Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 17

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 15

File:SouthAlabamaJaguars.jpg

Removed from all season articles as a violation of WP:NFCC#UUI 14. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 8 November 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.

Section restored from archive. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Use in 2011 South Alabama Jaguars football team violates NFCC#8. Image was reinserted after my removal here without a reason given here. Rationale for that article does not demonstrate how that use satisfies NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified the editor of this discussion here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:47, 10 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:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg and two others

I haven't done a lot of work with Non-free images, so apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly.

I added a FUR to three images, but would like a review to determine whether it is acceptable.

The three images:

No free equivalent.- Each item is a one of a kind photograph of an oil painting
Respect for commercial opportunities.- Owner of copyright is proposing this course, so by definition, this is not a problem.
a. Minimal usage. This is not the entire collection, but a representative sample, again with permission of copyright holder, so not an infringement. b. Minimal extent of use Low resolution used.
Previous publication.' Passed- -Paintings and photograph have been on public display
Content.- Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
Media-specific policy.- The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
One-article minimum. - Is on William Newport Goodell
Contextual significance.- The article is about the painter, so examples of his work are critical to the understanding of his work.
Restrictions on location.It located in an article and only in an article
Image description page.- Images have a description page contains the source, Subject to this discussion, the probable license is {{Non-free 2D art}}. A FUR has been added to each one.

--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Marcomother.jpg

Violating uses have been removed and image been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:54, 17 November 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 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother and World Masterpiece Theater violate NFCC#10c since rationale is a group rationale. Additionaly, the use in World Masterpiece Theater violates NFCC#8, as the use is decorative there. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:17, 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:Marco Rossi.JPG

Violating use has been removed and image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:55, 17 November 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 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother#Characters is for identification of two characters of that series, which violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:17, 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:MizzouPrimaryAthleticMark.png

Removed from all yearly and rivarly articles. FURs provided for the program as a whole as well as the overall team articles where it is still in use. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:53, 18 November 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 question the validity of the rationale provided for the use of this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry. The rationale states the purpose of the use of the file in that article is "to illustrate the primary mark currently used by Missouri Tigers football. This is the primary logo of all Missouri Tiger athletics.". Why does that mark have to be illustrated by this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's standard to include the logos of both teams in the rivalry infobox on rivalry articles. See, e.g. Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, Civil War (college football game), Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, Auburn–Georgia football rivalry, Carolina–Duke rivalry, Army–Navy Game. Mizzou415 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be standard, but such a use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. I am aware of WP:NFCI 2, but I believe the identification in the rivalry article can be accomplished via a wikilink to the team article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that a link to the team article serves the same purpose but regardless, as this identical usage is presently on dozens if not hundreds of articles, the use of a single image is not an appropriate forum for such a broad discussion. Mizzou415 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

When this has come up in the past, suitable text logos were found for most schools. Is there not a similar option for Missouri? (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there is - I'd recommend File:Missouri Tigers M script.gif from Commons be used on most of the articles listed above, with the likely exception of the main article about the athletics teams at Missouri Tigers. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't actually a University of Missouri logo per http://identity.missouri.edu/logos-design/index.php Mizzou415 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That MU "unified" logo in the above linked page, however, is a perfectly fine free (fails Threshold of originality) alternative. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Use in the rivalry articles is an obvious NFCC violation. It clearly fails NFCC#8. It makes no sense to claim that the reader's understanding of the article is materially impaired by the absence of the logo. The logos are simply unnecessary in articles about subjects associated with the teams. Mickey Mantle is fully comprehensible without a Yankees logo; Phil Simms without a Giants logo; Matt Lauer without a Today show logo, and each and every one of the horde of Playboy Playmates without the rabbit head. Under the nonfree content policy, use of such logos should be limited to articles where the central subject is represented by the logo. Perhaps that may cover de facto subarticles like the individual season articles, although that's a bit of a stretch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in team articles (Missouri Tigers, Missouri Tigers baseball etc.). The use in those articles seems to fit the usual usage of logos.
Delete in all articles with titles containing the word "rivalry" or a year, for failing WP:NFCC#8. A link to an article about the team is enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 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.

Gabbar Singh (film)

Both images deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:41, 18 November 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.

