Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67
 | 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
- 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.
Image is used in Clark Kent and Alter Ego and has a nfur for each article. Use in "Clark Kent" seems to be OK, but use in "Alter Ego" seems to be a bit of a stretch. The article does briefy discuss the Clark Kent/Superman connection, but it does the same for Batman/Bruce Wayne and Incredible Hulk/Bruce Banner without the use of images. Image just seems to be for decorative purposes. Clark Kent is wikilinked so the use of the image doesn't really add anything that cannot be found there. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's definitely free images of "Alter Ego" at the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde article (including a featured picture) that can represent the concept just as well as the non-free cover. At Clark Kent, the image could be used to demonstrate how the main appearance of Kent has been through the DC series (which is generally an allowed thing for long-run characters) and get the extra bonus there, but it's also a weak use. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. I've removed the image from Alter Ego and replaced it with the free image File:Jekyll-mansfield.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have removed the now-redundant NFUR from the image description. GermanJoe (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. I've removed the image from Alter Ego and replaced it with the free image File:Jekyll-mansfield.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 3 August 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 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.
Exclusively used to identify a living person, for whom a substitute photo could potentially be found. —innotata 03:07, 18 August 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.
Quotes in references
- 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.
How big of a quote in a reference should we allow before it breaches Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria. We see some fairly large quotes such as ref number 55 in the amphetamine article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- The same logic for quotes in bodies of articles should be used. I'd argue that the example is over length for what is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 23 June 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 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.
Image is licensed as non-free and has a rationale for United States customary units, but it seems that this is just plain text and can easily be replaced by a free equivalent per WP:NFCC#1. For example, File:Metric shampoo bottle.jpg is free image that provides essentially the same information. There's no reason to use a photo of the label of a bottle Vitamin Water since the label of practically any product could be used instead. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- That does not look like a logo at all for me, just a photo of text. Nor does the essential part of that photo (the units) meet the TOO. That would leave only the photographer's copyright if we crop any excessive/copyright-issues-creating text out if there is any. I would recommend to replace it with that Metric shampoo bottle regardless of copyright status, though, because it's of much higher quality and resolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've replaced the image with the "metric shampoo bottle" image per Wp:NFCC#1 since it provides the same information to the reader making the use of a non-free image unnecessary. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 3 August 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.
File:National Scout Organization of Thailand girls.svg and File:25th Asia-Pacific Regional Scout Jamboree.png
- 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.
Both images are being used in National Scout Organization of Thailand. Each image's non-free use rationale states that image is being used in the infobox which is not the case at all. Image are not the subject of source commentary within the article and appear to be primarily for decorative purposes. No sources are given for the images other than a Wikipedia user's page and a link to non-existent png file. Use in both cases appears to fail WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- For the first image, girls make up over half of the organization, this emblem is included in the article as it represents them specifically. I have tried to update the infobox but it gives an error.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- The demographic makeup of the organization should be discussed in article text. The image is in no way necessary for a reader to understand it. I agree that it is decorative and needs to be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Kintetsubuffalo: Since the image is not being used as the primary means of identification in the infobox, a higher standard of contextual relevance is required to satisfy NFCC#8. If, for example, there was some specific discussion of the image (e.g., its composition or significance) in the article supported by a reliable source, then it could be argued that image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 and that its removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. As Seraphimblade says, however, that is not really the case here. There is no way for the reader to know that "girls make up over half of the organization" from simply looking at the image, and such information could simply be expressed by adding a sentence or two the article without the image. There is also no source provided for the image so there's no way to verify it's copyright status. Images without a source or copyright information per WP:NFCC#10a can be speedily deleted. Finally, the template error is just a markup problem. You need to specify "Other" for
|Use=and then provide a specific reason why the image is needed in|Purpose=since the image is not being used in the infobox: " Girls make up over half of the organization, this emblem is included in the article as it represents them specifically" is not a valid entry for the|Use=. See Template:Non-free use rationale logo#Syntax for more details. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)- The above NFCC#8 concerns were made more than a month ago and no response or attempt to address them has been made. Therefore, I have removed both images from the article for the reasoning given above by myself and Seraphimblade. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kintetsubuffalo: Since the image is not being used as the primary means of identification in the infobox, a higher standard of contextual relevance is required to satisfy NFCC#8. If, for example, there was some specific discussion of the image (e.g., its composition or significance) in the article supported by a reliable source, then it could be argued that image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 and that its removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. As Seraphimblade says, however, that is not really the case here. There is no way for the reader to know that "girls make up over half of the organization" from simply looking at the image, and such information could simply be expressed by adding a sentence or two the article without the image. There is also no source provided for the image so there's no way to verify it's copyright status. Images without a source or copyright information per WP:NFCC#10a can be speedily deleted. Finally, the template error is just a markup problem. You need to specify "Other" for
- 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 of gays hanging in Iran
- 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 am a newbie when it comes to fair use. I am wondering if it would be acceptable to upload the image of hanging gays from this article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html. The news and criticism values are obvious. But I want to comply with Wikipedia fair use policy.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- As the images are coming from a press agency, their use would fail WP:NFCC#2 (respect for commercial use), unless the images directly themselves are the subject of discussion, which is not clear from that link. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 4 July 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 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 the image suitable in Omar Sharif article? George Ho (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fails by such a wide margin as to require no discussion. Aside from the basic NFCC#8 insufficiency, the film's trailer is PD, so this nonfree image could presumably be replaced by a free screenshot. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, The Big Bad Wolfowitz, the Columbia Pictures distributed the film. The Horizon Pictures was a British production. Any British-produced film and its derivatives, including any trailer, would be also subject to UK copyright law. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 1 August 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image of Mario's move set in a manual would seem to be easily replaceable by a free use image of even a stick figure doing the same actions. – czar 06:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Easily replaceable by text or user-made examples. Not necessary. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 10 August 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 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.
