All i said was that Theo's Little Bot tends to leave artifacts on images when it reduces them. And i have no idea why were talking about pixels, i thought the dimensions only mattered. 300 x 300 has been the norm for a long time. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it were 300x300, it wouldn't be an issue; but you resized it to 300x450, which is half again as large. —Cryptic 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- All i said was that Theo's Little Bot tends to leave artifacts on images when it reduces them. And i have no idea why were talking about pixels, i thought the dimensions only mattered. 300 x 300 has been the norm for a long time. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
300x450 is clearly low resolution for what was originally a poster several feet tall. Is the file low resolution? Yes. Does the file have more pixels than this arbitrary number? Irrelevant. - hahnchen 02:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- As for how seriously the 100,000 figure should be taken, here's the reasoning behind the number - Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_53#Clarification_as_to_image_resolution_for_non-free_content. It is seemingly picked at random, because it's round. You'll note that DashBot actually resized images to a size greater than 100,000. - hahnchen 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1MP is not random - it is a size that represents a significant reduction that works for the most common types of non-free used on WP: screenshots from TV shows, movies, and video games (regardless if 16:9, 16:10, or 4:3), for music cover art (normally 1:1), covers of books, VHS/DVD, or video games. For all of these, these give a horizontal size that fits within the maximum image size that WP will display an image by default (eg the "thumb" tag) which is fixed at 300px, such that at all cases, we end up with an that falls at 0.1MP or less. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You could replace 0.1MP in the paragraph above with 0.99, 0.12, 0.15. Here we have a case where the image is clearly low resolution, and we have ridiculous arguments like, "well, if only the source material were square, then it'd be under 100,000 pixels". Well no, the source material isn't square, it's a film poster that is several feet tall. Clearly it's not "all cases". - hahnchen 09:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1MP is not random - it is a size that represents a significant reduction that works for the most common types of non-free used on WP: screenshots from TV shows, movies, and video games (regardless if 16:9, 16:10, or 4:3), for music cover art (normally 1:1), covers of books, VHS/DVD, or video games. For all of these, these give a horizontal size that fits within the maximum image size that WP will display an image by default (eg the "thumb" tag) which is fixed at 300px, such that at all cases, we end up with an that falls at 0.1MP or less. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- The purpose of the file is to use it in the article Little Boy (film). That article only uses 220×330 pixels, so that article wouldn't suffer if the picture is reduced a little bit. Other uses of the image, such as the ability to view the image on the file information page, are irrelevant for WP:NFCC and can be disregarded. As some of the pixels currently aren't in use, it should be fine to reduce the file a little bit by removing those pixels. The article would still remain unchanged after doing this. If the bot reduces the file in a bad way, then it could be reduced in some other way instead, for example by uploading the thumbnail Wikipedia currently uses in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 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.
Consensus is the the SimCity and Diplomacy images should be removed as they are replaceable. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:01, 30 May 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 article contains four non-free images. Many of the images could be replaced by free images or just text and do not meet WP:NFCC#8. In addition, the use of four non-free images appears to conflict with WP:NFCC#3. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've already removed the SimCity one for a free image from an open-source city management game. The Diplomacy one could be replaced - I think - from the WebDiplomacy project which is licensed under a AGPL license (which I'm not sure of any reuse gotchas). I'm not sure of the old Balance of Power one. The Political Machine one is probably fine, as I';m not aware of any free equivalents. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The major difference between the AGPL and the GPL is that source code must be provided in more cases with the AGPL. I don't believe this is a concern for us, as we can simply link to the website, which has the source.
- Interestingly, we don't have a local Template:AGPL, but there is one on Commons. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- As long as AGPL is fine on Commons, then we can use a WebDiplomacy image uploaded there. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 12 May 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.
The image fails WP:NFCC on the Devils article and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:03, 30 May 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.
Should be removed from New Jersey Devils as decorative use, failing WP:NFCC #3 and #8. I attempted to remove but was reverted, so opening up discussion here. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- The fair use rationale for the New Jersey Devils article is invalid. Note the purpose of use, directing to Kansas City Scouts rather than New Jersey Devils. Further, the use to 'illustrate' fails in the Devil's article case as that is not sufficient reason outside of the infobox. The Devils' article discusses the logo, but not with any piece of fact that isn't mentioned in the Scouts' article, where the image is prominently displayed. The fact there is an article prominently featuring the logo as the identifier of the team obviates the needs for this image to be used in the Devils' article. Image should be removed from the Devils' article. Also note that the recent featured article review does not mean they got everything right. The review barely discusses image use on the article. There are problems. For example, the second jersey media file in New_Jersey_Devils#Jerseys is not needed given the presence of the uniforms in the infobox. Good call ESkog. It should be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 13 May 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.
Consensus is the image should be removed from all articles except the main Florida State Seminoles article. An alternative free logo could be used as a placeholder image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:05, 30 May 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.
Violations of WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#UUI §14 and WP:NFC#UUI §17. Should only be in Florida State Seminoles as far as I can see. Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- A simple solution would be to replace it with File:FSU text logo.svg, which is (allegedly) free. Nearly all of the pages at List of NCAA college football rivalry games have logos for both teams, but a few of them where the team's primary logo is copyrighted use a secondary (allegedly) PD-ineligible logo instead, e.g. Boise State–Nevada football rivalry, Fresno State–San Jose State football rivalry. --B (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Usage of text based logos are usually rapidly reverted unless they're outside of mainspace. Just reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 14 May 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.
Consensus is the image is non-free as the data is not freely available and therefor copyrightable. As such, it should only be used in the main TIOBE index article. As a side note @Shaddim: just because a website says it can be used, does not mean it is within our own policies to use it. As the image is non-free we can only use it where it is appropriate per policy. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:09, 30 May 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 is an image of the TIOBE index, a well-known measure of programming language popularity. Two questions: (1) is it copyrightable and (2) are its uses acceptable? If it is copyrightable, surely it's okay to use in TIOBE index as we are making commentary about the image itself. Measuring programming language popularity is a little more dubious - surely we could come up with some sort of free alternative chart to measure language popularity. Java (programming language) is certainly not acceptable. The underlying data is not copyrightable so we could make our own free chart to discuss the popularity of Java. B (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- As the raw data is not publically available (per TIOBE's web page, they only offer the data up at $5000 a pop) and does not appear to be pure data points but data points the group has massaged/worked out themselves, then we cannot make a free replacement (as one could with raw data), and this is a non-free image. It is only acceptable at TIOBE specifically discussing the index. It's definitely not appropriate at any specific programming language, and its use on the Measuring popularity is unnecessary since there's a link back to the TIOBE WP page. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- As a note, they do offer a table of the rankings of several programming languages, which could be used to make a free image for the Measuring page. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html -> "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q: Am I allowed to show the TIOBE index in my weblog/presentation/publication? A: Yes, the only condition is to refer to its original source "www.tiobe.com"." so, yes. Shaddim (talk) 20:31, 28 May 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.
