Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
| Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 |
The outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015, over six months ago. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:37, 22 December 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 and WP:NFG in the articles ending with the word 'painting': the file is not actually critically discussed in any of the articles, and WP:NFC#UUI §6 tells that you should just link to the main article (Bay Area Figurative Movement) instead. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Important work by an important artist used where it should be used...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I still see no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance in those articles, although the painting is now mentioned in some of them. This looks like a prime example of the situation described in WP:NFC#UUI §6 where linking to the article Bay Area Figurative Movement is the correct solution. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain significant editor participation since June 2015, over six months ago, with only two editors commenting. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:46, 22 December 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 Association des Scouts du Rwanda. I removed the image per WP:NFCC#8 with this edit since it wasn't being discussed at all in article other than this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one." No source was cited in support of this, so it seemed to me to be OR, at least in a Wikipedia sense. Image was re-added with this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one, as the old flag was associated with the Rwandan Genocide". This is a much stronger claim than the original caption, but still no source is cited in support or any mention is made of in the article other than a caption. If such an unsupported claim statement was made in the article's body, it could at the very least be marked with a {{ciation needed}}, but I am not sure how that works with images themselves or their captions. One more thing is that the source given for the nfur says "collection of Chris" (I posted invitation to this discussion on their talk page) which makes it hard to know if the image satisfies WP:NFCC#4 and the purpose given is "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Association des Scouts du Rwanda, a subject of public interest. " which is certainly not true in this case. I guess the nfur can be edited so that it better reflects how the image is being used, but that's on the assumption that the image is OK to use. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty confident it is not needed - one can explain that the original logo (this file) used a flag color pattern in the BG that was associated with the genocide and thus changed to the current logo that used the newer flag. It definitely should not be using the non-free logo simplified rationale and better justification would be needed to keep. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Masem. I posted that the non-free use of the image in the article was being discussed here at NFCR at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo (the user talk page the editor who re-added the image with the new caption), but their response indicates that they are unwilling to discuss this any further. That's fine, but that doesn't resolve questions about the image's non-free use. The image still does not have a source to verify whether it has been previously published and it the "new" caption still does not seem to satisfy NFCC#8. If the image doesn't satisfy the WP:NFCCP, then it shouldn't be used and can be removed. Yet, it can also continue to be re-added without addressing these concerns. For reference, the same issues involving a similar image and the same editor were also discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Scout Association of the West Indies.png. This image has yet to be removed from any articles, even though the consensus here is that it should not be used. Removing that image, however, might simply lead to it be re-added without addressing the non-free use issues as was done with this image. The cycle of removing, re-adding, removing, re-adding, etc., can be never ending and is eventually likely lead to a violation of WP:3RR. Are there any other options available to try and resolve this type of impasse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC+9)
- 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:50, 22 December 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 actually appears to be a user-created montage of two logos. It has a non-free rationale for 1. SC Feucht and is being used in the "History" section. The logos are not really being discussed in detail, so this usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Moreover, since image appears to be a combination of two images, this usage probably may also not satisfy WP:NFCC#3a. The source given for the image looks like the team's official page, but I can't find the image. This subpage looks like the team's history page, but again I can't find the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The left image would be PD-USonly as a simple-enough logo, while the right would be non-free. If the logos aren't discussed, the left image can be kept (as a new file) and the right part dropped. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Both logos seem to satisfy c:COM:TOO#Germany under the old conditions, but I'm not sure if the recent birthday train case affects anything. de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst#English summary suggests that logos are affected in one way or another. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015, with only a single editor (apart from the nominator) having commented. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:52, 22 December 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 a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the history of this department, this is likely a work on the university and thus non-free. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015, with only a single editor (apart from the nominator) having commented. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:55, 22 December 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 a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the history of this department, this is likely a work on the university and thus non-free. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain significant editor participation since June 2015, with only a single editor (apart from the nominator) having commented. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 16:58, 22 December 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 a user created montage of two non-free logos. Source links for each image are given and it has a non-free rationale for 2010 IIHF World Championship Division I. It seems that each image is for separate groups at the same championship so perhaps instead of combining them together they each should be seperate images per WP:NFCC#3a with their own specific rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.
The above also applies to the following images for their respective articles:
- File:2009 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
- File:2008 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
- File:2006 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
- File:2005 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming there is no overall logo for the yearly playoffs when the A and B groups meet, this would be a reasonable acceptable use of montaging both logos which have apparently equal weight for purposes of identification (it would be improper to favor GRoup A's logo over Group B, or vice versa). It does count as two images on the page but within NFCC allowances and logo use. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Does counting as two images on the page mean that a nfur is required for each image and that the each image should be uploaded and added separately to the infoxbox? Can the same nfur be used for two or more images being used as a part of a montage as long as a source for each image is provided?