Two very similar images. Both of them currently fail WP:NFG. The back covers fail WP:NFCC#8 and there should be at most one front cover per WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, no allowance to include these. I'd argue the album cover is similar too, but I can see some complaining to keep it so less an issue now. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg currently has been nominated for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 1 November 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:Tlewin.jpg

Removed from tables in both articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:06, 20 November 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 Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) and List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of those uses are inappropriate, agreed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:38, 16 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.

Endukante... Premanta!

Poster appears to be an authentic, if early release, down to a "Working Title" inscription on the left-hand side of the image. The film poster file has been updated and the CD cover file has been deleted per WP:NFCC#3. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:02, 20 November 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 article uses two non-free images:

File:Endukante premanta poster.jpg (film poster)
File:Endukante premanta cd cover.jpg (soundtrack CD cover)

However, check here. There is a film poster which is substantially similar to the CD cover. WP:NFCC#3a tells that you should use as few non-free images as possible. Also, per WP:NFC: "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image." By choosing different non-free images for this article, two images can be reduced to just one image plus a reference to that one image from the other part of the article. Thus, the article should only contain one non-free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How Endukante premanta poster was updated so significance problem gone. But a significant this version exists in somewhere wikipedia as per you here Where can i found this article. Please give that article name and i will add that articl'es reference in this "File:Endukante premanta cd cover.jpg". By this, this poster's problem will be solved. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 19:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disputes resolved Because as per your opinion each article should contain only one non-free image. How is that possible because each film article contains infobox film and infobox album. For both of them seperately one image is necessary. So it will become two non-free images there also. And moreover in WP:NFCC#3a it was not stated " we should use as few non-free images as possible". It stated that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Importantly if this image info and other image info matches only we can add "The cover (or) poster looks similar to the other image elsewhere in the article" as per you. But all film article's contain minimum two images. So i have removed templates in the above and added reference given by you and that line. So dispute resolved. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The uses of those two files in Endukante... Premanta! both fail NFCC#8 and also do not meet the requirement for cover art at WP:NFCI. However both of those two uses are commonly practiced in film articles, so it is acceptable to keep them. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't fail NFCC#8. It was stated that "Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Yes it is increasing readers understanding of the topic and its omission is also detrimental to the understanding. So it doesn't fail NFCC#8. Raghusri (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree that the presence of those two images in the article significantly increases a readers' understanding of the topic and I also disagree that an omission of them would be detrimental to a readers understanding, there is an unwritten consensus that both such uses are acceptable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The main issue here is WP:NFCC#3a. People are arguing that CD releases need a non-free image and that such an image doesn't fail WP:NFCC#8, but in this case, it can easily be avoided by choosing a specific film poster and adding a textual notice that the artwork of the CD is identical to the right half of the film poster. The film title is also there in its special logo font, so there's not really anything which isn't present on the film poster. All recognisable elements seem to be there, so I don't see why the CD cover would provide any additional information which is not given by the film poster. It's really the same thing as articles where people upload multiple covers: the additional ones tend to be deleted at FfD. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 12, for example. Although not the main argument in the discussion, it was mentioned that a substantially similar image was used elsewhere (in Paradise (EP)). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Well, regarding the NFCC#8 issue, both uses of those two images clearly violate NFCC#8 (the article can be understood without either one of them). This also means NFCC#3a is not an issue here, as neither of the images is needed. However, neither of those two criteria is applicable here, since there seems to be an unwritten consensus justifiying having both of those images in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    - IT's not unwritten, it'd NFCI#1 (which has always been taken to include film posters). However, the point is that by using the alt film poster, there's no need to have the second image of the CD since it is the same. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      - NFCI#1 does not say that the use of cover art for identification only is acceptable. There needs to be critical commentary of the poster or CD cover. But I've seen such uses (film poster in infobox + cover of soundtrack CD) in numerous articles, so I believe there is an unwritten consensus that such use of the poster and the CD cover is acceptable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        Uh, yes it does. "Only for identification of that item" (this being the film or soundtrack for the two said cases). This is based on that RFC from a while back and recent subject of discussion to be clear we're talking about infobox-like images. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        Then what exactly does "not for identification without critical commentary" refer to? An article without any text at all? What would be an example of identification without critical commentary? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        Such as in a discography or filmography, or just using an image to decorate a page about the artist or actor. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        