Two images of the band's releases are used. Is one or two fine? George Ho (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's an edge case , while the second image is just of the band, it is also appears to be a significantly enough wide release to meet the general allowances for a second cover. I'd rather think we don't need it but it's a close call. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 23 August 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.
Removed from all articles except Northwest African Cheetah. --Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 23 August 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 all articles except Northwest African Cheetah. Not sure if it satisfies WP:NFCC#1 in Northwest African Cheetah. Violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page and WP:NFCC#10c in various articles. Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- As a note, this is a case where we can make exceptions for what otherwise would be a free-replaceable image, as it is a critically endangered species so there's not the same expectation that a picture can readily be taken. Agree that it is only appropriate on the page on the species though. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 June 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.
As this is a single file with a single use, this should be a discussion at FFD since deletion is the suggested option. --
- 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.
Unlike the rationale for File:Internet dog.jpg, where the article On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog is about the cartoon itself, the Bechdel test article is about the general concept of the test itself, not about the comic. If there were an article titled something like The Rule (comic) that featured sourced commentary on the comic strip itself I could see this being a valid rationale, but as it is the Bechdel test article only makes a passing of Dykes to Watch Out For and "The Rule" (the name of this particular strip), and makes no commentary on either the art, the characters, or the specific dialogue beyond a (non-verbatim) restating of the rules. There is absolutely no context lost by omitting the strip and keeping the restating of the rules that is already in the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 26 August 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.
File was deleted as F5 after no longer being on an article. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 31 August 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.
Collage of logos. This fails WP:NFCCP point 3, as this exceeds minimal usage. Whpq (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Easily a failure. One of the images could be used for the show's logo, but you can't use all three as a clearly user-created montage. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree that this fails WP:NFCC#3a. Any one of the three images, most likely the one from the first season, could be used instead without any significant loss in information. I've gone ahead and removed the image and will link this discussion in the edit sum for reference. I've also removed other non-free images being improperly used in the same article. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 29 July 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is no longer needed on the Miles Smith Farm article. This logo has been updated and this one no longer meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria because it is not associated to any article. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:52, 4 September 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 is now tagged as PD-US-1923-abroad, no disagreement after a few months. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 7 September 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 image is probably free, and for someone this old there's no doubt that free images are available. Having a non-free image doesn't help anyone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's the same as the image on this book's cover, which was published in 1913. —Cryptic 11:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- And here is another free image. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, We hope has found an early copy of the image, showing it's free. (BTW, Cryptic: that Google cover is not the original 1913 cover; the grey block which is the inset is very clearly digital). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I realized that, but the image also appears within, at a less conveniently-linkable url. (It's an earlier printing of the same book We hope sourced it to.) —Cryptic 15:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Right (a first edition, I believe; WH's book says (c) 1913), but the Google-made cover isn't something we can rely on, and that's all you mentioned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I realized that, but the image also appears within, at a less conveniently-linkable url. (It's an earlier printing of the same book We hope sourced it to.) —Cryptic 15:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, We hope has found an early copy of the image, showing it's free. (BTW, Cryptic: that Google cover is not the original 1913 cover; the grey block which is the inset is very clearly digital). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- And here is another free image. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 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 removed from draft page per NFCC#9, other file deleted as F5, no consensus on other action after a month. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 7 September 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 usage in Australian Securities and Investments Commission is fine, but it fails WP:NFCC#9 in Draft:Advanced Markets. I'd just remove it some more, but I'm sufficiently irritated with the user who keeps adding both versions of the image back that I don't trust myself to take administrative action. The draft article doesn't seem likely to be promoted to articlespace anytime soon at all. (It might not pass the threshold of originality, either, at least not in the US; but I'm not at all comfortable retagging to PD-logo except in clear cases.) —Cryptic 21:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the image from the draft per WP:NFCC#9. I have also left a note on the user's talk page inviting them to join this discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 29 July 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 deleted as F5; no support for keeping it used here. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 7 September 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 subject just died, but there are free ones at File:FrankGifford.jpg and File:Ronald Reagan Christopher Reeve.jpg. Are exemptions granted for non-free images of deceased when no equivalent free ones exists for them during the period for which they were most notable, which in this case is during their football playing career?—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- No such exemption. And it would be very surprising if news or magazine photos from 1950s publications whose copyrights weren't renewed can't be turned up, so it would likely fail replaceability as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- There has been consideration for non-frees where frees exist where the person's appearance at an earlier stage of their life has significance (as determined by sources that talk about it) can be used alongside the frees (prime example is Weird Al's earlier defining look). I'm not sure if that can be justified here - while the free images do not carry the weight of him being a athlete in his past, there's nothing unusual about his athlete appearance to require an image. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- And it's arguable that he's as notable as a broadcaster as he was as a player. Combined with potential free ones with non-renewed copyrights, non-free doesnt seem justifiable here.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- That I agree with, the non-free doesn't meet NFCC. Just that to be clear that for persons both living and deceased, there are reasonable exceptional cases where a non-free image from earlier in their career may be usable alongside free ones taken more recently or with a possibility of being taken. This is not one of those cases. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- And it's arguable that he's as notable as a broadcaster as he was as a player. Combined with potential free ones with non-renewed copyrights, non-free doesnt seem justifiable here.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- There has been consideration for non-frees where frees exist where the person's appearance at an earlier stage of their life has significance (as determined by sources that talk about it) can be used alongside the frees (prime example is Weird Al's earlier defining look). I'm not sure if that can be justified here - while the free images do not carry the weight of him being a athlete in his past, there's nothing unusual about his athlete appearance to require an image. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 11 August 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 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 image in public domain? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- No. The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory operates under a US government contract that says that the US government is allowed to use all of its IP as it sees fit, but the University of California still claims copyright. It puts the images out under a non-commercial licence with a restriction that it is to be used only to illustrate the subject of the image. Our use on Wikipedia would appear to fall within their licence, but for us it is still a non-floss image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 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.