- Finally, I don't think the Group A and Group B winners for each tournament meet in a final match to determine the overall winner. Each group is like independent mini-tournament playing for promotion to a higher group/division or to avoid relegation to a lower group/division. For example, those in Group A were playing for promotion to the 2009 IIHF World Championship and to avoid relegation to Division I Group B for 2009. Likewise those in Group B were playing for promotion to Division I Group A and to avoid relegation to Division II for 2009. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Mechanically, I think it is okay to have one rational for a user-made image like this (which are meant as exceptions, not the rule), as long as it is clear that the two images are from separate sources and the final composite image is user-made. This has been done for the longer-running, updated image for the various roles of Doctor Who File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg, and I think is fair to only require a single rational for each use of the montage image. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:00, 22 December 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 appears to be a user-created montage. Two sources are listed in it's non-free rationale and the image is being used in European Tour 2012/2013 – Event 1. Both images might actually be simple enough to fall under the threshold of originality, but not sure. If not, however, then it seems that each image should treated independently of the other with its own non-free rationale per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- The second image would qualify for PD-USOnly but for that reason we should not be using a montage. There is a page for the overall series that that top logo should go to, while the second logo (once split) can stay on the listed page. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok Masem. There is already File:Paul Hunter Classic 2012 Logo.png on Commons so I'm not sure how that affects the use of the top image "Betfair European Tour". Does this mean that the montage file should be deleted and the top image re-uploaded as a separate non-free logo. -Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since June 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:01, 22 December 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 logo is be used in the infoboxes of Computer University, Magway and University of Computer Studies, Yangon. It has a non-free rationale for each use and ech rationale cites gives the same source, but different owners. If these universities are independent of each other, then each shuld not be able to claim ownership over the same logo, right? If the universities, however, are part of the same group/system, then No.17 of WP:NFC#UUI shuld apply and the logo only be used in one of the articles, right? Source given is for University of Computer Studies, Yangon so it seems as only the rationale for that article is valid. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk)
- Computer Universities in Myanmar are administered by the Ministry of Science and Technology and some of these universities' logos are the same. Computer University (Magway) at the official website of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the logo of the university can be seen at the lower third photo and it is same as the logo of University of Computer Studies, Yangon. Ninja⛧Strikers «☎ » 13:59, 29 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:02, 22 December 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 image simple enough to be licensed as either {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-simple}} instead of as non-free? The only possibly distinctive feature is the EKG line through the call letters. -Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- If uploaded or moved to Wikimedia Commons, you should use the PD-textlogo license. In my experience with similar "borderline" logos, few are even brought up for review, and even fewer are deleted. --Senator2029 “Talk” 06:33, 16 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:03, 22 December 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.
Both images seem to be user-created montages. Each has a non-free use rationale for Wuppertaler SV, but neither use seems to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Checked the links given for the source, but was unable to find any of the image being used anywhere on the team's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- The use of such historical logos are already problematic as is, so as such, these are both inappropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:05, 22 December 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 is being used in Maia Brewton. According to the article, Brewton is still alive and was an actress active in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since she's still alive, this image seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, unless the argument is that it is used to represent how she looked when she was active as an actress. I don't think that's a valuedvalid argument in this case, but I'm not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to change "valued" to "valid". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 October 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:08, 22 December 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 non-free use rationales for Survivor: Borneo, Survivor (U.S. TV series) and Survivor (TV series). Since this is supposed the image for the first season of the show (i.e., Survivor: Borneo), its use in that article seems fine. Use in the other two is not so clear per WP:NFCC#8. "Survivor (U.S. TV series)" seems to be about all 30 seasons of the US version of the series; therefore, if a logo is needed then I think the logo from the most recent season should be used instead. "Survivor (TV series)" seems to be about the worldwide franchising of the show so not sure how the logo of the first U.S. season is needed for the reader's understanding of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Given that the logo changes every scene for Survivor (yes, I watch, so I know this :) , the use of a general logo on the US TV series page is fine, as otherwise we'd always be shuffling in the new logo each season. For the overall worldwide franchise, the question of which logo to use is questionable since the US series has had the most legs but the UK series was the original . I don't see it as a huge problem in this case. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 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.
The outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:09, 22 December 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's rationale claims that it is the official logo of Ontario Highway 407, but it is being used in combination with the free file File:Highway407crest.svg to illustrate that point. Not sure why this cropped version is needed when the original version includes the numbers "407" and seems to actually be "more" official of a logo. If the "ETR" image is really needed in addition to the free logo, then I think the original "full" version should be used instead of the cropped version. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The logo as it appears in the infobox for the article in question is the one you see driving on the route. The full logo could be used for an article on the company that owns the 407 though. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is the "ETR" logo specific to this particular route or is it also used on other routes as well? The second sentence of the article says "The present highway is a privately operated tollway, which is officially known as the 407 Express Toll Route (407 ETR)". From this webpage, it does seem as if the uncropped version is the official logo of the highway and that File:Highway407crest.svg is just a generic road marker put in place by the governing body of the area. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 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 Pallagorio, but the source given for the image is this Italian Wikipedia file. I cannot read Italian, so I am not sure about the image's copyright status. It looks like the image is not to be uploaded to Commons, so that might mean it's use is only OK on Italian Wikipedia. Typically when it comes to textual content, Wikipedia and it's non-English versions are not considered to be reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS, but I'm not sure how this applies to sources for images per WP:NFCC#10a. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Google translate is clear enough to identify that a user Lynxlynx made the image based on the heraldy of the coat of arms (which is uncopyrightable - a specific artistic version can be but not the general elements). However, it is unclear if that user uploaded it meaning it to be PD/CC or not. Arguably, someone else can remake the same coat of arms in a free version, so unless we can verify this with lynxlynx, we probably should mark this as where a certainly-free replacement can be made, if we can't verify this was meant to be free. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 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.
The outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:12, 22 December 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 has no source. Image looks like a screenshot of the software's desktop icon. I tried finding a version of the image on its official website, but could not. Are images, etc. of software licensed as freeware also considered to be free? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, art assets of freeware may be copyrightable, one can't make that assumption. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am one of the authors of 4DOS and I designed that logo icon. I don't see any reason it can't be used but I am not technically the owner any more as I sold the business years ago. However I can check with the owner if that's useful, I doubt there would be any issue.Tr09 (talk) 18:31, 8 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 outcome of this review is to remove the NFCC rationale as this image is now public domain, being the copyright of the organisation "Taffy's" which has now expired; this is despite its inclusion in the copyright-renewed magazine Harper's Bazaar. --Tristessa (talk) 17:18, 22 December 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 states that the copyright on the August 1956 edition of Harper's Bazaar was renewed. (Renewal registration for: B00000606283 / 1956-08-02 Title: Harper’s bazaar. Vol. 89 [i.e. 90], no. 2937, Aug. 1956.) The license is invalid (PD-US-not renewed), the image can likely be kept as fair use, although there are a lot of images on the Anne T. Hill page already. Deadstar (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- From a note on my talk page: "Taffy's of California commissioned and owned the 1956 image and used it in their sales campaign. It is a full page ad in Harper's Bazaar, which Taffy's paid for, not editorial material. Harper's Bazaar reciprocated by running File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, an image also owned by Taffy's. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Taffy's went out of business in 1958, and did not renew the copyright on Taffyhbfn.jpg or Bazaar57fn.jpg after 28 years. Taffyhbfn.jpg, originally and ad, is now public domain. Schmausschmaus (talk)"
- So from that it looks like the image was not originally owned by Harper's and as such should be free to use & we can remove the Fair Use rationale? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the fair use rationale. The images were owned by Taffy's and are now public domain. Many thanks. Schmausschmaus (talk)
- A note from my talkpage (in regards to File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, but relevant here:
- When I was working on the article I had access to archive materials. The image is a Taffy's of California flyer; it is not from a magazine. Harper's Bazaar did later publish the cotton in the evening image as a bonus for the full page ad. The full page ad Taffyhbfn.jpg in those days cost $5,500, about $50,000 in today's money. Taffy's then sent the cotton in the evening image and text, which they owned, to the magazine which included it in their content gratis. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2015
- A note from my talkpage (in regards to File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, but relevant here:
- 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:21, 22 December 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's description says that it was never published, but was rather a gift from the artist himself. Not sure if such a thing satisfies WP:NFCC#4. Also, the image itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, and another sketch of the artist is being used within the infobox of Joseph W. Papin as the primary means of identification so not sure if WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a are satisfied as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- NFC#4 also states:" publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor". So we can't be sure of that much. For source, it should read something like "From owner of the original, one of a kind work of the artist". But if this is just something that has been sitting in a drawer for 23 years...it may not be something our fair use criteria covers.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:24, 22 December 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.
Invalid rational. The image is of a person recently deceased (non historic. 1986). The possibility of there being a free image is actually possible through family or request, but the image fails NFC#1 as most images like this of recently passed figures do. It also fails NFC#2 as it is a reversed version of the actual newspaper image and has indeed "replaced " that images market value by replacing the search results for the non free image to this reversed version. It also fails NFC#10 due to an incorrect link to the source and invalid reasoning under "Other information" and has the wrong license.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot immediately judge the NFCC#2 issue (as the source link does not lead directly to where that image is used), while #10 can be fixed if this is otherwise fine. However, the NFCC#1 issue is not appropriate. We do not make the expectation that family/friends will issue a photo under a free license (we can only expect control on volunteer wiki editors), and 1986 is way far in the past that the likelihood of other people having her picture is very low (compared to today with the world of Flickr and Instagram, etc.) This is fairly a non-free that does not have a clear possibility of a free replacement, though certainly efforts to find one would be welcome, but it is fine solely on NFCC#1 basis. But that doesn't matter if NFCC#2 fails (and there do appear to be other pictures of her out there that may not be as encumbered by #2 to be used). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 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 outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:25, 22 December 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 images File:Woodcraft Folk Official Logo.svg, File:50 year anniversary logo.jpg and File:Woodcraft Folk 75th Logo.jpg are all former logos being used in the article. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but there is only a minor discussion of them in the article and none of the discussion is supported by a reliable source. Images seem primarily decorative to me, but not sure if all or any satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sourced discussion about logo changes should really be present to have historical logos - there's discussion but no sourcing, so yes, these logos are primarily decorative otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 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.
.png){kind=link}
The outcome of this review is no consensus. This discussion has been unable to obtain editor participation since July 2015. It is therefore unlikely to result in any kind of consensus in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 17:27, 22 December 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 the infobox of 56.com. Image is not really needed because the website's logo File:56.com (website) logo.png is already being used as the primary means of identification and no relevant additional information is being provided by the screenshot per WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
- Websites and software appear to have the standard practice of showing the logo and the main page of the site, so this appears to be fine. (Only issue to be begged is if any of the stills should be blurred out if these are people that were unaware they were being filled, for privacy rights but that's a separate issue). --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Would the same reasoning also apply to File:4OD Screenshot.png being used in 4OD. This one appears to show images from TV programs. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 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.
No consensus established after prolonged period of time. If additional discussion is needed, please initiate new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2016 (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 being used in Ng Ga Kuen/Ng Gar King. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is being used as the primary means of identification as claimed in their rationales. Use appears purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is no sourced critical commentary for either image in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- One of them could be used for the identifying logo image (I would suggest the second one, perhaps trimmed away to just the circular badge part), but both are not necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 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.