        (edit conflict) My interpretation is that WP:NFCI §1 specifically refers to WP:NFCC#8. If there are other problems, such as WP:NFCC#3a, then the images should be deleted regardless. In this case, just one image would serve the same purpose as two images, so per WP:NFCC#3a there should only be one image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        How do they serve the same purpose? The first one is for identification of the film and the second one is for identification of the soundtrack album. That is hardly the same purpose. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        Images used under NFCI#1 are said to have implicit "marketing and branding" that helps to identify how the studio sells the work to customers, assuming that there is no other discussion of the art itself. Given that, if the movie poster and CD cover are significantly different - and that both works are discussed beyond trivial discussion, both images may be appropriate. Here, however, Stefan identified that by using a different but official film poster, it duplicates the CD cover, and thus the latter isn't needed since the marketing and branching are captured by one image. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        How do we know that this specific poster is an official one? When performing a search for "endukante premanta movie poster" I get numerous different images. How do we know that this is not just an image created by a random person using Photoshop or something? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
        We have to judge the reliability of the source that is claimed to be the official image. I can't comment directly on this example but if it were an American movie we would not likely allow IMDB images (since users can supply those) but we would allow Rotten Tomatoes (which has oversight). --MASEM (t) 12:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
        I found this shop where the album is being offered as MP3 download and uses the cover. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've rarely dealt with Bollywood works, I can't tell what sites are considered official or not for that part of the film/music industry. Working on good faith assumptions that Stefan2 has located and confirmed that the alternate film poster is an official one, in addition to the present one and the soundtrack cover, then Stafan2 is correct that the alt. movie poster is a single image that can be used to minimize non-free replacing the other two. But if the situation is any different, then the current situation is probably right. It's just I can't speak to any authority of what are the official images and sites to check for those. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep both per NFCI#1 pending proof that the film poster found by Stefan that is identical to the CD cover is an official one. In that case, remove the current film poster. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um, I think you missed the point. If the poster found by Stefan2 - which is visually near identical beyond text and cropping to the current soundtrack, then the only image needed for the entire article is the new poster, since the soundtrack is visually the same and thus excessive duplication. If the poster is not legit, then keeping both the current poster and the soundtrack cover is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Huh? Yeah, I meant, if the poster found by Stefan is proven to be official remove both the current poster and the CD cover and use the new poster instead. Until that happens, keep current poster and the CD cover. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    - Yea, that's reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all "Endukante premanata poster" was updated due to significance problem in that article images. So "equivalent significance" problem is solved. And "Stefan2" has stated that "There is a film poster which is substantially similar to the CD cover". And i have added the following sentence : "The cover looks similar to the other image elsewhere in the article" and "Refernce link" to that image as per advice and given by "Stefan2" user. So this problem is also solved. So this discussion is unnecessary and "Deletion" of both images does not meet the "Deletion criteria" requirements. --Raghusri 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the attempt to close by Raghusri because we still have the problem that needs to be addressed, in that if the poster found by Stefan2 is a legitimate poster for the film, neither of these two images are appropriate to include in favor of the single poster image. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And I've just reverted a second attempt by Raghusri to close it using the exact same reasons as above. There's no outstandingly clear consensus to retain both images so an involved party whose close has already been reverted once really shouldn't do it again. Once I read through the discussion and look at the article/images I'll close this discussion later today one way or another unless someone else wishes to present new findings and/or arguments. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 18 November 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:DisneyChannel2010.png

