Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 15

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 10

←

Archive 13

→

File:Venetia phair.jpg

Image already removed from secondary article. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't really think that the photo is needed in the article Pluto, but that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. If you want to see the photo of her, you can go to the article dedicated specifically to her instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Copyright Act of 1909 applies to the photo, it seems to be in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was taken at the age of 11 and Venetia Burney was born in 1918, so it can't have been published before 1923 at least. Without more information, it could go either way, all depending on whether it has been published and whether formalities were followed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the maximum duration of copyright would be 56 years, if it was published before 1956 (which I can't confirm right now) then it is in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one could ask. This seems to suggest the copyright holder might be Galaxy Picture Library and they have contact details here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm? The United States copyright term is one of publication+0 years, publication+28 years, publication+95 years, life+70 years and creation+120 years. Where do you find the statement about 56 years? --Stefan2 (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If our article Copyright Act of 1909 is correct, that act would apply to works published between 1909 and 1976. Duration of protection would be 28 years with the possibility of renewal for another 28 years once. Assuming copyright was renewed once, that would be 2 x 28 = 56 years. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that figure of 1956 above from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, the law was changed. As far as I can see, the Copyright Act of 1909 states that the maximum copyright term is publication+56 years. This meant that works under the Copyright Act of 1831 were copyrighted for at most 56 years instead of the original 42 years, unless the copyright already had expired. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the total term from 56 years to 75 years, unless the copyright already had expired, which affected works under both the Copyright Act of 1831 and the Copyright Act of 1909. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act finally extended the total term from 75 years to 95 years, affecting works under the Copyright Act of 1909, but works published before 1923 had already entered the public domain since the earlier shorter term already had expired. See chart to the right (which assumes that works were renewed and published with a notice). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think without knowing when exactly the photo was published, it is impossible to determine whether it is in the public domain or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The photo blatantly does not belong on the Pluto article. Further, I seriously doubt the article Venetia Burney should exist at all. She is 'famous' for exactly one thing; suggesting the name for Pluto. That's it. Nothing else. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but is a different issue that should be resolved at AfD. Who wants to be BOLD and make the nomination? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've prodded it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
And it's immediately unprodded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another error with the image: it currently fails WP:NFCC#10c. Specifically, it says that you should have "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". However, the two articles currently share the same FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We had a discussion at WT:NFC about group rationales before, with the conclusion that they are inappropriate. Doesn't really matter. People do them anyway, and the use of them is common. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec ×2) {{Non-free historic image}}, which generates the instructions on the page, says "A rationale must be provided for every article any non-free image is used in, ...", nothing about "separate". It would help users if the template said "A separate rationale..." or whatever if that is what is required. Please can one of you update it? The shared rationale section can easily be split into two specific rationales, so that in itself is not a ground for removal, rather a quality issue to be corrected. --Mirokado (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That current rationale is blatantly inadequate in its current form. Lacks nearly all necessary components. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and to Mirokado; separating these Siamese twin rationales doesn't fix anything. Per Toshio, the rationale is woefully inadequate, and it doesn't even belong in the Pluto article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the rationales does not fix any other problems. In case what I said above was not clear: (1) the instructions in the template need to be improved; (2) the shared rationale in itself can be fixed rather easily if necessary so let's concentrate on substantial issues. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:FURG does say "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." So I have started to do that. Even if we remove the file from Pluto, the separate rationales mean that we can concentrate on improving them (or not) individually. I've started by adding separate, completed, template rationales corresponding to the original editor's information. Since I've not done this before, constructive criticism would be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is not necessary in Pluto. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No further comments for a month, so I have removed the image from Pluto and updated the rationale accordingly. I also updated some of the rationale text and I hope this is now satisfactory. --Mirokado (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg

Image is on commons so it should be taken it up there for any real action to be taken. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (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 surcing info is dodgy and highly unlikely to be "own work" of a individual user. In said regard see hthe users uploads [1]Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg#Metadata suggest the user did in fact take the image himself? I found the same image here, but I don't know whether they just took it from Wikipedia or vice versa. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, erhaps we can get another opinion on this?Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the file's hosted on commons, we can't do anything about it here. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Metadata creation date & time: 2011-08-13T15:40:08 (unknown time zone)
Commons upload date & time: 2011-08-13T18:48:33 (GMT)

The timestamps could be given in different time zones, but in either case, the uploader was only given a few hours to copy it from elsewhere. If a file was uploaded almost immediately after taking it, this may be an indication that the file isn't a copyright violation. Also, the uploader has uploaded many other photos which were taken using the same camera model. I think that it is unlikely that the file is a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Horwath.PNG

Image is on commons so any further discussion should be taken there. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2012 (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.