File was nominated for deletion via FFD and the result was delete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 11 September 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.
Non-free screenshot being used in Yvonne Craig. Image has a non-free rationale for article, but the neither the screenshot nor Craig's appearance as the character is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article. The article simply mentions that she appeared as "Marta" in an episode of Star Trek, something which is more than expressed using only text. The "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 for use in the article is not established and the screenshot's use is basically just decorative so I believe it should be removed. -Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's the image's only use, so this should be at WP:FFD instead. —Cryptic 07:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- If I expand the article and explain the picture, would that help? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think what's needed Kiraroshi1976 is for the article to reflect what reliable sources say about Craig's appearance in that particular episode as that particular character. Not simply the fact that she appeared as "Marta", but commentary about her makeup and costume, etc. and how it was significant in some way or another. Otherwise, the screenshot is not really needed for the reader's understanding. The reliable source is important because editors are not really allowed to add their own interpretations, etc. to articles per WP:NOR. Now, if the article was a stand-alone article the about "Marta", then a screenshot/picture of how she looked would be "contextually significant" because it could be used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. That's not really the case here, so more needs to be provided (per NFCC#8) to justify such usage in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly:I think you are exactly right. If I cannot find the sources for the picture, then it should be deleted immediately. I will work on this. Please give me a week to look everything up. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really up to me to give you a set time to fix things Kiraroshi1976. Any editor can remove the screenshot at anytime for not satisfying WP:NFC. If the image is removed from the article, then it will eventually be tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} by a bot, and then deleted by an administrator after 7 days if still not in use. If the image is nominated for deletion via WP:FFD, the community will decide if it should be deleted or saved, but that discussion could take a day or two or even a week or two depending upon how much time is needed to reach a consensus. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly:I think you are exactly right. If I cannot find the sources for the picture, then it should be deleted immediately. I will work on this. Please give me a week to look everything up. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think what's needed Kiraroshi1976 is for the article to reflect what reliable sources say about Craig's appearance in that particular episode as that particular character. Not simply the fact that she appeared as "Marta", but commentary about her makeup and costume, etc. and how it was significant in some way or another. Otherwise, the screenshot is not really needed for the reader's understanding. The reliable source is important because editors are not really allowed to add their own interpretations, etc. to articles per WP:NOR. Now, if the article was a stand-alone article the about "Marta", then a screenshot/picture of how she looked would be "contextually significant" because it could be used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. That's not really the case here, so more needs to be provided (per NFCC#8) to justify such usage in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- If I expand the article and explain the picture, would that help? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 21 August 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 images are non-copyrightable textlogos. Closing this discussion as it's a few months old. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 17 September 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.
These three images are being licensed as non-free, but I am wondering if they are unique enough to not be covered under No. 2 of WP:LOGO#Copyright-free logos. Should these be tagged with {{trademark}}, {{PD-textlogo}} or both instead of {{non-free logo}}?
- All three fail originality and can be tagged PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Do they also need to be tagged with "trademark" or would that conflict with "PD-textlogo"? What's the best way to add the PD-text logo tag? Simply replace the "non-free use" tags and rationales or is there something else that should be done as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I changed the first one [1]. I'll leave the other two for you to do as practice :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Trademark is a completely separate IP acknowledgement from copyright, and as such should not be considered a copyright license template. It's not required to add the trademark template (the default non-free logo rationale presumes logos are trademarked) but its okay to add but it will always require another copyright license to be included (in this case, PD-textlogo). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the assistance Masem and Hammersoft. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just fyi: all 3 images have been marked as "Move to Commons" as well (see Template:Copy to commons). GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the assistance Masem and Hammersoft. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Do they also need to be tagged with "trademark" or would that conflict with "PD-textlogo"? What's the best way to add the PD-text logo tag? Simply replace the "non-free use" tags and rationales or is there something else that should be done as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 9 June 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 a few months, consensus is that the image is not original enough to be copyrightable. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 17 September 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 the distortion of the text here and in the other currently-nondeleted version (dated 21:48, 15 December 2014) enough to nudge this over the threshold of originality? —Cryptic 00:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, at least, within PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I changed the licensing. This is {{pd-text}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 12 June 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 was appropriately removed from the the noted articles months ago. Rationales for inappropriate locations have been removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 18 September 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.
Image is being used in Zakumi, FIFA World Cup mascot, and 2010 FIFA World Cup. It has non-free use rationales for each article, but I'm not sure the images are needed anywhere other than "Zakumi" per WP:NFCC#8 because the stand-alone article can be wikilinked and the mascot adequately explained using text. Use in "FIFA World Cup Mascot" also probably fails WP:NFLISTS for similar reasons. Finally, I am not sure if any of the non-free images in "FIFA World Cup Mascot" can be used per NFLISTS. Each of the World Cups are wikilinked and an image of each mascot can be seen in its respetive World Cup article. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- All of the non-free pictures in FIFA World Cup mascot should be removed per WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 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 in this discussion is that the images are creative enough to be copyrightable, and thus non-free. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 17 September 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 logo really need to be licensed as non-free? I believe the Coca-Cola script is already public domain and the rest of the image appears simple enough to fall below the "threshold of originality" typically required of non-free images. Isn't this OK as {{PD-because}} or {{PD-USonly}}?