Both files were deleted by Explicit due to being orphaned for 7 days. Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2016 (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 used in 5Rhythms. Each image has a non-free rationale for article, but it is unclear WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. Album art is not being used as the primary means of identification for the article and is not the subject of a sourced critical commentary within the article so I'm pretty sure this cannot be used. Other image seems more relevant and indirectly discussed, but once again it is not sourced commentary. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Basically fails WP:NFC#UUI#9 in concept (we're using albums covers to illustrate a topic that is not the album cover, and where the albums are not discussed in a manner requiring visual representation). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I understand about the album cover. What about the other image? I'm not sure that it's an album cover. In addition, it's also tagged {{Non-free with permission}} so I'm not sure how or if that affects its non-free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Getting permission for non-free does not in any way impact how we review it, save for possibly interpretation of NFCC#2, that is that because they have given permission (hopefully documented by OTRS), there is less an issue of our impacting the commercial value of the work since the creator said we (wikipedia) could use it. This doesn't seem to be the case on that second image, and to me, that's some type of cover but not directly illustrating anything in the topic, so is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Removed images from article per above discussion and WP:NFC#cite note-2 since decorative usage of cover art is generally not considered acceptable in articles about authors/artists unless the cover art itself is the subject of source critical commentary within the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Getting permission for non-free does not in any way impact how we review it, save for possibly interpretation of NFCC#2, that is that because they have given permission (hopefully documented by OTRS), there is less an issue of our impacting the commercial value of the work since the creator said we (wikipedia) could use it. This doesn't seem to be the case on that second image, and to me, that's some type of cover but not directly illustrating anything in the topic, so is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I understand about the album cover. What about the other image? I'm not sure that it's an album cover. In addition, it's also tagged {{Non-free with permission}} so I'm not sure how or if that affects its non-free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 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.
No consensus established after prolonged period of time. If additional discussion is needed, please initiate new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2016 (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.
User created montage, violating WP:NFLISTS #1. Further, there is no sourced commentary regarding the evolution of the appearance of the character, meaning if the images were separated into a gallery, their inclusion would still violate non-free content principles. Also, the article where this image is hosted, List of Beast Wars characters, depends on a single source for every one of its 43 references...and that source appears to be a fansite, in violation of WP:FANSITE. There are some days when I just want to facepalm and walk away. Perhaps someone else wishes to tackle these problems. Today, it's not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- A list of characters from a notable franchise series is actually fine though some of the details border on fan excessiveness. The image itself is likely not proper on this page but might be okay over at the franchise' main page to demonstrate the different art styles that the series has seen (which is fair game). As long as it is recognized that this image counts as 4 non-free uses in evaluating other images on the page it is one, that's okay. But it is definitely not appropriate on the list page (though we'd would accept a single non-user-created montage of a large group cast shot if such exists.) --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Considering the presence of List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters which doesn't so blatantly violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm not seeing the need for this article. Though, for this discussion page I guess such a discussion is out of place. More to the point, given the lack of sourced commentary regarding changes in character appearance, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. The caption for the image at List of Beast Wars characters makes that clear. --Hammersoft (talk)
- I've notified the author of the page and creator of the montage (one and the same person). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Feel free to do whatever, the list was actually a consolidation of the five or twelve redundant individual lists of all the characters and toys and appearances etc. that were in one thing and then the other and so on. The info was pulled from those pages, cruft and all. The image was designed to make all of the other non-free character images unnecessary. By showing the shift in art style, you can assume what the character looks like from there.I'd say that the narrative nature of the image makes it much more "fair use" than most character images, but whatevs. I have no personal attachment, but I think it'd be more productive to clean out the information that this list makes redundant. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:32, 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.
No consensus established after prolonged period of time. (However, some files were removed from I Put a Spell on You per WP:NFCC#10c.) If additional discussion is needed, please initiate new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (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 appears to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the covers of the various cover versions are inappropriate as none of them seem independently notable. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Commented out File:Nina Simone - I Put a Spell on You.png and File:Annie Lennox - Nostalgia.jpg per WP:NFCC#10c. Both of these were being used in other articles, so removing them will not lead to them being tagged as orphans. File:I Put a Spell on You (Creedence Clearwater Revival single) coverart.png and File:I Put a Spell on You (Sonique Single) coverart.png, however, are only being used in this article, so I'm not sure whether they should be taken to FFD or tagged with "di-disputed fair use rationale", etc. instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
_coverart.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_coverart.png&action=edit&redlink=1){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.
No consensus established after prolonged period of time. If additional discussion is needed, please initiate new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2016 (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 "Iran Scout Organization" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#Emblems which is nothing but a gallery of former logos. Image has a nfur for article which claims the image is being used in the infobox when it's not. Image's caption "2000s membership badge, reduced the Islamic imagery" is unsourced and the image is not discussed in the article. Use seems to fail WP:NFG.
"Iran Scout Organziation card" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#History. Its nfur claims "Images and pantings about Scouting from Iran from before 1979 are rare. Scouting was also banned several times, and existing images were deliberately/indeliberately destroyed." No source for the image is given except for a Wikipedia editor's user page, but the on the image it says "Copyright 1968, Boy Scouts of America" so I think the BSA probably could be listed at the source instead. Maybe the image has historical relevance because such images are apparently so rare, but none of this seems to be discussed in detail in the article. So it's not clear, at least to me, how the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 15 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.