That image is at commons, and it does appear that the image was approved by an administrator as being freely licensed at the time of upload. The flickr user may have changed the license after then, but a CC release may not be revoked. Please feel free to DR it at commons if you are still suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Eric Harris pointing to the camera.jpeg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it falls within acceptable ranges for non rationale since there's no free picture of their self made videos and the copyright is most likely owned by Eric Harris himself who is deceased. Thank you. Nienk (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, no. We already have three non-free images on the article, and this one adds nothing to the article not already added by the others. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it fails NFCC#8 and #3a, so this would not be allowed. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  - Looks like an obvious WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8 failure to me. There are lots of other images in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:EvaUnit02Still.jpg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2012 (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.

Uses in History of anime#1990s and Tatsunoko Production#Anime series violate NFCC 8 and 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed from both due to NFCC#10c, but arguably, its use on History of Anime could be justified to meet NFCC#8 with a rationale (Neon Genesis Evangelion is one of the quinessential anime series, though whether an image is needed or not to show that may be a deeper discussion). I can't see how the image would work on the Tatasunoko page in any capacity. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The file currently violates WP:NFCC#7. I would say that the file also violates WP:NFCC#10c since the FUR explicitly refers to four pages (three articles and one WP:NFCC#9 violation), but WP:NFCC#10c requires an individual FUR for each article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The use in History of Anime were accaptable, if the article made some kind of reference to the image. Currently that is not the case and thus any use of the image fails NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I mean, the state it was in, it would fail NFCC#8, but there's a likelihood it can be improved to meet it but it needs the work described. But it certainly fails #10c. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Superman.jpg

Does not meet NFC Criteria 1 (no free equivalent). There is a free image (File:Fleishersuperman.jpg) available. This alternative image could serve the same encyclopaedic purpose of illustrating the likeness of the character Superman for this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

After posting this NFR - I remembered that there is a discussion on commons that I am involved with that has potential implications for our treatment of the Fleisher superman cartoons as "public domain" works. If these images are found not actually to be in the public domain, then this NFR will have been superfluous as- so I apologise for that. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree that this is not free but is fair use. The fair use rationale says its a cover from a particular issue. if thats the case, it should only be used on an article for that particular issue, or that magazine (superman or action comics, etc). unfortunately, this doesnt seem to be the cover, but the cover art, stripped of the DC logo or the superman logo. that cover art is presumed copyrighted. so I dont think it can illustrate the article on superman. The commons discussion you referred to doesnt seem to have broadened at this point, so I will suggest here and at the article that File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg is also highly appropriate, esp. as it gets the suit color right and has the daily planet featured.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the results of the linked Commons deletion and that the character is still protected under DCs copyright, the Commons Flecher Superman images that contain the character should be removed from Commons. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the Commons image isn't free and should be removed. I vehemently disagree that the current image for Superman should be pulled. It perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. This seems a spurious nom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say the nom is spurious - at the moment there is a supposedly free to use image on Commons - multiple in fact. That those are now up for deletion - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg (the nom there notes the discussion covers, or should cover, the entire cat, not just 1 file) - is important, but does not invalidate putting this forward here. - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This rather hinges on the Commons discussion, so I'd advise leaving this discussion open until it concludes. If any images containing Superman are determined to be PD the image is replaceable, if they are all found to be still copyrighted, it is not and a nonfree image is acceptable. Since that's the determining factor, we really can't move forward here until that's decided on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Ford 400 race logo.png

Repeating event logos in articles about the event of a specific year violates NFCC#8. Discussion has been open for more than 4 weeks without any action taken and no further comment, so I boldly removed the violating uses. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:59, 14 September 2012 (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.

Uses in 2003 Ford 400, 2008 Ford 400, 2009 Ford 400 and Ford EcoBoost 400 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Isaf worldsailing logo.PNG

Repeating event logos in articles about the event of a specific year violates NFCC#8. Discussion has been open for more than 4 weeks without any action taken and no further comment, so I boldly removed the violating uses. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:07, 14 September 2012 (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.

Uses in 2003 ISAF Sailing World Championships and 2014 ISAF Sailing World Championships violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:DanChallis.jpg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2012 (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.

Use of this non-free film screenshot is too dubious to be fair use. It identifies the actor as one character, but there is no shred of significance that makes this image relevant. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, but in my opinion it seems to fit the requirements listed here. The quality is reduced, it is being used in the article to illustrate the section on "Casting" next to a paragraph that is talking about the actor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the use here does not satisfy NFCI#5 since I do not see how that use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In that sense, the use of the image in that article is likely in violation of NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WAPDAfootballclub.png

Discussion has been open for more than 4 weeks. Violating uses removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:23, 4 October 2012 (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.