FWIW, I am wondering the same thing about the following images as well:
- File:STP 500 Martinsville.jpg
- File:Kobalt Tools 400.jpg
- File:2010 Irwin Tools Night Race logo.jpg
- File:FedEx400.PNG
- File:Toyota-SaveMart 350 race logo.png
- File:2012 Quicken Loans 400 logo for MIS.jpg
- File:AutoClub400.png
- File:Duck Commander 500 logo.jpg
- File:2015 Daytona 500 Logo.png
Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The only one on this list that could approach PD-USOnly would be the Kobalt Tools one. The others use elements like curved racing flags or metal finish effects or light effects beyond simple drop shadows and gradient shading to have creativity and thus non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The Kobalt Tools one isn't, either, if for no other reason than the logo to the left of "Las Vegas". It's a bit hard to make out at this size, but it's the same as in this variant of the image. —Cryptic 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that little compressd globe with racecar in center is not simple enough to make it free, so yes, that's non-free too. (Mind you, I am probably taking a very conservative approach on some of these, but when it comes to copyright like this where case law is not well established it is better to play it safe and avoid marking copyrightable images as free. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 23 June 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 was tagged "Move to Commons" because it doesn't meet a treshold of originality even in the country of origin, nevermind the US. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 17 September 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.
Simple text logo being used in the infobox of 1233 ABC Newcastle that probably does not need to be licensed as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that can't even qualify under a UK sweat of the brow-type originality. Definitely PD-textlogo and can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Masem. I have updated the image's licensing. Please correct any mistake I might have made. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 2 July 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 this image is not copyrightable in the US. No consensus on whether it's copyrightable in the UK. Tagging as "PD-USonly" seems like a good precautionary action in this regard. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 17 September 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.
Another non-free image of a radio station logo that appears to be too simple for copyright. I think this should be at least OK to license as {{PD-USonly}}- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely PD-USOnly, I don't know if the tiny shadow effect could tip it on UK-like originality. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I updated this image's licensing per above. Please correct any mistakes I might have made. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 3 July 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 use in both articles is acceptable, per discussion. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 17 September 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.
Image is being used in TV3+ (Estonia) and 3+ Latvia. It has a non-free rationale for each, and from each station's official website appear to be shared by both stations. Is the use in both articles acceptable? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- As it is not immediately clear if there's a parent company involved or the like, I would say the present use on both pages is acceptable. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 6 July 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.
Source has been fixed. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 17 September 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.
Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Fraternitas Vanenica, but its source is given as this Latvian Wikipedia page. Use seems acceptable as non-free on Latvian Wikipedia, but not sure if that automatically transfers to English Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Non-free don't always translate between the various langauge wikis since non-free content criteria is developed separate for each one. But this is a case of a logo of a notable organization, which believe that it would be better to update the source link to [2]. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. I will update the source link per your suggestion. Thanks for finding the link. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 7 July 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.
Request for comment on Finally
Discussion closed now. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 17 September 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.
Please provide comment at Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Request for comment as it concerns the use of two non-free images (album covers). --Izno (talk) 18:22, 10 July 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.
Logo may be trademarkable, but not all copyrightable according to consensus here. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 September 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.
Logo licensed as non-free, but I am wondering if this should be changed to {{PD-Textlogo}} and tagged for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely PD-textlogo and should be able to be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Will re-tag it per above. Do you think it needs {{trademark}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re-tagged image per above. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Will re-tag it per above. Do you think it needs {{trademark}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 27 August 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.
KBZU logos
Licensing on both images changed to {{pd-text}}. Clear case of images being below threshold of originality. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 18 September 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:KBZU logo.jpg and File:963nashicon logo.png being used in KBZU, but both seem too simple to be treated as non-free. Station is located in the United States so I think these are OK as {{PD-logo}} or at the very least {{PD-USonly}} - Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I changed the licensing on both images to {{pd-text}} with {{trademark}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 18 September 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 action; image remains on the team articles, per discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 21 September 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.
Image is being used in Fédération Gabonaise de Football, Gabon national football team, and Gabon women's national football team There is a separate, specific rationale provided for each use per WP:NFCC#10c, but I am wondering if the nfurs for the two team articles are valid. Each team is under the control of the Gabonaise federation, and the federation's article is linked in the first sentence of each team article. Are the teams considered to be child entities per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably yes, though here the overall organization appears to lack notability, and if that article did not exist, the separate logos on the men's and women's team would be okay. So it's a bit iffy. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. So. I am taking that to mean the logo should be left in the team articles at least for the time being, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 8 June 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.
Single image with single use should be nominated at FFD for deletion. The rational described below, however, is justifiably correct and should be repeated there in the nomination. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 24 September 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.