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
WP:NFCC#1 no longer applies to the nomination since the referenced free alternative has been deleted. Other than that, no consensus established after prolonged period of time. If additional discussion is needed, please initiate a new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free image is not needed per WP:NFCC#1 because there exists File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg on Commons which is freely licensed. I've replaced the non-free versions being used in Brazilian Football Confederation, Brazil national futsal team and Brazil national football team with the free version so now the non-free is an orphan. My concern, however, is that the Commons image's licensing is incorrect and the image shouldn't be claimed as "own work", which means that the image will be eventually deleted. So, I am not sure if the image should be re-added to the confedration's article (the other uses fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) just in case, but this seems contrary to NFCC#1. What is typically be done when a replacement image exists on Commons, but it's licensing is questionable? Should the Commons image simply be used until it is deleted? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader of the Commons image has had a number of their uploads removed, because "Mass deletion of pages added by Bastian rojas; Copyright violation; found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work.". I think the Commons image is likely a copyright violation for the same reasons (unless they are the owner of the federation or somesuch) and have nominated it for deletion; thus, we'll probably have to fall back on our local image if it gets deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. The licensing for the Commons image did seem rather questionable. If it is deleted and we have to use the non-free one the question, then is will it be acceptable for use in all of the Brazilian team articles or only the parent federation's article. UUI#17 seems to say no. Right now the non-free image is an orphan which means it will eventually be marked for deletion. Should it be at least re-added to the federation's article while the Commons image is being discussed? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The image, File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg should be reinstated and not orphaned as it is the file that is licensed appropriately. The subject of attention should be brought heavily against File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg and should be orphaned as well. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The image only has a non-free rationale for Brazilian Football Confederation. It does not have nfurs for Brazil national futsal team, Brazil women's national football team or Brazil national football team which is required per WP:NFCC#10c. A separate, specific non-free rationale is required for each usage; Multiple articles cannot "share" the same rationale, so your claim that "licensing is perfectly fine" for these other articles seems incorrect. WP:NFCCE says "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." If you want to write a nfur for each use then plaese do, but I don't believe a valid nfur can be written due to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Finally, the non-free image was not being used in the women's team article, and the Commons file has only been nominated for deletion. That deletion is still being discussed and no decision has yet been made. It may not be likely, but it is still possible that the image will not be deleted. So until it is deleted, it is still acceptable (at least for the time being) to use per WP:NFCC#1 in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The image, File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg should be reinstated and not orphaned as it is the file that is licensed appropriately. The subject of attention should be brought heavily against File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg and should be orphaned as well. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The badge identifies not only the CBF but the uniforms of Senior, Youth and Women's nationale teams, therefore rationale use applies for the different articles about them. I don't see any reason to exclude the badges from those articles. - Fma12 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Fma12:The reason the image should not be used in the other articles, as stated above, is No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the individual teams are considered to be sub-entities (or "child entities") of the confederation, then the logo should not be used even if each team does not have its own unique logo. This type of usage was discussed at NFCR a number of times before, such as at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg, and the opinion was that the logos of a "parent" should not be used even if the "child" does not have its own unique logo. If exceptions to No. 17 are allowed for national football teams like in this case, then the same argument could be made for other "parents" and their "children" as well, can't it? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- The badge identifies not only the CBF but the uniforms of Senior, Youth and Women's nationale teams, therefore rationale use applies for the different articles about them. I don't see any reason to exclude the badges from those articles. - Fma12 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The above-mentioned file on Commons, File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg, has been deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 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 consensus established after prolonged period of time. If additional discussion is needed, please initiate a new discussion on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (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 eligible for copyright in France? George Ho (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- France has a low bar for originality (it is based on the work bearing the imprint of the personality of the person that created the work), so I would assume it could be copyrightable. Definitely falls under PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Is it acceptable to use "non-free book cover" and "PD-ineligible-USonly" together in such a way? Not saying it's wrong, just asking for clarification since they seem to be contradictory. Why is a non-free use rationale needed for a file which is not considered to be eligible for copyright protection within the US? Just curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 14 October 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 support for any change to the article Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2016 (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.
Both non-free images are used in 6abc Dunkin' Donuts Thanksgiving Day Parade to show logos used for former sponsors. Neither image appears essential to the reader's understanding of who these former sponsors were per WP:NFCC#8 and neither image is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 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.
Image can be labelled as PD-Textlogo and transferred to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2016 (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 this be re-licensed as {{PD-Textlogo}} and tagged for a move to Commons? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- That one would not be copyrightable in the US, being only slightly modified text. I dunno about Australia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 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.