Use in WAPDA F.C. violates NFCC#10c (rationale points to WAPDA FC, but the file is used on WAPDA F.C.). Use in 2004 Pakistan Premier League is purely decorative and violates NFCC#8 and 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sweetbox 13 Chapters RS.jpg

Discussion has been open for more than 4 weeks. Violating uses removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:28, 4 October 2012 (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.

Use in 13 Chapters violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:HarryBrowne-LP.JPG

Discussion has been open for more than 4 weeks. Violating uses removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (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.

Use in 1996 Libertarian National Convention and 2000 Libertarian National Convention violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Always add {{non-free review}} before you put any image under review. I've done that for you. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to remember that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg

Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:28, 11 October 2012 (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.

Use in 1982 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament fails WP:NFCI#4 as the current use is not for critical commentary, but for identification. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's a unique logo for that year's event, and the logo easily passes the Threshold of Originality, it would be reasonable to have that logo in that location. The use of the banner as a substitute for the logo is probably okay here, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a non-free SVG image of that logo for the same purpose. (Please note: you cannot "fail" any of the NFCI clauses; they are cases where images are typically allowed but not the only cases). --MASEM (t) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with your last sentence. I think the use of the image is not allowed as the banner seems to be Other promotional material, but the image is not used for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While it is an image of a banner, it's the logo on that banner that is being used. Again, someone can vectorize that logo easily from that, and while we're still left with the non-free logo, its still appropriate. Until that SVG is done, the banner's fine as is (there's no free replacement, so removal is unwarranted.) --MASEM (t) 13:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not, as the image is being used for identification and not for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, NFCI is not fully inclusive. NFCI sets out conditions where the use of said image in said fashion will likely not be challenged (assuming all other NFCC is met). Use a type of image in a completely different fashion has to be reviewed for NFCC, but using it in a way not listed doesn't fail it immediately (that's what the Unacceptable Uses list provides); furthermore there's uses that don't fall into any of the NFCI brackets but are fine by NFCC standards. While it is a banner, and not being used for critical commentary, it is being used like a logo to represent the tourney, which is generally accepted to implicitly represent branding and marketing. It is a reasonable use that that not-freely-replacable non-free image were it a logo; just because it happens to be a logo on a banner isn't a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The image is of a banner hanging at a tournament, so I think it falls into Other promotional material. The use is clearly not for critical commentary. Yes, it depicts a logo, but it also is a banner which is promotional material. If it were only the logo, it would be acceptable, but not as long as it is also Other promotional material. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mis-reading NFCI. It does not say that "other promotional material" can only be used if there is critical commentary about it. It is saying, however, that "other promotional material" is likely not going to be rejected under appropriate NFCC terms if there is critical commentary with it; if you don't have critical commentary, then the use of the image will be reviewed and challenged if the rationale for its use is not strong enough. Because this is a banner that is showing a logo from a tourney that pre-dated the Internet and thus what appears to be the only image of that logo in electronic form, using it as a replacement for a simple logo is a completely fair rationale. Yes, this would "fail" the NFCI about "other promotional material", but again, NFCI's clauses are not meant to restrict the images to just those uses, only to identify where their use likely won't be challenged as long as the rest of NFCC requirements are met. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The rationale says "it cannot be replaced, as it is a unique item" and it "will serve to identify the winner of the first NCAA Tournament". How does that demonstrate compliance with NFCC#8, ie. how is the use appropriate under NFCC? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The rational can be fixed to take the focus off identifying the winner (as that's not necessary) and onto the aspect of being the identifying logo of the tourney. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to reduce the focus of the image to the logo itself in an image editing program. Should I include the white letters reading "1982 LOUISIANA TECH" in that version or should it only show the ship logo and the words NCAA82, Norfolk, March 26-28? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to touch the image. If anything, we need someone with SVG abilities to recreate just the logo part of the image to be used on that article. Until that is done, the use of the banner as the logo should be pointed as such on the caption and the rational. "The banner shows the logo of this event." "There is no version of the logo otherwise available, so the banner image showing the logo is being used in lieu of that". --MASEM (t) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a new rationale which is at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NCAA Banner rationale and is intended to replace the current rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was using a photograph of the banner, because I had been unable to locate the actual logo. The NCAA has graciously emailed to me all of the missing logos, so I have now replaced the (poor) photograph, with a better looking logo. I have filled out the NFCC template, which is more straight-forward, as we do not have to debate whether the photo cf the banner acts as a surrogate for the logo. I haven't given up on the idea of using photos of the banners in the overall NCAA Tournament article, but if I pursue that, I would only do so it I can arrange for better photos. I think the best resolution is to delete the image on the basis it is now an orphan, and unlikely to be used for any other purpose.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion, which has enhanced my understanding of some of the issues.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:LakewoodBlueClawsPrimary2HQ.GIF