Consensus is that the image should not be used in the article where free media would be available and therefore the image should be removed. As the image is not used in any article, it should be deleted as a orphaned non-free image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:11, 30 May 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.
Magazine covers may only be used to illustrate the magazine, not the subject of the cover. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- One possibly could argue that the cover image is discussed, but in checking the source that is tied to her getting that cover, there's no specific commentary on that single shot, so no, it cannot be used, where a free image is possible. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- A free image is possible so we should not be using this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 26 May 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.
Consensus is the image is not appropriate in Beaver Hall Group article per WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:13, 30 May 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Beaver Hall Group. No publication data known, so the copyright status in the United States is unknown and the picture therefore has to be assumed to be unfree in the United States, although it is in the public domain in Canada. Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is a potential chance for this to be free due to the dates the person was alive, but that absolutely needs confirmation. Assume non-free and the use in the Beaver Hall Group is strictly decorative. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rationale for Beaver Hall Group is a direct copy of the rationale for Kathleen Morris, except for item #1 which makes a very weak case for use in Beaver Hall Group. Just because she was a member of the group doesn't mean we can display a picture of her. Else, we could display 10 non-free images on this article and be fine. It's not fine, and there's no reason to depict her image other than to put an image on the article. Her appearance is not somehow indicative of the group, her image is not discussed, etc. There's no tie in to the article other than she is a member. Remove from Beaver Hall Group and keep in Kathleen Morris, removing the weak rationale for the latter in the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 15 May 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#UUI#17 and should be removed from the University of article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:15, 30 May 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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 in University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, the parent organization logo should not be used for a child organization. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 17 May 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.
Consensus is, with the information at hand now, the image is only appropriate to be used in A-League article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:18, 30 May 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.
File is currently used in A-League, 2014-15 A-League and Hyundai Motor Company, but only has the separate, specific non-free use rationale required per WP:NFCC#10c for the first one. Usage in first article seems problem free, but using the logo in the individual season's article (even if it had the required nfur) seems prohibited by No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI and use in Hyundai article seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFLISTS. Interested in knowing what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The use on Hyundai is not allowed at all, so that needs to go. The use on the specific season page may be okay as it appears the first year of that series that that logo was introduced, but obviously it does need a rationale. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Masem. The file was uploaded in June 2012 and was also added to "A-League" in June 2012 with this edit. That's a little more than two years before the 2014-15 season began in October 2014 and almost three years before it was added to "2014-15 A-League" with this edit. In addition, the file was also just added to 2015–16 A-League today (May 18, 2015) with this edit. If the 2014-2015 season was really the first time the logo was officially used then it should not be used as the logo in any subsequent individual season articles per No. 14 of NFC#UUI, right?
- How do we reconcile the time differences between the files original upload an use in "A-League" and it's subsequent use in the "2014-15 A-League"? A-League#Foundations says: "Over the next three months, each bid was reviewed and on 1 November 2004, the eight successful bidders and the major sponsor were revealed, for what would be known as the Hyundai A-League, with the Hyundai Motor Company unveiled as the official naming rights sponsor for the league.", and the source cited in support says "August 26, 2005 marked a significant day in Australian football history, when the first match of the inaugural Hyundai A-League season kicked off in Newcastle." Neither mention when the current logo was first used and it's not used in any of the individual season articles prior to 2014-15. Does this mean it's OK to assume that 2014-15 season is when the logo was officially used for the first time? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot figure out the history of the logo, but the general allowance is that when a new logo is introduced for an annual event that has individual pages for each annual event, the new logo can be used on the page where the logo was introduced, presuming that the fact there was a new logo is discussed in the article. So unless someone can pin point the history of the logo short of when Hyundai branded it, we might have to assume that it has always been the logo since branding and thus limit it to only the main series page. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- How do we reconcile the time differences between the files original upload an use in "A-League" and it's subsequent use in the "2014-15 A-League"? A-League#Foundations says: "Over the next three months, each bid was reviewed and on 1 November 2004, the eight successful bidders and the major sponsor were revealed, for what would be known as the Hyundai A-League, with the Hyundai Motor Company unveiled as the official naming rights sponsor for the league.", and the source cited in support says "August 26, 2005 marked a significant day in Australian football history, when the first match of the inaugural Hyundai A-League season kicked off in Newcastle." Neither mention when the current logo was first used and it's not used in any of the individual season articles prior to 2014-15. Does this mean it's OK to assume that 2014-15 season is when the logo was officially used for the first time? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 18 May 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.
Consensus is the image should only be used in the main parent group article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:19, 30 May 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.
Per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFC#UUI §17, this should only be used in Reform Party of the United States of America but not in the articles about the subentities or in the user sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Removed the user page use, that's flat out unallowed. The other ones, used in the state parties, is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 18 May 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.
After reading this discussion, multiple times and looking at all of the resources included therein, I do not see that we have established a consensus on the copyright status of this image. I believe that there is important information that we do not have that would assist in finding the consensus here on this subject. However, if the sashes were found to be in the public domain or otherwise non-copyrighted, the photo of the sashes would have its own independent copyright (due to lighting, angles, etc). As such, if the sashes are determined to be public domain, this particular image would have to be deleted as violating WP:NFCC#1. The question was asked in the discussion whether or not we are 100% sure of the situation, and as noted, we are never 100% sure. In this case, though, I believe the discussion shows that there are unanswered questions. I believe that there is further discussion that should be had, if and when these questions and information can be answered. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:31, 30 May 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.