Non-free file without major significance for article. XXN, 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Completely unnecessary to the article. The image references a match that was played, but the image's significance to the article is nil. The ticket isn't mentioned at all, much less discussed, and the article is fine without it. Complete failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 24 September 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is used in three articles. Are these uses suitable in Wikipedia? George Ho (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's reasonable on the actual page about the protests (the sensational language used was part of the issues discussed there) but not at the police force or the station page. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- The text on the TV screen (對他拳打腳踢) is in Chinese, but this is the English-language Wikipedia. How useful is text in Chinese to the average reader of an article on English Wikipedia? Is there also an English version, or is TVB only available in Chinese? There is extensive discussion about the statement in the section 2014 Hong Kong protests#Local media coverage, so I suppose that the image is fine there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just as we do not disregard sources in foreign languages on en.wiki, a picture that relies on foreign language text would not be excluded -- however, one does need to be to have an english-language source that has reliably translated the language for our benefit as to explain the issue (this being the misreporting by the network). I did not check the article for that, but that would definitely have to be there to justify the use. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- This article is one of those cited near the screenshot and appears to be related to it. The incident is discussed in the article, but the article also looks as if it contains the same screenshot (a much clearer version) so I am not sure why the one in the article is needed at all. The screenshot in the article is kind of hard to make out, so I cannot see how it improves the readers understanding. One other thing, in the same section of the article there is an embedded link to a YouTube video titled "External video". I'm pretty sure embedding a link like this is no longer acceptable per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and it does not appear to be to an official YouTube page per WP:COPYLINK. I am only bringing this up here because it looks like this might be the source for the screenshot (about the 4:57 mark of the video). - Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The file information should indicate a source (WP:NFCC#10a), and the file information page should not link to copyright violations (WP:LINKVIO). It should be easy to fix the source by instead specifying the name of the TV station and when this was broadcast. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- This article is one of those cited near the screenshot and appears to be related to it. The incident is discussed in the article, but the article also looks as if it contains the same screenshot (a much clearer version) so I am not sure why the one in the article is needed at all. The screenshot in the article is kind of hard to make out, so I cannot see how it improves the readers understanding. One other thing, in the same section of the article there is an embedded link to a YouTube video titled "External video". I'm pretty sure embedding a link like this is no longer acceptable per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and it does not appear to be to an official YouTube page per WP:COPYLINK. I am only bringing this up here because it looks like this might be the source for the screenshot (about the 4:57 mark of the video). - Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 15 June 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 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.
Three cover arts are used. Is it excessive use or not? George Ho (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, the two alt covers are not for full releases of the album and thus don't qualify as true alternate covers. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I removed two images. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- File:Wish Upon a Blackstar Deluxe Edition Cover Art.jpg, File:Celldweller the complete cellout vol 01 instrumentals.jpg and File:Celldweller blackstar act one purified.jpg seem to be being used in a similar fashion in Wish Upon a Blackstar, Blackstar (novel) and The Complete Cellout respectively. Would the same rationale for removing the other two images apply to these three as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably, the Deluxe Edition cover - which is the same album with additional content, would be fair in how alt. covers are used (alternate marketing of the same album); it's when one pulls companion/subset covers from the main album as the original cases, and the two other cases you mention here, and one would require the image to be in proper context (read: discussed backed by sources) to be included. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- File:Wish Upon a Blackstar Deluxe Edition Cover Art.jpg, File:Celldweller the complete cellout vol 01 instrumentals.jpg and File:Celldweller blackstar act one purified.jpg seem to be being used in a similar fashion in Wish Upon a Blackstar, Blackstar (novel) and The Complete Cellout respectively. Would the same rationale for removing the other two images apply to these three as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I removed two images. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed album covers from Blackstar (novel) as identical to book covers. George Ho (talk) 18:05, 30 June 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 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 the image eligible for copyright in UK? George Ho (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- If it is not just pure text, it is best to assume that it is copyrightable in the UK. It would be PD-USonly here. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 30 June 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 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.
Two album covers are used. I removed one of them, but Rhain1999 added it back. Is using both or just one adequate enough? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The second is sufficiently close to the first, and the image not the subject of criticial discussion, that it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 9 July 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 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 briefly mentions the limited edition of yellow vinyl, seen here. It looks almost identical to the standard blue cover artwork, but the background is yellow. Is uploading it an excessive use? George Ho (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. If it's being used for nothing more than to show it exists, that's excessive use. If the cover is notable in some way, then that's different, of course. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 20 July 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 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. Subject is still alive. APK whisper in my ear 01:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Blatantly replaceable, failing WP:NFCC #1. I've removed the image from the article, tagged it as replaceable fair use, and as orphaned. I've also notified the uploader. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:02, 22 September 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png_and_File:Xaverian_Brothers_High_School_logo.jpeg){kind=link}
_(logo).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGameChangers.png&type=revision&diff=666189482&oldid=666189409){kind=link}
- 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 the image copyrightable in United Kingdom? George Ho (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- UK has a very low threshold so I would assume yes, it is copyrighted. It can be tagged PS-USonly since it is too simple for US copyright. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 September 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.
File:Xaverian Hawks logo.jpeg, File:Xaverian Brothers High School (emblem).png and File:Xaverian Brothers High School logo.jpeg
.png){kind=link}
It has been more than three months since the team's logo was removed from the Xaverian Brothers High School and no comments have been made either way here at NFCR or at Talk:Xaverian Brothers High School#Non-free use of File:Xaverian Hawks logo.jpeg. Therefore, closing this discussion and assuming per WP:EDITCONSENSUS that the final removal of the logo is non-controversial. Team's logo nfur has been updated so that it reflects usage in Xaverian Hawks. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 28 September 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.
All three images are being used in Xaverian Brothers High School. The team logo is being used in Xaverian Brothers High School#Athletics and Xaverian Hawks but only has a non-free use rationale for the school's article. I don't think the team logo is needed in the school's article since the athletic program has its own stand-alone article and there is a hatnot directing the reader to it. I feel the image should be removed from the school's article and the nfur changed to "Xaverian Hawks".