Deleted at FFD. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2012 (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#10c: used twice in an article but only has one FUR. There should be one FUR for each use of the item. The second use of the image fails WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As nearly as I can tell, it is used only once (in the gallery). If you are referring to the similar logo in the userbox, it is a separate PNG file. —teb728 t c 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that File:LakewoodBlueClaws.PNG was a different file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Fernando Primo de Rivera.PNG

Image is at Commons now. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:45, 15 October 2012 (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 use rationale may be improper according to the licensing template which states the image is PD. If the licensing template is improper, then the use of the file in 1897 in the Philippines is a violation of NFCC#10b, NFCC#10c and possibly NFCC#8, since I do not see, why the images presence in 1897 in the Philippines is necessary for the readers understanding of the topic. 1897 in the Philippines already contains a wikilink to Fernando Primo de Rivera, 1st Marquis of Estella, where the image is present. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If the image is in public domain, it is not non-free content and thus it can't be in violation of NFCC criteria. What is incorrect here is the unneeded rationale that describes it as a logo (which is not), not the licensing as public domain. Fixed it by removing the rationale. Diego (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, a PD image can't violate the NFC criteria, that's what I meant. "Improper" perhaps was a poor choice of a word. I am not sure, whether the image is PD or not. As far as I know, the duration of the copyright protection depends on when the author of the image died. Also, it's not entirely clear to me the copyright law of which country applies (US, Philippine, Spanish?). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Established that this image is out of copyright in the Philippines and that it is out of copyright in the United States. Eligible for Commons. --George Ho (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (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:CWS Logo.jpg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI point 14. Removed from all annual events and placed in the overall event article. Removed inappropriate FURs. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (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.

Use in 2008 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2009 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2010 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2012 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament and 2012 College World Series violates WP:NFCC#10c. All those uses also seem to violate NFCC#8 and may fail WP:NFCI#2. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the only place where that logo is appropriate is College World Series (which is the event that it described). Without a specialized logo for the individual years, repeating it is inappropriate (being non-free). --MASEM (t) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Nada.jpg

Resolved. The film poster has been restored at File:Nada film.jpg and FURs on both images now mention the appropriate articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2012 (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 file fails WP:NFCC#10c in the article Nada!. Also, the infobox in the article Nada (1947 film) contradicts with the information on the file information page. If it is the file information page which is correct, then the image fails WP:NFCC#8 in the article Nada (1947 film). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an overloaded file: someone tried uploading the poster for the film over the top of the album cover; it was reverted and the history deleted but the film article and file descriptions were never fixed. I'll work on that now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BD tri-service badge.png

Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:26, 21 October 2012 (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.

Uses in Jahangir Alam Chowdhury and Muhammad Shahid Sarwar violate NFCC#8, as the use is purely decorative there. The current rationale for Bangladesh Armed Forces as written perhaps could be improved to explicitly state how that badge is related to the topic of the article. Current rationale is a group rationale, while NFCC#10c requires a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This file has several additional issues: The file description says the image is a self created work by the uploader. If that were true, it would be in violation of WP:IUP#User-created images. I don't think that is true anyway, as the file appears to be a derivative work using three (probably) non-free logos. The file is also violating NFCC 10a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Toshio, perhaps you could ask someone in the subject area? It would be very useful to clear up if this is an official badge or logo or a fabricated creation. If the latter, it has no future; if the former the FUR needs some tweaks but would probably stand overall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that I will come across as the uncooperative ass here, but it is really not my duty to do this. Looking at [2], [3] and [4] makes it appearing very likely that this badge is a derivative work using three logos. Either the part "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" at WP:NFCCE means something or it doesn't. If it doesn't the policy should be changed to reflect that. Apart from that, I do not want to give them my E-Mail address. Someone should do this under a Wikimedia Foundation E-Mail address. Is there someone at the Foundation responsible for something like that? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Hachiko 20040803.jpg

Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (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.