We have always assumed, without critically examining it, that these sashes are copyrighted. According to the history at http://oasections.com/sash/ (which matches what I have seen in period photos) sashes indistinguishable from the current ones have been used since the 1950s. When an Order of the Arrow member earns a sash, they are presented with that sash and nothing else - no packaging that contains a copyright notice or any such thing. (I don't know how the sashes were packaged in the 1950s, but since at least 1996, there has been no copyright notice on either the box they are shipped in nor the individual plastic wrapping that each sash comes in. Lodges order the sashes in boxes of 25 from the national Boy Scout supply office.) But since sashes were distributed with the consent of the copyright holder with no notice, would it be safe to say that these sashes are public domain? (We would need our own scans of them, but I can help with that.) B (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't assume that; due to copyright law changes, any work published in the US since 1978 is assumed to be copyrighted even if there's no copyright message. Once would have to look at the original distribution of these (as well as any books in which it might have been used) to see if the copyright was registered and renewed to affirm if they are actually free. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- All BSA (and GSUSA) images and devices are protected by congressional charter, thus are not non-free. -- Gadget850 talk 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. Works of the US Gov't are PD by law, but that does not mean works of groups they officially charter are also PD. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem: Read my statement again. BSA has a charter under Title 36 of the United States Code: 36 U.S. Code § 30905 - Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words. "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights."[2] Even if a work of the BSA is not protected by copyright or trademark, it is protected by charter, thus non-free. -- Gadget850 talk 15:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- That USC does not contain any information regarding the copyright status of the images. It controls rights to use the images, but not their copyright status. As another federal example of this, the FBI seal experienced controversy here in that the FBI ordered us to take it down...and we didn't. It is public domain as a federal work. They can dictate usage requirements, but they can not dictate copyright. There's a significant difference. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/News and notes for more background. Also, see the discussions here and here on related points. While exclusive rights to use are indicated in that code, copyright is notably absent. There's plenty of other law to pertain to this, and that charter does not grant copyright. If you have something to sustain otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perpetual copyright is unconstitutional in the US. That passage is describing trademark, which, for better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't especially care about. Wikipedia only treats "copyright" restrictions as important for the sake of free vs non-free. --B (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Gadget850: Note your original statement say "not non-free", which I now assume to be a typo. However, regardless, the charter does not give perpetual copyright but only the ability to engage in copyrighting and other IP law as needed, but their works remain under normal copyright duration. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem: Read my statement again. BSA has a charter under Title 36 of the United States Code: 36 U.S. Code § 30905 - Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words. "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights."[2] Even if a work of the BSA is not protected by copyright or trademark, it is protected by charter, thus non-free. -- Gadget850 talk 15:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. Works of the US Gov't are PD by law, but that does not mean works of groups they officially charter are also PD. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why would we need to look at all books where a photo of the sash was published? (The sash itself is a 3D object, not a picture.) If the sash was EVER published with the consent of the copyright holder with no copyright notice (prior to 1978), then it should be public domain, right? The manner in which the sash is normally distributed is a ceremony where the new inductee is decorated with the sash. This has been the case since well before 1978. --B (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not as simple. I would assume a photo of the sash ceremony would be more focused on the person(s) involved, and thus the sash in such photos would be called out as de miniminus use - allowable amount of copyright that does not affect the copyright of the photo. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- We're not interested in whether or not a particular photo is public domain - we're interested in whether the sash itself is public domain. I completely agree that even if the BSA published a photo of the sash with no copyright notice, that doesn't violate the copyright on the sash. My contention is that the BSA gave the sashes out to hundreds of thousands of people in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, none of whom were given a copyright notice with their sash. Therefore the sash itself is not subject to copyright protection and we can make our own photo of it. --B (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot assume that's the case. If they registered the copyright of the sash arrows and re-registered it (if necessary), it doesn't matter that they might have distributed copies without the (C) marking, it's how they first published it that matters and the copyright on that. And that needs to be proven that that copyright registration doesn't exist to be sure it is PD. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- For pre-1978 (not 1978 - March 1, 1989), what is the basis for the statement that it matters how they "first" published it? In other words, if they registered the copyright in 1955 and then distributed 1000 sashes per year from 1955 until 1978 and during the year 1955, there was a copyright notice affixed to the sash (there was no such thing, but we're looking at a hypothetical here), where does it say that it matters how they were "first" published? My understanding is that any publication with the consent of the copyright holder prior to January 1, 1978 with no notice means that it's public domain. --B (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's still "first" publication, not latter ones, that sets the copyright term (hence, they cannot say that their releases of the sashes today should be treated under current rules which would allow for an indefinitely longer period, we're going by first publication). It would not be unreasonable to think that to get the sashes made, they had to publish their design to give to a third party, so that, at minimum, would be the likely first publication if not earlier. But we need to prove what that was and if there is an absence of copyright mark on it. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Giving the designs to a third party company (e.g. a printer) is not publication. Please see commons:Commons:Publication#United_States. Unless they publicly published it, it wasn't published. To publish something, they have to sell it, offer it for sale, give it away outside of a small circle of friends, etc. As to the point of first vs any publication, I don't believe it is the case that the first publication fixes in stone the expiration date. Prior to 1978, you would lose your copyright if you EVER published without a notice. I can't think of a better case to cite off hand, but there is a court case Paramount Pictures Corp. v Leslie Rubinowitz, which concerns Star Trek episodes. Paramount distributed tapes for syndication with no copyright notice and so Rubinowitz contended that Star Trek was no longer protected by copyright. She lost, but for a different reason. The reason she lost was that when Paramount distributed the tapes, they did so with a long legal contract between them and the station airing it and that long legal contract was considered by the court to be a reservation of copyright. In the case of the OA sash, there is no long legal contract given to each recipient of a sash and so I contend that the distribution of any sashes prior to 1978 with no notice makes the sash public domain, even in the hypothetical case that the very first sash distributed contained a copyright notice. --B (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even if this is a possibility, we need 100% proof that the first publication was without copyright. This is too far close to an edge case that we aren't going to guess and assume free just because of what practices we knew they did. We need proof positive. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, why does it matter if the first publication prior to 1978 was without a copyright notice? (This is probably unprovable.) Why is it not sufficient that any publication prior to 1978 was without a copyright notice? This is 100% provable - I should be able to find photos of pre-1978 induction ceremonies. I have a scan of a 1946 printing of the Ordeal ceremonies booklet (unfortunately the front cover is missing so I don't know whether there was a copyright notice on the manual itself) and it explicitly permits local Lodges to "decorate each candidate with the arrow band of the Ordeal (first) Honor" as a part of the ceremony. I just found while I was looking through the materials that I have a photo of an induction ceremony from 1946. There is no copyright notice - the sash is just placed on the person receiving it. --B (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I found this: [3] which goes back to the charter from the 1916 Charter in 36 U.S. Code § 30905 [4]: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights." What this means by most people that I'm interpreting (and this was challenged recently in 2008 at Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America) is that BSA basically can ignore normal copyright code. I know the question of perpetual copyright is mentioned above, and that is something I can't find discussed, but per the first link, this basically means anything BSA produces is automatically copyright to them even if it lacks the (C) marking. So because its BSA we've got to assume non-free. That doesn't affect the allowed use of this image - the Order is its own well-sourced article and thus displaying the sashes is perfectly appropriate per NFCC, we just can't tag them free. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America deals with trademark, not copyright. The case dealt with the trademark of the word "Scout". I doubt you're going to find a court case addressing perpetual copyright of Scouting marks because it's such a ludicrous claim that nobody would bother to litigate it. There is no perpetual copyright in the United States and anything interpreted as perpetual copyright is a wrong interpretation. --B (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's a legal challenge possible over the copyright nature of a 1911 scouting logo onto the exact nature of that section from the charter, but WP is not going to be the place to make that challenge unless we are 100% sure we have the law on our side (as was the case of the UK National Gallery where the Gallery were trying to claim copyright on images of 2D works already in the PD). But until that's set, I think we have to read that law as is, and even if it doesn't mean perpetual copyright, it does mean they can ignore normal copyright rule, so that any images of the sashes from 1950s and beyond are still covered until the normal copyright term. I will say it is interesting that the Guterburg project has at least the 1911 Scouting manual (including images) up, meaning something from the group has fallen into the PD accroding to that. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America deals with trademark, not copyright. The case dealt with the trademark of the word "Scout". I doubt you're going to find a court case addressing perpetual copyright of Scouting marks because it's such a ludicrous claim that nobody would bother to litigate it. There is no perpetual copyright in the United States and anything interpreted as perpetual copyright is a wrong interpretation. --B (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I found this: [3] which goes back to the charter from the 1916 Charter in 36 U.S. Code § 30905 [4]: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights." What this means by most people that I'm interpreting (and this was challenged recently in 2008 at Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America) is that BSA basically can ignore normal copyright code. I know the question of perpetual copyright is mentioned above, and that is something I can't find discussed, but per the first link, this basically means anything BSA produces is automatically copyright to them even if it lacks the (C) marking. So because its BSA we've got to assume non-free. That doesn't affect the allowed use of this image - the Order is its own well-sourced article and thus displaying the sashes is perfectly appropriate per NFCC, we just can't tag them free. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, why does it matter if the first publication prior to 1978 was without a copyright notice? (This is probably unprovable.) Why is it not sufficient that any publication prior to 1978 was without a copyright notice? This is 100% provable - I should be able to find photos of pre-1978 induction ceremonies. I have a scan of a 1946 printing of the Ordeal ceremonies booklet (unfortunately the front cover is missing so I don't know whether there was a copyright notice on the manual itself) and it explicitly permits local Lodges to "decorate each candidate with the arrow band of the Ordeal (first) Honor" as a part of the ceremony. I just found while I was looking through the materials that I have a photo of an induction ceremony from 1946. There is no copyright notice - the sash is just placed on the person receiving it. --B (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even if this is a possibility, we need 100% proof that the first publication was without copyright. This is too far close to an edge case that we aren't going to guess and assume free just because of what practices we knew they did. We need proof positive. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Giving the designs to a third party company (e.g. a printer) is not publication. Please see commons:Commons:Publication#United_States. Unless they publicly published it, it wasn't published. To publish something, they have to sell it, offer it for sale, give it away outside of a small circle of friends, etc. As to the point of first vs any publication, I don't believe it is the case that the first publication fixes in stone the expiration date. Prior to 1978, you would lose your copyright if you EVER published without a notice. I can't think of a better case to cite off hand, but there is a court case Paramount Pictures Corp. v Leslie Rubinowitz, which concerns Star Trek episodes. Paramount distributed tapes for syndication with no copyright notice and so Rubinowitz contended that Star Trek was no longer protected by copyright. She lost, but for a different reason. The reason she lost was that when Paramount distributed the tapes, they did so with a long legal contract between them and the station airing it and that long legal contract was considered by the court to be a reservation of copyright. In the case of the OA sash, there is no long legal contract given to each recipient of a sash and so I contend that the distribution of any sashes prior to 1978 with no notice makes the sash public domain, even in the hypothetical case that the very first sash distributed contained a copyright notice. --B (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's still "first" publication, not latter ones, that sets the copyright term (hence, they cannot say that their releases of the sashes today should be treated under current rules which would allow for an indefinitely longer period, we're going by first publication). It would not be unreasonable to think that to get the sashes made, they had to publish their design to give to a third party, so that, at minimum, would be the likely first publication if not earlier. But we need to prove what that was and if there is an absence of copyright mark on it. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- For pre-1978 (not 1978 - March 1, 1989), what is the basis for the statement that it matters how they "first" published it? In other words, if they registered the copyright in 1955 and then distributed 1000 sashes per year from 1955 until 1978 and during the year 1955, there was a copyright notice affixed to the sash (there was no such thing, but we're looking at a hypothetical here), where does it say that it matters how they were "first" published? My understanding is that any publication with the consent of the copyright holder prior to January 1, 1978 with no notice means that it's public domain. --B (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot assume that's the case. If they registered the copyright of the sash arrows and re-registered it (if necessary), it doesn't matter that they might have distributed copies without the (C) marking, it's how they first published it that matters and the copyright on that. And that needs to be proven that that copyright registration doesn't exist to be sure it is PD. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- We're not interested in whether or not a particular photo is public domain - we're interested in whether the sash itself is public domain. I completely agree that even if the BSA published a photo of the sash with no copyright notice, that doesn't violate the copyright on the sash. My contention is that the BSA gave the sashes out to hundreds of thousands of people in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, none of whom were given a copyright notice with their sash. Therefore the sash itself is not subject to copyright protection and we can make our own photo of it. --B (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not as simple. I would assume a photo of the sash ceremony would be more focused on the person(s) involved, and thus the sash in such photos would be called out as de miniminus use - allowable amount of copyright that does not affect the copyright of the photo. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- All BSA (and GSUSA) images and devices are protected by congressional charter, thus are not non-free. -- Gadget850 talk 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- (←) My contention is that we ARE 100% sure (well, as sure as we are about anything here - we're not lawyers). This doesn't make any sense: "I think we have to read that law as is, and even if it doesn't mean perpetual copyright, it does mean they can ignore normal copyright rule, so that any images of the sashes from 1950s and beyond are still covered until the normal copyright term". The law doesn't say anything like that. The "normal copyright term" for something published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice is zero years. I found, while I was looking around today, [5], which, on the last page has a photo of the brotherhood sash. This newsletter was published in 1950 and I can find no copyright notice. Are you contending that the contents of this publication are still subject to copyright protection, even though they failed to comply with the formalities? Nothing in the law says anything like that. --B (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, the problem is that the language of 30905 conflicts with the copyright clause language but cover the same concern, whether scouts have exclusive rights to their logos/etc. While the application seems to be more for trademark, the inclusion of the words "exclusive rights" triggers both trademark AND copyright issues. The lack of description of what exclusvie rights those begs the question to what extend Congress intended. (In contrast , the legal basis of copyright law in USC 92 specifically spells out the rights that this infers). This is a legal conundrum and it is not obvious. We can't make that decision ourselves, lacking any other case law that clears this up. Which is why I dunno if there's anyone at Commons that may know better, and barring that, if WMF legal could answer that. What I read is that the BSA aggressively goes after any mis-use of their logos and we should not be poking the lion by making an assume that while probably right, is not fully assured to be right. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Given my understanding that sashes are given only to qualifying members, and not the general public, I have a hard time seeing how the distribution of sashes to qualifying members constitutes publication under the Copyright Act of 1909 that would trigger the copyright notice requirement. Hence, it is irrelevant whether the sash had a copyright notice: none was required. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:22, 23 May 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.