I am not too sure about the other two. I don't think both are really needed per Wp:NFCC#3a. The school logo is just text and doesn't seem to provided any additional information to the emblem, so I think it can be removed. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
.png_a){kind=link}
- I removed the sports logo image from the high school's article per WP:NFCC#8, etc. and left a note explaining why on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 23 June 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.
_(logo).jpg){kind=link}
Almost three months have passed since logo was first discussed and almost two months have passed since logo was removed from Van Buren High School (Van Buren, Arkansas) and no further comments about if been made either on the article's talk page or here at NFCR. Therefore, assuming per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, that logo's removal was uncontroversial. File's page has be amended to remove no longer needed nfur. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 28 September 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.
Image has nfurs for Van Buren High School (Van Buren, Arkansas) and Van Buren School District. Name of image implies it's for the high school, but the image itself suggests it's for the entire school district. According to its article, the only high school in the district is Van Buren High School; There are, however, elementary schools, middle schools and junior high schools in the district too so the image does not seem unique to the high school. Would No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI apply to the high school? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
_(logo).jpg){kind=link}
- The logo is shown on the district website and the logotext says "School District". Thus, the image represents the district not the HS and should not be on the latter's article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have removed the image from the school's article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 3 August 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 usage trimmed down. A bit too complex for a safe PD-logo. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:19, 28 September 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.
Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 or WP:NFCC#9 on all pages except USA Hockey. Stefan2 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the case where it's propigated via a userbox. Agree that only appropriate on the USA Hockey main page. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I commented out the image in all of the individual team pages per No. 17 of UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the image is a {{PD-logo}}. It's a close call, but, given that the Copyright Office refused to register File:Best Western logo.svg, it may be the case that the Copyright Office might refuse (or might have refused) registration of the logo. (I also note that a copyright search I ran for works by USA Hockey, Inc. found a 1994 registration for "USA Hockey inline logo" [VA0000854883 / 1997-09-26] but not any other logo.) RJaguar3 | u | t 16:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's too close a call for us to call it PD-logo due to all the curvatures which clearly have some creative elements. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 13 June 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.
Old versions removed. Unblocked and kept as valid usage of a non-free image. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:42, 28 September 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 old revision of this file is unused and therefore violates WP:NFCC#7, but the file is fully protected, so I am unable to add {{subst:orfurrev}}. Additionally, the file is in my opinion in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, but I don't think that the bot which usually reduces files would be able to reduce the resolution of the file as the bot can't edit fully protected pages.
Also: Is the poster {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? I can't see any copyright notice, but there is some fine print which is too small to be readable. Is a poster covered by the film's renewal, or does it need a separate renewal? Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- The text is a valid 1961 copyright notice. I've deleted the old version. I've unprotected it as the issue is 7 years old, and both the vandal and blocking admin are long gone. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 14 June 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 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.
Isn't the Safari interface below the threshold of originality on this image, meaning that the non-free copyright tag and the fair use rationales can be removed? Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does look that way, to be under the threshold, but that might apply to the symbols only and not the whole UI layout (not sure). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 14 June 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 was removed from List of Harvest Moon video games as the result of a page move made 3 months ago so no longer any problem with NFLISTS. Stand-alone article was also moved on the same day by the same editor. Nfur for image has been updated to reflect new usage in Harvest Moon (Natsume series) which was created as a result of the aforementioned page moves. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 28 September 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 List of Harvest Moon video games. Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I also think the image possible fails WP:NFLISTS. Image is also used in the stand-alone article Harvest Moon (series) which is Wikilinked in the list article, so there's really no need to use it in two articles which are essentially about the same game. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- NFLISTS doesn't prevent one or so "header" type non-free images to help provide some visual aspects, particularly if the image helps to summarize some of the elements of the list (for example, a in-show cast shot for a list of characters). However, I do agree that that logo is unnecessary here (as well as the fact that one can make a free image of just the text elements that would do the same for illustration). --MASEM (t) 15:50, 14 June 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.
More than 3 months have passed and no further comments have been made; Therefore, per this discussion usage in 1998 tournament article is considered acceptable since there does not appear to be a specific logo for the tournament as a whole and the "Final Four" logo is being used as the primary means of identification. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 28 September 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.
Image is used in the infobox of 1998 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but the image is technically not the logo for the entire tournament, but only the "Final Four" (the semi-finals and final rounds). There are similar images being used in the articles for the 1995-97 and 1999-2016 season tournaments using pretty much the same rationale. Not sure if an image specific to the final can be used for the whole tournament, but if this image cannot be used in this article, then the same most likely would be the case for the other images and other articles as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The question is if there is a logo for the entire tourney for each year, or if the logos have only been for the Final Four. If the latter, then the use is okay, but if the former, we should be using those logos instead. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense. For the 2015 tournament it appears from this webpage that the only logo used is for the Final Four unless the entire tournament's logo is considered to be the Final Four logo plus the header "2015 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship". At least on that webpage, the combination of the two are being treated as a single file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 16 June 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.
It has been close to three months since logo removed from 2015 season article per this discussion and the logo has not bee re-added to article. Article has been edited more than 150 times since then so removal per No. 14 of WP:UUI is assumed to be non-controversial per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Usage in main article and 2104 season article considered acceptable per WP:NFCC. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 28 September 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.
Image is used in IndyCar Series, 2014 IndyCar Series season, 2015 IndyCar Series season, and 2016 IndyCar Series season and has a non-free rationale for each use. Use in individual season article does not seem acceptable per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI since the logo is not specific for each year and since the stand-alone main article exists and can be Wikilinked. Would appreciate clarification as to whether image can be used in the individual season articles. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- We do allow the use of the logo for a series that changes over time to be used - in addition to the main page of the series if it is the current logo - on the first year that logo was adopted, on the presumption this can be noted in the text. So the main series and 2014 year pages are acceptable, but 2015 + 2016 are not. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 30 June 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.