Hachikō statue photo was requested just under a year ago. Although the statue is in a public place it is still under copyright protection as the artist is still alive. A number of people, including myself, advised the editors of the page that a photograph of the statue could not be places on Commons but could be uploaded to Wikipedia under NFC. As this was followed by additional requests I interpreted the situation as the editors not knowing how to upload such images, I therefore uploaded one myself. The image on the page was removed by a number of contributors who believed it is still not allowed. I raised a Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Statue in Japan but that did not help. I did attempt a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 50#Hachikō but 15+ entries over that last 6 months was deemed as not extensively discussed for a dispute. Could someone please give an authoritative answer to whether this picture is allowed or not? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The photo of the statue will be NFC here on en.wiki, so we just have to consider the NFC criteria for it. Clearly because of lack of Freedom of Panorama in Japan, we can't have a free image, so only a non-free image of the statue will do. Normally, if there's free images of the entity represented we would not allow the statue (eg: we have free photos of the dog in use already). However, from the article text, the statue itself (and the naming of the station) is discussed to some degree, so there's a possible likelihood to include the NFC in discussion about the statue itself, though I would strongly boost this section (IIRC, noting how its a common landmark, meeting grounds for residents, etc.) to give more justification to do so. So to summarize: the use of the statue photo is not outright disallowed, but I would recommend improving details about the statue itself to better justify inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the file information page a bit by inserting the {{Photo of art}} template. I also marked the file on Japanese Wikipedia as fair use. I haven't checked how the file is used here, but English Wikipedia is generally a lot more restrictive with where and how you may use fair use photos of statues than Japanese Wikipedia, in case you're used to seeing lots of photos of statues over there. On the other hand, photos of statues are the only fair use images allowed on Japanese Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2012 (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:CCTV LossPrevention.jpg

Deleted as replaceable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2012 (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 rationale states that this is a "unique historic image". I fail to see how some bloke looking at a CCTV display is either unique or historic. There's no indication that he's processing a significant event, or indeed any event at all. The rubric makes it pretty plain that the actual purpose is entirely promotional. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it's easily replaceable if we wanted to show a person tinkering with devices to fix an image on a TV. Definitely a candidate for deletion. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

iTunes version history

Images orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2012 (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.

In the Version history section, 6 different logos are used immediately next to a table, effectively continuing it. There is no discussion of the logos, let alone their differences anywhere in the article. I think it's a violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. My removal was reverted, so I bring it here.

Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to your version, as there is zero justification for their use (the editor that reverted you simply claimed fair use). Also, I've AFD the article as a general failure of NOTCHANGELOG. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:LewisAsTheTyro.jpg

Image retagged as PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2012 (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.

Use of the file in 1921 in art violates NFCC#10c. In my opinion the use also violates NFCC#8, since the image simply floats along a listing of works from that particular year. The image is already present in Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, where it seems to be discussed. If the image must be mentioned in 1921 in art#Works, the reader should be referred to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s which could be accomplished via a wikilink. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The image was apparently created in 1921. If it was published in 1921 or 1922, then it is in the public domain in the United States. On the other hand, if it was not published in 1921 or 1922, then it is copyrighted in the United States due to the URAA. The painting is called "Mr Wyndham Lewis as a Tyro" and according to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, "After the war, Lewis resumed his career as a painter, with a major exhibition, Tyros and Portraits, at the Leicester Galleries in 1921." Since the word "tyro" appears in both the name of the painting and the name of the exhibition, it is likely that the painting was exhibited on that exhibition. Just exhibiting the painting is not enough (I believe), but maybe it appeared in some exhibition catalogue at that time? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually just exhibiting the painting can be enough, I think this should be PD...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a Canadian-born artist lived in London, so it is still copyrighted in UK until 2028, 70 years after life of the artist. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not relevant except on Commons; we can simply tag an image with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} here. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This says the image was first exhibited in 1921. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. The next step is s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister. That court ruling found that exhibiting a work did not constitute publication. However, it seems that the main issue was that the art gallery didn't allow photography, and that exhibition likely would have constituted publication if photography had been allowed. Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US suggests that placing a statue in a park where photography is allowed constitutes publication. The question is then: did this art gallery permit photography back in 1921? This whole issue with publication of paintings is a complex mess which has also been discussed on Commons (see e.g. Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/10#Help with copyright tag on old artwork) and the current practise seems to be that everyone simply ignores it. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue of whether the exhibition would've constituted publication if photography had been allowed or not for the moment, the section Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s says Lewis published a magazine in two issues. If one of those two issues contained a depiction of the painting, then that would've constituted publication I guess (see also here and here). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then I think that it would be safe to assume that this was published in 1921. I've changed it to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (with a reminder to move it to Commons in 2028), but maybe we should add some of the links you found to the file information page for documentation. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Persepolis Teheran Logo(2012).png

Image removed from 1999–2000 Azadegan League. Has FURs for the two remaining uses. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (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.