Consensus here (and on the article talkpage) is that the image is fan art and should be deleted. The image should be replaced with a non-free image from the actual series. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:48, 30 May 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.
Is this file acceptable for use in the infobox for Dio Brando? It has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it's use is being questioned at Talk:Dio Brando#Infobox image by another editor who says the image is "someone else's fan art". I'm not sure if or how that affects the image's non-free use. Wouldn't fanart be considered a derivative work, and, thus, OK to use as non-free? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it's fan art, it should be deleted in favor of actual media from the owner of the video game property. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Hammersoft. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 19 May 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.
Consensus is the image is an AP photo b y Elaine Thompson and is therefore non-free. As a non-free photo is fails multiple points of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#UUI. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:50, 30 May 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.
Accd. to the Exif data, this is not an FBI photo, but from Associated Press photographer Elaine Thompson. I requested deletion at the Commons, here it might qualify as fair use. Rosenzweig (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Presuming this is determine to be non-free at commons, I would not believe it would be suitable on WP as we already have two free photos of Kaczynski , one as a young professor in 1960s, and the other shortly after his arrest. The latter is a sufficient good replacement for him from this specific picture, since they are taken around the same time in his life (this one has him cleaned up for trial but's that's the only major diff). As such, this is non-necessary, unless someone could demonstrate the visual impact of this picture. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Being an AP photo it needs to be an even higher bar than just demonstrating the visual impact of this picture, this particular image must be the subject of sourced commentary (WP:NFC#UUI#7). VernoWhitney (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Question I see no EXIF on Wikipedia. However, if I try to view the EXIF on my own computer (
wget -O - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Theodore_Kaczynski_at_Unabomber_trial.jpg | exiftool /dev/stdin), then I see plenty of EXIF data. The most interesting part:
| “ | Caption-Abstract : ** FILE ** Theodore Kaczynski, wearing a white bullet proof vest, is escorted by U.S. marshals into the federal courthouse in this June 21, 1996 file photo in Helena, Mont. Supermax houses the nation's most violent and disruptive inmates, including Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski and Terry Nichols on "bombers' row." (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)
|
” |
- Why isn't this information shown on Wikipedia? Also: The image fails WP:NFC#UUI §7, so we can't use the picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 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.
Consensus is the image does not need to be any larger than what is used in the article. The image is at 256px in the article and therefore should be resized to that width. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:30, 1 June 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.
As with #File:Little Boy poster.jpg above, this image has no rationale to justify its size. At 300x420, it's over 25% larger than the 0.1 Mpixel rule-of-thumb prescribed at WP:IMAGERES, and close to 40% larger than the size it's displayed at in the article. All elements of the image are visible at the lower size except for the text, which the fair-use rationale doesn't address (and which could be transcribed onto the image page anyway). —Cryptic 01:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1 MP is a rule of thumb, not a rule. The size is large, it should be done smaller, yes, but it should be done with care, and we shouldn't necessary have it done by a bot. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Is File:John Madden Football '93 Coverart.png low resolution? Yes. Is it less than a random number plucked from the air? No. Is the judgement of User:JimmyBlackwing, User:Mika1h and myself worse than that of User:Theo's Little Bot? No. Bot-reducing 300x420 images has no value whatsoever, and needlessly increases admin workload. - hahnchen 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then resize it to display at that resolution in the article. As it stands, the 300x420 version serves no stated purpose, and fails WP:NFCC#7 as it's not displayed in anywhere near that resolution in any article. All you have to do is say why you think it's necessary to keep a version so much larger than the one in the article. But by all means, continue to canvass your friends and hurl personal attacks at me instead. —Cryptic 02:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You've misread it as a personal attack. Re-read it. Re-read WP:NPA if it's still confusing. No intention to canvas. - hahnchen 02:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see no need to keep this image at a higher resolution than 0.1 megapixels. If resized to 267*373 the image would not only be rendered at the same resolution in the article, but it would still serve to identify the game cover, fulfilling its purpose. There is no critical discussion of the cover in the article. There certainly are images that justify their higher resolutions, but as far as I can tell, this isn't one of them. What reason is there for an exception to the guideline? James086Talk 10:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Low resolution files should not be resized. It's a waste of everyone's time. Then resize it to display at that resolution in the article would have some weight if Cryptic had resized it to the article display size, but he didn't, he used the 100,000 random number. 100,000 is not remotely a rule. There is no exception here from any of the WP:NFC rules. Here is the discussion where 100,000 is plucked out of the air - Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_53#Clarification_as_to_image_resolution_for_non-free_content - it notes that User:DASHBot, which produced clearly acceptable resizes, ignored the guideline. Users are free to ignore the guideline, I find it hard to take seriously. - hahnchen 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1 MP is not a random number: for most standard non-free images, the largest thumbnail that will be generated at 300px will result in an image that is tpyically no larger than 0.1 MP. But it should be recognized this is a soft limit, akin to the "12 items or less" express lane - we should give some slack for above that ( and here 300x420 to 267x373 is so slight a reduction to be potentially non-useful (as compared to starting with a 2000px image and reducing it there, avoiding loss of image)). But we need to keep people aware that 0.1 MP is the maximum target we want them to shoot for even if we allow higher with reason. NFC loves to be gamed, so if we increased 0.1MP to 0.15MP, then we'd have people going "Oh, 0.2MP is not that much larger..." and you get it out of control. 0.1MP keeps images to a fair size in considering NFC's requirements, but it should be looked at as a soft limit with common sense exceptions. This would be one. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1MP is not even a target. On uploading non-free images to Wikipedia, the questions users ask themselves is not "are there 100,00 pixels in this image", but "is this low resolution". It'd be much better if people weren't aware of 0.1MP at all. Fine tuning of already low resolution images should just not take place, there would be no game to play if you hadn't have plucked a number out of the air. Is it low resolution? Yes, don't touch it, move on. And yet here we are "gaming" 0.12, 0.15 or whatever number you've just decided. - hahnchen 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you on the fine tuning like was done here, but I am pointing out that 0.1MP is not random - it is a size that has been chosen that works for non-free coming from many standard formats where we know that the default size that these images will be displayed by the WIkimedia software will never be wider than 300px, so anything larger than that is technically a violation of NFC unless there's clear reason to go larger. For example, a 4x3 aspect ratio image at 300px width is 225x300 px (0.0675MP), a 1x1 album cover at 300px is 300x300 or 0.09MP. 0.1MP was chosen as a ceiling that covers all these standard cases. It is still a soft number and should not be taken as a hard limit, but it is a necessary number because to some, "low resolution" could be anything that is less than high resolution - I have seen editors try to upload a 1080p screen cap at 960x540 and claim that low resolution. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- This file is low resolution by any standard other than the number from nowhere. The 300px wide explanation/retcon seems to ignore all portrait aspect ratio images. - hahnchen 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Portrait images, like movie posters and DVD covers, should use the upright image parameter, which means that the width won't come out to be 300 px but it will "fill" about the same amount of space as a landscape image. So no, this is not ignoring portrait images either. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox film and Template:Infobox video games, which frequently host portrait images have never used the upright parameter to reduce the size of images. You edit video game articles, you know it works, yet the arbitrary 100k number seems completely blind to actual long standing accepted behaviour. - hahnchen 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Portrait images, like movie posters and DVD covers, should use the upright image parameter, which means that the width won't come out to be 300 px but it will "fill" about the same amount of space as a landscape image. So no, this is not ignoring portrait images either. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- This file is low resolution by any standard other than the number from nowhere. The 300px wide explanation/retcon seems to ignore all portrait aspect ratio images. - hahnchen 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you on the fine tuning like was done here, but I am pointing out that 0.1MP is not random - it is a size that has been chosen that works for non-free coming from many standard formats where we know that the default size that these images will be displayed by the WIkimedia software will never be wider than 300px, so anything larger than that is technically a violation of NFC unless there's clear reason to go larger. For example, a 4x3 aspect ratio image at 300px width is 225x300 px (0.0675MP), a 1x1 album cover at 300px is 300x300 or 0.09MP. 0.1MP was chosen as a ceiling that covers all these standard cases. It is still a soft number and should not be taken as a hard limit, but it is a necessary number because to some, "low resolution" could be anything that is less than high resolution - I have seen editors try to upload a 1080p screen cap at 960x540 and claim that low resolution. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1MP is not even a target. On uploading non-free images to Wikipedia, the questions users ask themselves is not "are there 100,00 pixels in this image", but "is this low resolution". It'd be much better if people weren't aware of 0.1MP at all. Fine tuning of already low resolution images should just not take place, there would be no game to play if you hadn't have plucked a number out of the air. Is it low resolution? Yes, don't touch it, move on. And yet here we are "gaming" 0.12, 0.15 or whatever number you've just decided. - hahnchen 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- 0.1 MP is not a random number: for most standard non-free images, the largest thumbnail that will be generated at 300px will result in an image that is tpyically no larger than 0.1 MP. But it should be recognized this is a soft limit, akin to the "12 items or less" express lane - we should give some slack for above that ( and here 300x420 to 267x373 is so slight a reduction to be potentially non-useful (as compared to starting with a 2000px image and reducing it there, avoiding loss of image)). But we need to keep people aware that 0.1 MP is the maximum target we want them to shoot for even if we allow higher with reason. NFC loves to be gamed, so if we increased 0.1MP to 0.15MP, then we'd have people going "Oh, 0.2MP is not that much larger..." and you get it out of control. 0.1MP keeps images to a fair size in considering NFC's requirements, but it should be looked at as a soft limit with common sense exceptions. This would be one. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Low resolution files should not be resized. It's a waste of everyone's time. Then resize it to display at that resolution in the article would have some weight if Cryptic had resized it to the article display size, but he didn't, he used the 100,000 random number. 100,000 is not remotely a rule. There is no exception here from any of the WP:NFC rules. Here is the discussion where 100,000 is plucked out of the air - Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_53#Clarification_as_to_image_resolution_for_non-free_content - it notes that User:DASHBot, which produced clearly acceptable resizes, ignored the guideline. Users are free to ignore the guideline, I find it hard to take seriously. - hahnchen 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see no need to keep this image at a higher resolution than 0.1 megapixels. If resized to 267*373 the image would not only be rendered at the same resolution in the article, but it would still serve to identify the game cover, fulfilling its purpose. There is no critical discussion of the cover in the article. There certainly are images that justify their higher resolutions, but as far as I can tell, this isn't one of them. What reason is there for an exception to the guideline? James086Talk 10:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You've misread it as a personal attack. Re-read it. Re-read WP:NPA if it's still confusing. No intention to canvas. - hahnchen 02:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm no NFC expert, but what exactly would be the point in reducing a file from 300x420 to 267x373? They're so close already that there's practically no difference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- The purpose of the file is to use it in the article John Madden Football '93. That article only uses 256×358 pixels, so that article wouldn't suffer if the picture is reduced a little bit. Other uses of the image, such as the ability to view the image on the file information page, are irrelevant for WP:NFCC and can be disregarded. As some of the pixels currently aren't in use, it should be fine to reduce the file a little bit by removing those pixels. The article would still remain unchanged after doing this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's obvious that NFCC does not mandate the file to be the same size as the thumbnail, or the file would be resized to 256px instead of 267px. Had this not been the case, the image library would have been completely fucked when default thumbnails went from 200px to 220px. Images in Template:Infobox video game are moving away from hard-coded size limits and instead allowing for user preferences, which allow for 300px of width. - hahnchen 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article uses the wikicode
[[Image:John Madden Football '93 Coverart.png|256px]]|, implying that the uploader found that the article doesn't need more than 256 pixels. By the way, why is "Image" used? These days, most pages seem to use "File". --Stefan2 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)- The uploader is wrong. Not everyone has the same eyes. Not everyone has the same display. You're advocating that the thumbnailer, a core functionality of the mediawiki software, required for usability and accessibility, be disabled and that all non-free images are uploaded at their display size. Ridiculous. - hahnchen 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article uses the wikicode
- It's obvious that NFCC does not mandate the file to be the same size as the thumbnail, or the file would be resized to 256px instead of 267px. Had this not been the case, the image library would have been completely fucked when default thumbnails went from 200px to 220px. Images in Template:Infobox video game are moving away from hard-coded size limits and instead allowing for user preferences, which allow for 300px of width. - hahnchen 00:04, 26 May 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.