Image is not fair use as it is replaceable. It is not actually a logo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2016 (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 use rationale for use in 8 Flavahz, but not sure if this kind of group shot satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since seems possible for someone to take a photo of the group in concert, etc. and license it for free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aye, I don't think NFCC#1 is met. Unless the group owns the copyright to photos of it, which I don't know any examples of. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thanks for taking a look. If NFCC#1 is not satisfied, then I understand the image shouldn't be being used. I don't quite, however, get what difference the group owning the copyright makes when it comes to NFCC#1. The "no free equivalent" requirement is satisfied if the group itself owns the copyright? I guess if the group owns the copyright they could donate the image themselves, so that means a "free equivalent" could be created, but that seems also to say that a "non-free version" is not needed. If I'm getting this all backwards or otherwise mixed up then please forgive me. I'm still learning new things all the time. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a situation where the copyright for a photography of someone by default belongs to that somebody, even if they aren't the photographer (when they didn't photography themselves). That is not how copyright law works to my understanding; one does not own copyrights to one's own image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is correct: the subject of a photograph does not automatically hold the copyright; that is the photographer. There can be a transfer of rights (such as work-for-hire where the photographer is paid for that, and the rights go to the subject) but that would need to be proven for us to assume that the subject has the rights to make the image freely licensed. There is the idea of personality rights in that if I take a photo of a famous person in public (eg all legal) but try to make money by selling that photo as to capitalize on the image of that person, then I may be afoul of the person's personality rights, but as we are talking Wikipedia and free content with no money involved, that doesn't come up for us (reusers are warned of this). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of the clarification Jo-Jo Eumerus and Masem. 8 Flavahz is the only article the image is currently being used in. If it is removed, the image will be marked as an orphan. Would it be better instead to nominate the image for deletion via FFD instead and give NFCC#1 as the reason? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is correct: the subject of a photograph does not automatically hold the copyright; that is the photographer. There can be a transfer of rights (such as work-for-hire where the photographer is paid for that, and the rights go to the subject) but that would need to be proven for us to assume that the subject has the rights to make the image freely licensed. There is the idea of personality rights in that if I take a photo of a famous person in public (eg all legal) but try to make money by selling that photo as to capitalize on the image of that person, then I may be afoul of the person's personality rights, but as we are talking Wikipedia and free content with no money involved, that doesn't come up for us (reusers are warned of this). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a situation where the copyright for a photography of someone by default belongs to that somebody, even if they aren't the photographer (when they didn't photography themselves). That is not how copyright law works to my understanding; one does not own copyrights to one's own image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thanks for taking a look. If NFCC#1 is not satisfied, then I understand the image shouldn't be being used. I don't quite, however, get what difference the group owning the copyright makes when it comes to NFCC#1. The "no free equivalent" requirement is satisfied if the group itself owns the copyright? I guess if the group owns the copyright they could donate the image themselves, so that means a "free equivalent" could be created, but that seems also to say that a "non-free version" is not needed. If I'm getting this all backwards or otherwise mixed up then please forgive me. I'm still learning new things all the time. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 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.
non free identity card images should not be used in National identity cards in the European Economic Area Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2016 (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 non-free files in this article should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are atotal of 10 non-free images being used in that article.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I agree with Stefan2 in that they should all be removed for not satisfying not NFCC#8 and NFG. FWIW, many of them also fail WP:NFCC#10c. All of them except the two Latvian ones have stand-alone articles so removing them will not directly lead to deletion. The two Latvian images do have nfurs for the "National identity card" article, but I don't think the nfurs are valid. Anyway, removing them will make them orphans so maybe it's better to take them to FFD instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the images aren't needed in the larger article but okay on the individual ones. For the two Latvian ones, either just allowing them to be treated as orphans with 7 days to fix, or to FFD for discussion should work. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Commented out all of the non-free images mentioned above plus File:Gibraltaridentitycardreverse.jpg per above and left link to this discussion in edit sum. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 8 October 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.
Neither File:Miss Moneypenny by Samantha Bond.jpg or File:Miss Moneypenny by Caroline Bliss.jpg should be used on biography articles for the actresses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2016 (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.
Over the years, people have added this file to the infobox for the real world actress Samantha Bond. I've always thought that we couldn't use non-free content in biographical infoboxes. Also, we couldn't use an image of the character that an actor plays in the infobox for the actor. Basically what WP:NFCC#1 says about the possibility of a free image being made.
Recently, another editor has again brought up this discussion and they claim that it's a common practice to use Fair Use files in actor bios, especially for soap opera actors. That discussion is on the talk page for the article at Talk:Samantha Bond.
Could we get a review of this so that maybe this can finally be settled for this image and this article? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- A non-free image of a living person is nearly never permissible since we can take a free image of that person. Just because they have a famous on-screen role is not an allowance to use a non-free; rare occasions will allow for this if, as an actor, their visual appearance that can only be captured by the non-free is of critical discussion, which I don't find to be the case here. So the image should not be used on Samantha Bond's page, though find at Miss Moneypenny's page. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NFCC#1 seems pretty clear about this kind of usage. It's not really whether a freely licensed image of this person has ever been taken, but rather whether such an image could be taken. Since Bond is still alive, it is possible for someone to take her photo and freely license it so the use of the "Moneypenny" image is not justified. Another problem with using this screenshot in Bond's article is WP:NFCC#10c. It is the responsibility of the editor wishing to use non-free content to provide a separate, specific non-free use rationale for where they want to use. Such a nfur must comply with all 10 of the criteria in WP:NFCCP. This screenshot has no such nfur for "Samantha Bond", so it shouldn't be used there for that reason as well. FWIW, if an image is really desired for the article then maybe an image request could be made at c:COM:Picture requests to see if anyone there can help. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Adding File:Miss Moneypenny by Caroline Bliss.jpg to discussion since it's face with the same issues: use in Caroline Bliss (who seems to be still living) and no non-free use rationale for her Wikipedia article. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 1 October 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.
This is not fair use on Christoph Meili but OK for other articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2016 (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.
Using the image in Threshold of originality and Copyright law of Switzerland is OK in my assessment since the image itself is the topic of discussion of aspects in TOO law that aren't easily described in text. But on Christoph Meili I am not certain - might fail WP:NFCC#1 since it's being used to illustrate a living person. Unless this specific shot with the tomes is both nonreplaceable with freer stuff and of contextual significance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it fails NFCC#1 on Meili's page. The photo is reasonable on the copyright law page as it is a specific example of discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 October 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 symbols are too simple for copyright in the USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2016 (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.