Uses in Persepolis FSC, 1999–2000 Azadegan League, Persepolis F.C. Reserves and Academy and Persepolis FSC violate WP:NFCC#10c. Use in 1999–2000 Azadegan League is decorative and violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for Persepolis FSC has been added. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SANDF SCWO Rank.gif

Policy violating templates deleted. FURs provided for all articles where this image is presently used. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (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:NFCC#9 on these pages:

Violates WP:NFCC#10c on these pages:

I've tried fixing the WP:NFCC#9 violations, but it keeps getting reverted. All three templates have various other WP:NFCC#9 violations too. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When you encounter an editor that does that repeatedly, make sure to drop a note on their talk page (I just did). I also note that the last four insigna used in the Air Force template are claimed to be pd ineligible but the eagle part certainly can't be said to be like that, so those are non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok for the first time ever I have found out that non free images cannot be used in templates. So I have removed the images from the relevant templates.

When I uploaded the file there was no option to list all the articles that NFCC#10c seems to require. Can you please point out where you would like this to be listed. I did say in NFCC#8 that this is insignia common throughout our military hence it is on multiple pages Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think our uploader considers multiple uses. You can edit the file page after the fact to create additional rationale templates for each use, which I have done as an example at File:SA Navy AB rank.jpg, namely by changing the article parameters. You should also review the reasoning for use to customize it for each page. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove this marked for deletion template now? Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can, if you have done that for each of the images involved that were marked. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This image is currently only used in galleries (as far as I can see), so all current use seems to fail WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This would be a case where the table approach would be a reasonable way to show the progression of insigna, barring that all other facets of NFCC are met. Strictly speaking, I would argue that some of those progressions only need two non-frees: in this case, showing the insigna for Senior Chief and Flight Sergent, and then describing how the lower ranks lack some of the elements. (Eg: "All Warrant Officer insigna use the eagle symbol, with various symbols above it to describe the rank: the Senior, Master, and Chief WO have one, two, and three stars above it, respectively, while the Senior Chief (shown) has a pair of crossed guns and a single star"). That's arguably better but possibly an issue to discuss across the board with national militia projects. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wolf activity:Sawtooth Natonal Forest

Question appears to be answered. Not an issue with the on-wiki use of non-free media, just sourcing. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (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 page Sawtooth National Forest had an unsourced statement about gray wolves. Earlier this morning, I added a source that could help verify but not competely verify, but this seems like it would also help. The first note, note 1, appears to say something challenging its use as a reference. Should I still use It? Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not use non-free content to prove things; that's what references are for. In any case, as a map, this is quite clearly replaceable, as someone could create their own. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that it said that that note you may see about how we need to contact them for distribution prevented distribution as a reference. Sorry if this is the wrong place. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need permission to use a page as a reference. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:World Cuo 1979.jpg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2012 (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.

Use in 1979 Cricket World Cup violates NFCC#8. Article is clearly understandable without the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, complete failure. The rationale makes claims that aren't present in the article and even then, its not a historically iconic image that needs to be shown to complete the article. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete But in cases like this when the image only is used in one article, I think it is easier to take the file to WP:FFD instead since it would end up deleted directly if the decision is to get rid of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hill Street Station images

All nominated as FFD; no need to continue any longer. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2012 (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.

(Merging two common discussions) --MASEM (t) 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg

Not long ago, I have requested a review on this image. I wonder if illustrating this scene is needed, as I would presume that the text overcomes this image. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I still can't figure out how you got the main image deleted. The affair is discussed in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether the main "hostage" photo is either irreplaceable or replaceable by text is irrelevant. Commentators have not discussed the whole main plot itself. I just used the "db-g7". Also, the review is several or more months old, and I have no point to continue reviewing four images as a bundle. As for the affair part, using a screenshot to illustrate that scene is... I'm not sure if that is necessary for scene illustration other than helping readers contradict critics' views with their own. I just added the image to help readers believe in their own views rather than critics'. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That file (File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg) has been restored and this file continues to depict the text of the article. We should Keep this file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, we've discussed these, they should be deleted. I double checked the article and while the show as a whole and certain plot elements are critically reviewed, no single scene is highlighted that requires visual aid per NFCC#8 to be used. All the NFCC screenshots on the show are presently against policy. The REFUND request was flawed since there was discussion before removal. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That discussion was withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Masem, can you nominate ALL screenshots of this episode as FFD and then close this? --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)~~

I have uploaded a newer version of images because the previous version showed only the face of the male character. Therefore, you see both female in one image and then male in another. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg

Not long ago, I have requested a review on this image. I wonder if illustrating this scene is needed. I have made a review on another separate image because I don't know if the text overcomes this image. To me, the article is solely about the episode itself, and another episode helps clarify matters and makes this images less necessary than I initially thought. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I still can't figure out how you got the main image deleted. What do you mean about another episode?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether the main "hostage" photo is either irreplaceable or replaceable by text is irrelevant. Commentators have not discussed the whole main plot itself. I just used the "db-g7". Also, the review is several or more months old, and I have no point to continue reviewing four images as a bundle. As for the gunned-down scene, well... I just added the image to help readers believe in their own assumptions and opinions rather than critics'. However, the episode AFTER the pilot help explain matters, as described by this article. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, ask Masem; he found it unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That file (File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg) has been restored and this file continues to depict the text of the article. We should Keep this file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See above - these fail NFCC#8 and were already discussed for removal. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That discussion was withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Masem, can you nominate ALL screenshots of this episode as FFD and then close this? --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)~~

Never mind; I have nominated this image for deletion, and the infobox image is already deleted. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Common discussion

I don't want to FFD them until we've assured what the reasoning is. I recognize that Tony is emphatic about keeping the images, but again, NFCC#8 is not met in that the article is clearly understandable without the images in place, ergo their omission does not harm comprehension. Though there may be new text since the previous discussion in Hill Street Station, I'm still not seeing any necessary connection between these images and the text. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought the same thing. At first I was not sure about helping readers understand an image or recognize significance of including an image. I did upload them to make readers judge things on their own without basing on others' opinions. I wonder if that's a valid reason. I cannot think about any other reason to keep these files. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can change the images to prove importance and significance, right? Or is it pointless? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, from the article, there really is no single scene or shot that is critically discussed in depth to as to require a screenshot to comprehend what is happening. I've found that when you're trying to find some way to grease the inclusion of a non-free image into an article and have trouble doing it, the article probably can't really use non-free in the first place. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG

Removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2012 (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.

Use in Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon violates WP:NFCC#8 and 10c. Use is purely decorative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the file should also be removed from 2006 Lebanon War. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

Image removed from all articles except for Hezbollah. Repeated policy violation is not by itself a reason to abandon enforcement of that policy. Should the policy be changed in the future, obviously this doesn't apply. Likewise, if the image can be proven (or rather shown to meet some reasonable burden of proof) to be public domain then this also doesn't apply. Until then, however, the image remains subject to NFC. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2012 (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.

Uses in 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid, 2006 Lebanon War, 9K115-2 Metis-M, 9K52 Luna-M, 9M133 Kornet, Battle of Wadi Saluki, Battle of Zabadani, Houthis, List of Shi'a Muslims flags, List of political parties in Lebanon, List of wars involving Iran, Operation Changing Direction 11, Operation Scorched Earth, Shia insurgency in Yemen, South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), Syrian uprising (2011–present), War of the Camps and Wars involving Israel violate NFCC#10c. All those uses also violate NFCC#8, as they are decorative, except the use in List of Shi'a Muslims flags, where WP:NFLISTS#4 and 6 might apply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? Guess what? I removed all of the abusive uses many times. But, people keep putting them back in. You see, if you don't put that 23px rendition of the flag featuring yellow with a green smudge into the infobox of South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), people are going to be completely confused and incapable of understanding that Hezbollah was involved in the conflict. So, yeah, we can have this discussion here about whether or not it is appropriate or not, but down the road someone will come along and put them all back in again. I.e., it's a waste of time, just as is the rest of NFCC enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then lets add all those pages to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Or better yet, lets file a request at Botreq to add all pages in main namespace to that category. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Ah, like me, the voice of despair. The reality is that playing the game of whack-a-mole to wipe out the violations is unending and fruitless. The violations will keep coming back. So, yes, one alternative is to allow this sort of use. Of course, if we try to get policy modified to do just that, it gets rejected. Isn't this fun? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    - Maybe you could try asking at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list? If the image is added to that list, it can only be used in articles specifically added to that list by an administrator. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      - That would never fly, as it isn't scalable to the entire project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags are inherently public domain for display purposes, atlases and guidebooks publish national flags at will. There is no reason why use of any flag on any page should be restricted so long as it represents the organization that uses it.108.5.245.216 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think flags are "inherently public domain". A flag is essentially a work of art and as thus the creator of that work would normally hold the copyright for it (except perhaps, if the flag were not creative enough and thus inelligible for copyright, but that has nothing to do with it being a flag). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Toshio. Just because a flag can be publicly displayed doesn't make it public domain. There are plenty of flags that are not free license. 108.5.245.216, you should read Gratis versus libre. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag is the property of an organization that has given up its rights by commiting unsanctioned acts of war and terrorism. Even assuming that they were a legitimate nation or respectable organization, their flag and logo being prominently displayed makes it publically available for commentary, review and representation (not public domain, but a blanket fair-use). That they are a declared enemy of everything that Wikipedia stands for (free speech in particular) makes me wonder why you're defending them. Krysee (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not so much protecting *them* as protecting any reusers of WP's content from being a problem later by tagging the image as non-free since there's no clear "free" nature to the image. The claim that because the organization has committed unsanctioned acts of war is bogus; it is still copyrighted to the organization. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a bogus claim. I'm not a copyright lawyer (although I am a lawyer), but I believe there are several reasons why the flag of Hezbollah is not protected under copyright law.