Consensus is the non-free images are being used against policy and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:35, 1 June 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 article contains plenty of non-free logos/flags which violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. The article is fully protected, so only admins can fix the problem. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is not appropriate; while free flags can be used to identify combatants, non-frees cannot be used decoratively like this. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. For what it's worth, it looks like the article has been both moved and unprotected since Stefan2 made his original post. GlottalFricative (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed 4 images lacking a nfur from the article and posted at Talk:2015 Northwestern Syria offensive#Non-free image use explaining why and linking to this discussion. I noticed that two of the images, File:Alwiya al-Furqan Logo.png and File:Sham Legion Logo.jpeg, were also lacking a nfur for List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, I will remove them from that article as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. For what it's worth, it looks like the article has been both moved and unprotected since Stefan2 made his original post. GlottalFricative (talk) 06:25, 28 May 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.
Consensus is the image passes the threshold and therefore is non-free. As a non-free it fails WP:NFCC on the draft page and has been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:44, 2 June 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.
Does this meet the threshold of originality? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if so. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well it is only used on Google Translate and a draft, from which it could be removed. So not much of a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Given it uses non-simple shading effects to make a 3D-like icon, I would argue that yes, this just enough passes the threshold to be non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 26 May 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.
Consensus is the image had too many covers per policy. Extra covers have been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:05, 3 June 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 article seems to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that listing two covers is "unreasonable". Both cover versions attained nontrivial chart positions in multiple countries. As for the pictures that go with them, I also think that's reasonable fair use, precisely because the songs themselves are included. Multiple other articles on songs have similar graphically-accompanied lists. GlottalFricative (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is not the article about the Ben l'Oncle Soul version and it is not the article about the Marcus Collins version. The pictures should only be used in the articles about the Ben l'Oncle Soul version and the Marcus Collins version, respectively. Compare with MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- What Stefan said. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply - it all depends on context or the like, but if their use is like those here, which is just next to a single that is not notable on its own, they would likely be deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- But there will never be articles on Ben l'Oncle Soul's or Marcus Collins' versions — WP:NSONG states that "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." And I think, based on their chart performance, both covers fit past the notability guideline. GlottalFricative (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, which makes the Seven Nation Army article the article about all three versions. All three charted and therefore the cover is noteworthy to illustrate what cannot be achieved with words alone. Is there an NFC criteria specifically that Stefan2 feels these violate? - Floydian τ ¢ 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- They violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 in that, as often the case for cover art, the art is not discussed in the article. We allow one (and in some cases an alternate cover art) for a notable song per WP:NFCI#1 for the purposes of identification, but that doesn't extend to cover versions of a song - if the covers were independently notable (which they aren't given the little discussion about their creation and reception beyond chart placement) that might be a reason to keep their individual covers, but without that, they fail minimal use and contextual significance. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. Having re-read the relevant policy, I'm actually not convinced that the cover versions are notable entirely in and of themselves per WP:NSONG. GlottalFricative (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- To note, I have seen a few exceptional cases where the cover song would be fully notable on its own (eg at minimum 4-5 paragraphs of well-sourced content + charting), but per cover song handling, the cover is discussed along with the original single (which is fine); if the cover version clearly was notable on its own I would fairly argue that a cover art image of the cover version would be appropriate. That's just not the case here. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right — I think I'm now in agreement with you. Keep the writing about the cover versions, but remove the cover art? (Heh, it's a bit confusing that "cover" refers to both the recordings and the artwork…) --GlottalFricative (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the images of the covers should go but the infoboxes and other details should obviously stay. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright — I went ahead and made the change, with a link to this discussion. –GlottalFricative(talk) 20:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the images of the covers should go but the infoboxes and other details should obviously stay. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right — I think I'm now in agreement with you. Keep the writing about the cover versions, but remove the cover art? (Heh, it's a bit confusing that "cover" refers to both the recordings and the artwork…) --GlottalFricative (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- To note, I have seen a few exceptional cases where the cover song would be fully notable on its own (eg at minimum 4-5 paragraphs of well-sourced content + charting), but per cover song handling, the cover is discussed along with the original single (which is fine); if the cover version clearly was notable on its own I would fairly argue that a cover art image of the cover version would be appropriate. That's just not the case here. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. Having re-read the relevant policy, I'm actually not convinced that the cover versions are notable entirely in and of themselves per WP:NSONG. GlottalFricative (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- They violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 in that, as often the case for cover art, the art is not discussed in the article. We allow one (and in some cases an alternate cover art) for a notable song per WP:NFCI#1 for the purposes of identification, but that doesn't extend to cover versions of a song - if the covers were independently notable (which they aren't given the little discussion about their creation and reception beyond chart placement) that might be a reason to keep their individual covers, but without that, they fail minimal use and contextual significance. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, which makes the Seven Nation Army article the article about all three versions. All three charted and therefore the cover is noteworthy to illustrate what cannot be achieved with words alone. Is there an NFC criteria specifically that Stefan2 feels these violate? - Floydian τ ¢ 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- But there will never be articles on Ben l'Oncle Soul's or Marcus Collins' versions — WP:NSONG states that "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." And I think, based on their chart performance, both covers fit past the notability guideline. GlottalFricative (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- What Stefan said. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply - it all depends on context or the like, but if their use is like those here, which is just next to a single that is not notable on its own, they would likely be deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is not the article about the Ben l'Oncle Soul version and it is not the article about the Marcus Collins version. The pictures should only be used in the articles about the Ben l'Oncle Soul version and the Marcus Collins version, respectively. Compare with MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 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.