Two questions: (1) Is this image sufficiently creative for copyright protection to begin with? I'm leaning in the direction of no. (2) If it is sufficiently creative for protection, I don't believe that the use in Korindo (Raëlian temple) meets WP:NFCC#8. The use in swastika is more arguable. But I'm inclined to say that we should simply retag it as PD-ineligible. -- B (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know about the copyright status, partly because it's a vector version of a logo; my impression is that the logo itself is borderline in terms of originality if these case studies are anything to go by. It needs non-free use rationales for the other pages it's used on, though, if we keep it there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if US or Switzerland law would apply here, but I would agree they might fall under PD-USonly if they are still copyrighted in Switzerland (where Realian is HQed). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The standard for copyrightability in Switzerland is whether the work is a "creation of the mind with individual character". The logo could be copyrighted here (since I live in Switzerland). Suggest PD-USonly thusly if it isn't original enough for the US.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Both look like simple geometric designs - not copyrightable in the US. In Switzerland, which I know nothing about, Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality was an interesting read. Their court doesn't even find all photographs to be copyrightable??? The photo of the guy holding books would be unquestionably copyrightable anywhere else, I would think. Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States has some examples of things not held to be copyrightable in the US ... I would think that the NIKKEN, Bruce Lee, and Best Western symbols are all more creative than these two symbols. --B (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The standard for copyrightability in Switzerland is whether the work is a "creation of the mind with individual character". The logo could be copyrighted here (since I live in Switzerland). Suggest PD-USonly thusly if it isn't original enough for the US.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if US or Switzerland law would apply here, but I would agree they might fall under PD-USonly if they are still copyrighted in Switzerland (where Realian is HQed). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 1 October 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 too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2016 (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 for Australian radio station 97.3 FM (Brisbane). Not sure about Australia, but this seem too simple for copyright protect in the US since it simple text and shapes. "PD-USonly"? -Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 2 October 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 cross shape is not original enough for copyright, but the eaten away text at the top is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2016 (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.
Are the cross-shapes in the "9" and "O" considered artistic enough for copyright protection or should this be "PD-USonly" or "PD-logo"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 2 October 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.
decorative letters are not public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2016 (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 of American radio station which seems to be nothing more that text in a fancy font. Should this be "PD-logo"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 2 October 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 replaceable and therefore not fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems by searching Hubble Space Telescope raw images there are about 12 images of Abell 2029 (and IC 1101) one could process and use. Does this fail NFCC:1? --177.142.118.61 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think so, but only a few would make good replacements.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Good replacements or bad, free versions exist and must be used in lieu of non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 2 October 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.
This image should only be used in Kenya Rugby Football Union. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2016 (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 appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. Additionally, the fair use rationale mentions multiple articles, which is a violation of WP:NFCC#10c which says that there should be one FUR per article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on both points. FWIW, I think the image should only be being used in Kenya Rugby Football Union since that appears to be the most likely candidate as the "parent" article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 5 October 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.
Ilaiyaraaja YYYY
non free files must not be used in the Ilaiyaraaja xxxx series of articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2016 (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 articles (from Ilaiyaraaja 1976 to Ilaiyaraaja 2015) all seem to contain non-free files in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, though not all years have non-free images, however, those that do do not have rationals for that use and most likely cannot make one. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- most of the images are taken from the respective articles of Wikipedia. If the images are non free,then how they can be still in commons
- 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.
Discussion dead, moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg
- 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 All India Football Federation and India national football team. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but the use in the team article fails, in my opinion, No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I removed the image from the team article a few times, but it was eventually re-added. It was removed then removed by another editor with this edit, only to be re-added again here by an editor whose only edit was to re-add the image. I removed the image again, but it was quickly re-added here by an editor whose last edited almost one year ago. I am trying to assume good faith that these two edits were just coincidental and I certainly do not wish to engage in edit warring with anyone, but it would nice if usage in the team article could be clarified for once and for all. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png it isn't acceptable, but perhaps things have changed since that discussion. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling @Footydip: here - their argument appears to be that the team is not a child entity of the federation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's been almost 6 months since Footydip was pinged by Jo-Jo Eumerus and they have yet not provide anything supporting their claim made here. Footydip has not made a single edit since then, and their last edit prior to that was made in September 2014, so perhaps they are not very familiar with how non-free images are allowed to be used. The consensus at NFCR and WP:FFD (after NFCR was merged into it) regarding the use of logos such as File:India FA.svg has been consistent in stating that No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI (and thus WP:NFCC#3) allows such usage for articles about "parent entities" (i.e., the main organization articles when they exist), but generally does not allow it for "child entities" (i.e., individual team articles), even if they use the same logo. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 65#File:FSU Seminoles logo.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg for reference). The use of similar logos has also been discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/November#Fair use of logo with the same result. Some seem to think that the presence of a non-free use rationale (nfur) automatically makes the usage of a non-free image NFCC compliant, but I don't think that is the case. Adding a nfur just prevents the file from being speedily deleted via WP:F6, but a valid nfur is needed for the image to be NFCC compliant. I've seen only one exception (Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Gabon FA.png) which has been discussed where usage of such a logo in individual team articles has been considered OK, but that was because the notability of the parent article was considered to be questionable. Per WP:NFCCE, it is the burden of those wishing to use or retain non-free content to provide a valid nfur (i.e., show that it satisfies all 10 of the NFCC and is not one of the unacceptable use listed at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use) and I don't think that has been done by Footydip or anyone else in this thread. The image is currently being used in All India Football Federation, India national football team and India women's national football team. It has a nfur for each, but only the usage in "All India Football Federation" seems to comply with the NFCC, so it should be removed from the two individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){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.
Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (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 United States Soccer Federation, United States men's national soccer team, and United States national futsal team. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article, but according to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI it should only be used it the parent entity "US States Soccer Federation". This interpretation of No. 17 is being disputed, however, at Talk:United States men's national soccer team#Use of non-free images. The argument in favor of the image's use in the team articles being put forth by Savvyjack23 is The US Soccer Federation is the "governing body" of its national team, so essentially they are one, and not separate entities. No team, no federation. If it was a sub-entity, it would (most likely) have its own logo as the MLS and its clubs do, which are governed by the league but are individual owned by its owners.
This is an interesting point which I think needs further discussion because it would essentially imapct every national sports logo being used on Wikipedia. In my opinion, a national federation is indeed a seperate entity from each team just as each team is a seperate entity from the each other team at least when it comes to Wikipedia. The fact that the federation chooses not to have separate, specific branding for each team is not really relevant to the logo's non-free licensing for Wikipedia. For reference, the United States women's national soccer team is also "controlled" by the United States Soccer Federation yet its article is using File:USSF women logo.svg, which is (at least claims to be) specific to the Women's team. I am not claiming that the nfur for the women's image is valid, but since the women's team is also governed by the same federation as the men's, they should be using the same logo as the men's if Savvyjack23's argument is correct, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus at NFCR and WP:FFD (after NFCR was merged into it) regarding the use of logos such as File:US Soccer Federation.svg has been consistent in stating that No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI (and thus WP:NFCC#3) allows such usage for articles about "parent entities" (i.e., the main organization articles when they exist), but generally does not allow it for "child entities" (i.e., individual team articles), even if they use the same logo. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 65#File:FSU Seminoles logo.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg for reference). The use of similar logos has also been discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/November#Fair use of logo with the same result. The presence of a non-free use rationale (nfur) automatically does not make the usage of a non-free image NFCC compliant; It just prevents the file from being speedily deleted via WP:F6. A valid nfur is needed for the image to be NFCC compliant, and I've seen only one exception (Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Gabon FA.png) which has been discussed where usage of such a logo in individual team articles has been considered OK. That, however, was because the notability of the parent article was considered to be questionable. Per WP:NFCCE, it is the burden of those wishing to use or retain non-free content to provide a valid nfur (i.e., show that it satisfies all 10 of the NFCC and is not one of the unacceptable use listed at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use) and I don't think that has been achieved. The image is currently being used in United States Soccer Federation and United States men's national soccer team. It has a nfur for each, but only the usage in "United States Soccer Federation" seems to comply with the NFCC, so it should be removed from the individual team article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 24 December 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.
Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 7#File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2016 (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 logo being used in the infoboxes of Haitian Football Federation, Haiti national football team, Haiti women's national football team, Haiti national futsal team, Haiti national under-23 football team, Haiti national under-20 football team, Haiti national under-17 football team, Haiti women's national under-23 football team, Haiti women's national under-20 football team, Haiti women's national under-17 football team. Per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, usage seems acceptable in "Haitian Football Federation", but not so clear in the individual team articles. This edit sum says "The logo is indeed used by the entire organization as well as all of its subentities" so the question is whether the national teams are "subentities" (i.e., child entities) of the Federation and thus use of the logo is unacceptable per No. 17 regardless of whether each team has its own specific branding. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Similar to the above discussions WP:NFCR#File:India FA.svg and WP:NFCR#File:US Soccer Federation.svg, it has not been demonstrated that this usage is considered to be an exception to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The consensus regarding UUI#17 has been consistent in that using such logos in articles about child entities is generally not allowed. The image is currently being used in nine individual team articles (Haiti national football team, Haiti national futsal team, Haiti national under-17 football team, Haiti national under-20 football team, Haiti national under-23 football team, Haiti women's national football team, Haiti women's national under-17 football team, Haiti women's national under-20 football team, and Haiti women's national under-23 football team) in addition to Haitian Football Federation. Even though each usage has a non-free use rationale (nfur), a nfur only prevents the image from being deleted per WP:F6. WP:NFCCE requires that those wishing to use or retain a non-free image provide a valid separate and specific nfur for each usage, something which has not been done in my opinion. Moreover, WP:NFCC#3 requires that the usage of non-free content be minimal, and I don't see how ten usages of the same image meets that requirement. Therefore, usage should be allowed in "Haitian Football Federation", but removed from all the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 December 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.
Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 7#File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg. Non admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2016 (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.
Each image is being used in Pittsburgh Hornets. The two team photos have a nfur for the article, and the teams in question are being discussed, but none of the discussion is sourced and none of it is particularly centered around the images themselves so I'm not sure if the images are needed per WP:NFCC#8. The program's image does not seem to have the separate specific non-free use rationale it needs per Wp:NFCC#10c and how it satisfies NFCC#8 is also not clear. Image is also being used in WPXI#Local programming which also seems to fail NFCC#8 since the connection between the team and station can be sufficiently explained using only text.
In addition to the above, no specific source or copyright information other than "The Pittsburgh Hornets (defunct AHL team)" has been provided for any of the three images. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 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.