Image removed from all violating articles. Some restorations with appropriate FURS added. Questions regarding the notability of articles are for AfD to determine. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:26, 20 November 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 use of this image in more than 25 articles fails WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a bit more difficult than just a missing rationale. The first question I would ask is whether all of those articles are appropriate as standalone articles on notability grounds. If the answer is yes and if all of those channels really use exactly that logo, then rationales definitely should be added, although I would equally support removing the logo from all articles where it lacks a rationale per WP:NFCCE. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the notability question for the moment, if each channel effectively used the same logo, its reuse that many times would be acceptable, but obviously #10c needs to be met.

Spotchecking the articles its used on does show notability problems abound on all but the International and the US station articles. That's a question to ask somewhere else but where I'm not sure. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

All the Disney Channel articles have an unwritten special exemption from WP:NFCC #10c because the editors who like those articles are willing to force the logo on, regardless of the policy. I used to try to remove the Disney Channel image from the various articles it's put on. It keeps getting forced back. The policy simply doesn't apply to those articles. See, our readers get very confused when they see File:Disney Channel wordmark.svg. For some reason they are not able to understand they're looking at an article about the Disney Channel, and have to have File:DisneyChannel2010.png in order to not be confused. We ran into the exact same problem with File:Discovery Channel International.svg. We discussed that one too (deletion discussion) and that one was kept even though File:Casi discovery channel.jpg conveyed the same information. Nevermind that this image isn't actually used on quite a number of the national channel web sites. Checking the first 10 at file usage (well, 9, one of them doesn't have a link to the site) only two of the sites actually use the logo we're talking about. What is universal is the wordmark. But, the wordmark isn't acceptable here even though Disney thinks it is. If WP:NFCC were an enforced policy, there is no way this image would even exist on the project when the company that owns it uses the wordmark far more than this image. The image itself is an absolute blatant abuse of NFCC #1, regardless of the #10c violations. But, NFCC isn't enforced. All of you might decide to replace the blue/yellow logo with the wordmark, even act on such a decision. But, down the road the wordmark will be removed. It's already happened several times. Masem, you know I am right. How many more of these will it take to convince? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting how you apply 10c since using it multiple time is valid under 7. "7.One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."--Spshu (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The primary issue is not so much number of uses, but per #10c , each use must have a separate rationale. So if you use it in 20 different articles, we need to see 20 different rationales for each article. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the primary issue is that it is utterly replaceable...even by the standards of The Walt Disney Company...with free content. But, the editors here refuse to accept that and instead must have non-free content even when the national channels in question do not use the logo on their websites. If 10c were the real issue, all someone would have to do would be to copy/paste the rationale that is on the image an additional 29 times and change the targeted article reference for each to the article it is used on. I'm not suggesting doing this, mind. Rather, this is what people regularly do and the project turns a blind eye and calls this being in compliance with NFCC. Those things do not get challenged. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I did say "the primary problem". The #10c matter must be handled ASAP (it should have already been and I'm inclined to delete the image on all offending pages right now since it's been well over 7 days). The larger issue, whether 1) each country's version of the Disney Channel is notable and 2) given that we do allow the representative logo of a entity to be used on that entity's page, is if this single image is the proper logo for each page (if they use something else on their website, for example...) Assuming each page is notable, and that the logo is the proper logo for each station, then our normal allowance for the repeated image is (unfortunately) standard practice and within NFC requirements (#10c issue notwithstanding). But if either of these conditions fails to hold, then we need to reevaluate if this is the right image or if the image is really necesssary. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And so all #10c failing uses have been removed from the respective articles, with a note that a rationale must be added to reuse the image. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely futile. I've done this already for this image on quite a number of articles (ex). Result? The image went back up on the articles anyway. I've already spoken to this image being used on the various national channel websites (it isn't, in most cases). Doesn't matter that it isn't. The image will be forced back onto the articles anyway. In fact, it already is being forced back onto the articles after you removed it [1], just six hours later. Oops. Removing it is damaging to the project as it creates only repetitive make-work. You see Masem, people don't care about the lofty notions of free content. This effort of yours has been done many times before, and its failed every time on these articles. There's no reason to believe your effort will succeed when many others before you have failed. Far better to just copy/paste the rationales in for every use. The natural course of the project, thanks to its participants, is to marginally adhere to fair use law not the lofty ideals the Foundation has stated (but refuses to back up). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Masem, I'm not sure why you think this edit summary will convince the masses (or, perhaps, just the IP editor) to not re-add the logo when this one didn't have the hoped for effect? Hmm. Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, now I remember :) ... [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I took wisdom from the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". Taken more abstractly, removing content for failing 10c is utterly flawed. It's failed, over and over and over again. It's failed 15 times in this article alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll answer for you Masem. It wasn't effective at all. Another six hours later, and it's back yet again [16], from an IP at a different locale than the one mentioned above. That's 16 times on this article alone. Maybe 20 is the magic number? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Will this suffice as a replacement to this? (You can vectorize the former image if you want to). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No; the outline is complex enough to surpass a threshold of originality and make it copyrightable. Again, it's not so much that it's a non-free logo, but 1) it lacked #10c rationale for each use beyond the main US stataion and 2) it might be worthwhile to check if the international stations possibly use a different logo (Which then should be used instead), and 3) if all the international stations really need their own article, as what it seems is that most are just program listings and nothing about the station itself, raising notability questions. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 2 November 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:Honey Bunny Model Sheet.jpg