1. The design is seen in different variations and used by people who associate themselves with a particular political ideology, not just the people who run Hezbollah. The design is also used by the Revolutionary Guards. Its purpose, then, is to be used as an ideological symbol, like a peace sign, and is therefore not copyrightable.

2. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. US courts would never enforce copyright on behalf of Hezbollah on the image. If there are no legal consequences for using the flag, then an exception to the normal copyright law is carved out.

3. An "organization" cannot hold copyright; a person can. The individual designer (or designers) of the flag might be able to claim to hold copyright, or Hezbollah if it was a corporation (which it is not as far as I know) could hold copyright, but Hezbollah as a shadowy criminal "organization" cannot hold copyright.

4. Nobody has come forward to say that the flag or its symbolism belongs to them. Not Hezbollah, not an individual designer. The authorship of the design has been lost to the sands of time. If there's no potential copyright holder then there's no potential copyright.

Lexicon (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

3. An organization is also a person, albeit an artificial one. I am fairly certain artificial persons are also capable of holding the copyright in a work.

4. I don't think we (the English Wikipedia community) regard a work as free as long as no one claims ownership of the copyright in that work. I think we assume a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did make reference to artificial persons re corporations. An organization which is not incorporated, however, is not a person. Is Hezbollah incorporated? I'm pretty sure it's not. As such, the copyright would have to be held by the individual creator or creators of the work. As for assuming copyright, yes, that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright in the unfettered use of the motif in other militant organizations (the Revolutionary Guards). But add the two together and I'd say you have a strong case that it was never copyrightable, or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator[s] to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright (as against, for instance, the Revolutionary Guards). Finally, even if it is copyrighted, the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot.

I would argue that as Hezbollah itself is not an entity subject to law (it is not a corporation, nor is it a state), the copyright for the flag, if it is copyrightable, would by necessity HAVE to be held by its individual creator or creators. As the creator is likely unascertainable in law, and as the motif was obviously "donated" to use in a political cause, the flag was released into, and remains in, the public domain. Lexicon (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"...that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright..."

What evidence that the flag isn't copyrighted or capable of being copyrighted are you referring to?

"...or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator[s] to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright..."

Again, where is the evidence for this claim?

"...the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot..."

I am not aware of a consensus at the English Wikipedia that has determined we can use (supposedly) copyrighted works under the assumption that law might not be enforced. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely with Toshio on this. If the creator were not a member of Hezbollah, this would definitely be in copyright pending close analysis (but this isn't what's being argued here). Currently, works of Hezbollah enjoy (or do not enjoy a negative) right as far as I can see in the US. The US as a country has before declared works to be in the public domain, such as those from Afghanistan and other countries with whom the US does not have a copyright treaty. The copyright status of Nazi works is unclear, i.e. despite all Nazi actions, even they appear to attract copyright protection. In light of no evidence that the Hezbollah organisation has been singled out, this should remain fair use. (When was it designed, by the way?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I'm pretty sure terrorist organizations don't have copy rights in the U.S.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can prove it is not copyrighted in the US as well as in Lebanon then we can transfer it to Commons. Until that happens, we treat it as being copyrighted and thus non-free content which needs to satisfy the NFC criteria. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sosuke Uno.jpg

Image removed from all articles and replaced with free image File:Sosuke Uno 1977.png. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2012 (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.

Use in 15th G7 summit, History of the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and Japanese House of Councillors election, 1989 violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Nadia Khan.jpg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2012 (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 picture of a living person in the infobox without any decent reason - our non free guidelines oppose such liberal copyrighted picture usage and encourage cc uploads - Youreallycan 18:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

update - the uploader had removed the templates and changed the copyright diffs - I have left him an ownership question on his talkpage diff - Youreallycan 18:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:npd}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:FAP logo.svg

Removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (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, WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c in ~~Fabrika automobila Priboj~~FK FAP. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, are you sure? There's a rationale for the named page (unless I'm missing a misspelling here...), and its a logo used in the infobox about the company, so meets NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The file is used in two different articles, and I accidentally listed the wrong article title on this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok :) - yes, definitely fails all on the FK FAP page, particularly since the logo is semi-embedded in the club's logo itself. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.