The policy-backed consensus is the image should be resized to a smaller resolution. Adding the {{Bad JPEG}} or {{shouldbepng}} would be fine if the image would be better suited as such. Still, within policy it should not be the highest quality. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:14, 5 June 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 is an unnecessarily large non-free image, the resolution of which (1,544px × 912px) seems to violate WP:NFCC#3b. I was going to resize it but there has been some edit-warring over this image recently, so I thought it best to raise the matter here first. Should it be reduced in size and, if so, to what size? I've noticed a number of high resolution images of Microsoft Windows applications that are in the same boat. See for example File:Access.PNG, File:Microsoft OneNote 2013 Default Screen.png and File:Microsoft Internet Mail and News screenshot.png. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- The edit warring was over the image format, not the size. User:Codename Lisa argues in contravention of established guidelines that lossy compression should be used for non-free images even if they contain non-photographic data. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever else, the text of the article in the lower right definitely shouldn't be legible, per WP:NFC#UUI #15. —Cryptic 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Cryptic: If something "shouldn't be legible" in a non-free image it shouldn't be there period. This practice of having fuzzy text in non-free images is ridiculous. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that as a statement in favor of lossy compression, if that's how you took it; just that, while there might be justification for showing the presence of an article in the image, there isn't one for reproducing the article itself. That could be accomplished by reducing the size of the image, or blurring out the text, or replacing the screenshot with a different one that has freely-licensed text there instead. —Cryptic 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I know what you meant. I meant that only the third option of the ones you just listed should be considered acceptable (well, that or simply having nothing at all there, but obviously having some content is preferable). Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personal opinions aside, we do allow non-free content in articles and we have to work with what we have so in this case it seems that reduction in size is the best option for dealing with all of the issues. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @User:AussieLegend: I can only support reducing the image in size if that tag I placed is restored. Otherwise, we would be stuck with an (even more) awful quality image that isn't even tagged as needing replacement. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- NFCC requires that low resolution images be used. NFCC is a policy with legal consideration and we're obliged to comply, so it's not a matter of consent. That template suggests SVG as an alternative, but SVG provides hi-resolution at all image sizes, which is inappropriate for non-free images. Can you find a template that doesn't suggest SVG as an alternative? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what template you are looking at, but the one I used clearly states PNG, not SVG. (In any case, your opinion is at odds with the crystal clear community consensus regarding non-free SVG images, which is that they are to be allowed in all cases. I can provide links to the multiple discussions on this topic if you want.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm looking at {{Bad JPEG}}, which you added twice.[6][7] The relevant wording of that template is
The information it contains could be stored more efficiently or more accurately in the PNG or SVG format.
There's some coding in the template that causes "PNG or" to be bolded, but not "SVG", but that looks like an error. Looking through the edit history I see that Ngyikp added {{shouldbepng}},[8] but that was removed.[9] I fail to see how the community could ignore a legal policy, it's like choosing to ignore WP:V so, yes, I would be interested in seeing those discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)- Keep in mind that that bad JPEG template is neutral of whether the work is free or non-free. It's advice about uploading in SVG is proper for a free image. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately editors don't seem to be as neutral and take the wording to mean that SVG is fine, which is why we have so many hires non-free SVGs. {{Shouldbepng}} seems to be a much better template to use on non-free JPEGs. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that that bad JPEG template is neutral of whether the work is free or non-free. It's advice about uploading in SVG is proper for a free image. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm looking at {{Bad JPEG}}, which you added twice.[6][7] The relevant wording of that template is
- I'm not sure what template you are looking at, but the one I used clearly states PNG, not SVG. (In any case, your opinion is at odds with the crystal clear community consensus regarding non-free SVG images, which is that they are to be allowed in all cases. I can provide links to the multiple discussions on this topic if you want.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- NFCC requires that low resolution images be used. NFCC is a policy with legal consideration and we're obliged to comply, so it's not a matter of consent. That template suggests SVG as an alternative, but SVG provides hi-resolution at all image sizes, which is inappropriate for non-free images. Can you find a template that doesn't suggest SVG as an alternative? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- @User:AussieLegend: I can only support reducing the image in size if that tag I placed is restored. Otherwise, we would be stuck with an (even more) awful quality image that isn't even tagged as needing replacement. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personal opinions aside, we do allow non-free content in articles and we have to work with what we have so in this case it seems that reduction in size is the best option for dealing with all of the issues. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I know what you meant. I meant that only the third option of the ones you just listed should be considered acceptable (well, that or simply having nothing at all there, but obviously having some content is preferable). Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that as a statement in favor of lossy compression, if that's how you took it; just that, while there might be justification for showing the presence of an article in the image, there isn't one for reproducing the article itself. That could be accomplished by reducing the size of the image, or blurring out the text, or replacing the screenshot with a different one that has freely-licensed text there instead. —Cryptic 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Cryptic: If something "shouldn't be legible" in a non-free image it shouldn't be there period. This practice of having fuzzy text in non-free images is ridiculous. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever else, the text of the article in the lower right definitely shouldn't be legible, per WP:NFC#UUI #15. —Cryptic 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Microsoft_Outlook_2013_Inbox.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=659491185){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMicrosoft_Outlook_2013_Inbox.jpg&type=revision&diff=659555128&oldid=659551507){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMicrosoft_Outlook_2013_Inbox.jpg&type=revision&diff=607564226&oldid=601338658){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Microsoft_Outlook_2013_Inbox.jpg&diff=next&oldid=607564226){kind=link}
@User:AussieLegend: Since there have been so many discussions on the topic, I'll simply provide a search results link containing links to many of them: [10] Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:07, 31 May 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.