Borderline case, kept as non-free. Stale discussion. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:47, 28 September 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 reach the threshold of originality? Fails WP:NFCC on quite a lot of pages if so. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really borderline. I'd err on the side of caution because while this has images with very similar degrees of creative shapes listed as "Not copyrightable", some others also with very similar degrees did in fact receive registration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 3 July 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 version has been deleted per WP:F8 and replaced by the Commons version in all articles. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 28 September 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.
Image is uploaded as non-free, but the same image has also been uploaded to Commons as free. Not sure why both are needed and the non-free one doesn't fail WP:NFCC#1. If, the non-free image is OK, however, then it only its used in The Reign of the Superman seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8. Its use in Zine and Superman does not seem acceptable and the image is not needed in either article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- These are the exact same image, and the Commons copyright tag appears credible to me. The current Wikipedia file should be deleted under WP:CSD#F8, I think.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Should I replace the non-free version with the Commons version in all of the articles and then nominate the non-free for deletion per F8? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The file is already tagged as F8, so when it gets deleted the Commons image (which has the same name as the enwiki file) will display instead. No action of ours needed, really (other than removing the non-free tags from the enwiki file page, maybe). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is typically little need in cleaning up the file information page on Wikipedia if a file has been tagged for F8 as the file information page will be deleted anyway (provided that the data on Commons is correct). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The file is already tagged as F8, so when it gets deleted the Commons image (which has the same name as the enwiki file) will display instead. No action of ours needed, really (other than removing the non-free tags from the enwiki file page, maybe). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Should I replace the non-free version with the Commons version in all of the articles and then nominate the non-free for deletion per F8? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 6 July 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.
Licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per discussion so image is no longer subject to the NFCC. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 28 September 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.
Image is licensed as non-free, but it seems simple enough to be licensed as least {{PD-USonly}} as possibly as {{PD-logo}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty clearly does not meet the US treshold of originality - just simple coloured text is not enough, from what I see on Commons. Given that it's an US-based company, I'd ship that file off to Commons and request deletion of the current file. Unless someone disagrees with my assessment, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've changed the licensing per your recommendation. Please let me know if I made any mistakes that need correction. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 3 August 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.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Image kept as valid non-free usage. Source info should be sufficient. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 September 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.
Image has a non-free rationale for Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute. Image was lacking source and I was able to find this on the institute's official website, but it's lacking the name of the company in Chinese and English shown in the version uploaded to Wikipedia. Would a source of the image be acceptable in this case since the text is really distinct enough to be covered by copyright? -Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- It is reasonablly fine, since the added text is not new copyright otherwise. It's clear the logo is from that site. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 7 July 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.
Removal of logo and the changes recommended in this discussing were done almost 2.5 months ago. Since no additional comments have been made here and the changes made to Cleveland Gladiators have not been reverted, I am assuming they are removal of image is non-controversial. Therefore, per this discussion usage in 2003 Las Vegas Gladiators season is considered acceptable, but usage in "Cleveland Gladiators" is not. --Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 28 September 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.
Team logo being used in Cleveland Gladiators#Las Vegas Gladiators (2003–2007) and in article's about individual seasons from 2003-2007. Seems OK for the main article, but not acceptable for the season articles. Not sure, however, if No. 14 or No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI applies here. Perhaps both apply? Regardless, no non-free rationales are provided for the season articles per WP:NFCC#10c so images can be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The logo is also duplicative of the current logo (the font use is different but effectively compariable) so it would not be necessary on the main page. It can be used on the first season within 2003 if a proper rationale is provided. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK. How about wikilinking "2003 season" in the main article to 2003 Las Vegas Gladiators season in addition to what you suggested above? Would that be a sufficient fix and help further justify removal of the image from the main article? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Completely fair solution. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I made the changes suggested above. Please let me know if the nfur for the season article needs some tweaking. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Completely fair solution. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK. How about wikilinking "2003 season" in the main article to 2003 Las Vegas Gladiators season in addition to what you suggested above? Would that be a sufficient fix and help further justify removal of the image from the main article? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 10 July 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.
File:FSCG.gif was deleted on July 31, 2015 per WP:F7 and File:FSCG.png has been removed from the individual team articles per discussion. --Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 28 September 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.
Images appear to be identical other than the file type. Images are also being used in multiple team articles which seems to violate No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Are both images needed and should usage be limited limited to Football Association of Montenegro - Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The .gif can be deleted over the .png preferred version. Agree the usage should be limited to that one article. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed the logo from all of the individual team articles, updated the rationale for the png version and have tagged the gif version with {{orfud}} per the instructions given at WP:FFD - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|Permission={{PD-MNEGov}}{{insignia}}
AND do not delete those 2 images! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.121.246 (talk • contribs)
- 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.
Logo's licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per discussion so concerns about non-free use no longer relevant. --Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 28 September 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.
Just recently uploaded by @Pperetzman:, this looks like a {{PD-textlogo}} to me - fairly generic font and only some colour on top of it from an US-based group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely PD Text and can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 20 July 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.
Logo licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per discussion. --Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 28 September 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.
Combination of text and colors appears to be too simple for copyright, at least in the U.S. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aye, definitively {{PD-USonly}}. I don't know about UK copyrights enough to comment whether it should be {{PD-textlogo}} instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- {{PD-textlogo}}. Nowhere near the threshold of originality in the UK (or anywhere else) either. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and Black Kite for the clarification. I have revised the licensing per above. Let me know if it needs to be tweaked in any way. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{PD-textlogo}}. Nowhere near the threshold of originality in the UK (or anywhere else) either. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 23 July 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.
Licensing for File:WCNC logo.png, File:WCNC-logo-Apr07.png and File:WPCQ 36.png changed per discussion. Remaining two logos were deleted per WP:F5 --Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 28 September 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 following non-free images are being used in the article:
- File:WCNC logo.png - Non-free rationale claims "inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because television station logos are an important part of a station's branding." , but this no longer seems to be the case here since the image is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article and is not used as the primary means of identification in the infobox. Usage appears to be mainly decorative and thus fails WP:NFCC#8.
- File:WCNC-logo-Apr07.png - Same claim of significance is made for this image as for the one above, but once again usage seems to fail NFCC#8 for the same reasons.
- File:NewsChannel36.png - Non-free rationale claims image is being used in infobox which is no longer true. This usage also seems to fail NFCC#8.
- File:WPCQ 36.png - Licensed as non-free, but appears simple enough to be tagged as at least {{PD-USonly}} instead. Like the other non-free logos, I don't think this non-free usage satisfies the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8.
- File:WCNC DTV transition test commercial (screen capture).jpg - A screen shot used to illustrate the stations switch from analog to digital programming. This can be more than sufficiently explained using text so an image like this is not needed at all per NFCC#8.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that I believe we treat the flat/simple gradient NBC peacock logo as uncopyrightable (compared to the present NBC logo that has a jelly-button look, making it non-free), the first 2 images and the 4th image should all be treated as PD-textlogo. The third image is non-free (the metal sheen gradients are more than simple) and yes, is an inappropriate old logo use. And same with the final image, not necessary to include. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK Masem. Just to clarify things, the licensing for the first, second and fourth images should be changed from "non-free" to "PD-textlogo" with a "trademark" tag added, while the licensing of the third and last image should be left as is, but the images should be removed from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be my take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy reply Masem. I have changed the licensing for images 1, 2 and 4 per above. Please let me know if they need any tweaking. I have also removed the other two images from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be my take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK Masem. Just to clarify things, the licensing for the first, second and fourth images should be changed from "non-free" to "PD-textlogo" with a "trademark" tag added, while the licensing of the third and last image should be left as is, but the images should be removed from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 30 July 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 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.
Hi, could some advise me if this image does actually qualify for fair use? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- It certainly doesn't immediately fail any NFC issues in that its not freely replaceable, little commercial value, etc. Exactly how needed it is per NFCC#8 is a question that is hard to answer - it was a famous year in the club's history but also one of those images that doesn't necessarily aid the reader's understanding. I would not say it needs to deleted but I would work to make its inclusion case a stronger one. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 26 July 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.
Licensing for each logo changed to "PD-logo" per discussion. --Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 28 September 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.
Images are licensed as non-free. They were being used in a gallery of former station logos in WMGC-FM, but I removed them per WP:NFG. Is it possible, however, that the combinations of text and shapes are too simple for copyright protection and that the images can be licensed as {{PD-USonly}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Would agree both are PD-text logo , US only. The curves are simple, and the first one has a standard drop-shadow, below threshold of originality in US. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- These logos are created in the US, yes? In this case if they don't meet the TOO they should be moved to Commons. And their deletion tags removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Per above, I changed the licensing to {{PD-logo}} and also added {{Trademark}} and {{Move to Commons}}. Let me know whether the new licensing is acceptable, so I can fix it if it's not or re-add the images to the article if it is. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- These logos are created in the US, yes? In this case if they don't meet the TOO they should be moved to Commons. And their deletion tags removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:50, 5 August 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 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.
Image is licensed as non-free, but in seems simply enough to at least qualify for {{PD-USonly}}. Source of image is given as a French Wikipedia, but fr:Fichier:Logo 7th Magnitude.jpeg appears to have been deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Definitively not copyrightable in the US - just text on a black background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerous. I changed the licensing from "non-free" to "PD-USonly" per the above discussion. I also added a source for the image. If I messed up the licensing, let me know and I'll correct it as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 6 August 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.
Orphaned and deleted.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the current wordmark logo for the New England Patriots. It is the only National Football League team that incorporates the team's copyrighted logo into its wordmark. Thus, it makes the entire image a non-free logo instead of a {{pd-textlogo}}, correct? If that is the case, then under WP:NFCCP rules #8 and 10C, it would be rather questionable to post it into the infoboxes of the following articles (as it is currently is now), right?
We do not have such WP:NFC problems with the other National Football League rivalry articles because the other teams' wordmark logos are just text and can be classified as {{pd-textlogo}}. However, does the use of the New England Patriots wordmark logo in this manner on those three above articles violate WP:NFCCP rule #8? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the workmark does not meet PD-textlogo or even PD-USonly. As such, its use on those rivalry pages is inappropriate. That said, if the "head" figure was removed and leaving the curved letters (as it done at the top of [http://www.patriots.com/ the official team website), that would be a text logo and that would be fine to use there. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is what I thought. I'm now trying to find a good source to get just the text logo as a replacement. As soon as that happens, we can probably tag this one as a CSD#F7. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- [3] is a direct link to the one on the Patroits' website. You are allowed to crop out the head and leave the rest as free image (at least, PD-USonly). You might want to ask the graphics lab if they can recreate that as an SVG. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is what I thought. I'm now trying to find a good source to get just the text logo as a replacement. As soon as that happens, we can probably tag this one as a CSD#F7. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.patriots.com/sites/all/themes/custom/patriots/images/logo.png){kind=link}
- 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.