Appears to be sufficient evidence to support it being an official model sheet. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:22, 20 November 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 appears to be fan art, not an actual model sheet, especially as it is sourced from a Tripod site. Trivialist (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no verifyability of it anymore, so I definitely would delete. We don't use fan art as replacement for official art, ever. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The tripod source is outdated. The most recent version was uploaded at a larger resolution by Ivellios1988 (talk · contribs) with the comment "Scanned original introduction page, restored and cleaned", so maybe they have a better source they can provide which would clear this up? The old tripod source and a different scan of it both have the text "TM indicates Trademark of Warner Bros. Inc. (c) 1980" and "HB-1-C 12/80" printed on the image near the bottom, so perhaps they were just overzealous in cropping and cleaning it before posting it here. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can only confirm what VernoWhitney said. This is an actual model sheet Warner Bros. sent to their franchisees in 1980, not a fan art. I was just overzealous in cleaning and cropping it before posting it on Wikipedia. I can replace this file with version having trademarks, etc., if it's necessary. Ivellios1988 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we should be okay. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 18 November 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:Ngatikaura Ngati autopsy rear.jpg

Image orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 20 November 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.

Ongoing RFC on image inclusion at Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati. I'm unfamiliar with WP:NFCR so don't know what we do about possibly forked discussions. The discussion on the article talk page includes wider concerns, but disagreement has been expressed about the WP:NFCC. If the listing here is superfluous/inappropriate, please feel free to close this discussion. I'm only listing it in order to seek wider input from those who have significant familiarity in this area of policy. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The use of this image in Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. The article is understandable without the image. Furthermore the use of the image seems to go against rule of thumb#9. Thus the image is completely unnecessary in that article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This is precisely the criterion which is disputed. Per the linked discussion, the shocking image is not included simply to bring attention to an article (please assume good faith), but because it significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Anyway, to avoid recycling arguments here, you're encouraged to comment on the RFC. -- Trevj (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Any implication on my part that the image has been added "in bad faith" was not intentional and I apologize if it came across that way. Yes, the policy point I linked to speaks of sensationalism and I agree that the use of the image might have been added in the good faith belief that its presence significantly increases a readers understanding of the article. My opinion is that the image is unnecessary and violates WP:NFCC#8 in Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati because even if the image were removed, the article would still be understandable (please note that NFCC#8 explicitly says that non-free content should only be used if its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article topic). Therefore I think the image should be removed from that article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm still having difficulty sympathising with your opinion. How does its removal improve the article, as required by WP:CONSENSUS? -- Trevj (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It improves the article in that the removal brings it in compliance with WP:NFCC#Policy (in particular point 8). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That almost sounds like a circular argument. How does its removal enhance the encyclopedic value and informative qualities of the article, as viewed by readers (who may be unaware of our non-free content criteria)? How does its removal bring it into compliance with NFCC#8 when, in the eyes of an objective observer, its omission is detrimental to the understanding of the topic? -- Trevj (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that NFCC#8 is a subjective criterion. It's removal enhances the encyclopedic value of the article in that it improves the safety for reusers of our content, who, for example, want to use the content of the article in a book and publish it or want to use it on a website. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, can I ask you a question? Would you be confident that community conensus would support a proposal to delete the NFCC policy? The English Wikipedia isn't the German Wikipedia. Or are you saying that we should censor our content, so that reusers can republish without needing to carry out any censoring they wish to be in place? -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This image is incorrectly tagged "Non-free"; It should be tagged as PD-ineligible, per the arguments presented at Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati#PublicDomain. Thus, WP:NFCC is not relevant to this case – the above discussion, therefore, while thought provoking, does not apply. As an aside, When we have a High Court judge releasing the photos for TV broadcast (btw, the only objection in court was from the boy's killers), and we have the country's Broadcasting Standards Authority saying that showing those photos on the 6:00 PM news did not violate that nation's standards for "good taste and decency", "privacy", "fairness", "children's interests" nor "violence", how can one possibly state that an article about the photographs is enhanced by not showing a single one of the photographs? I'm sorry, but this is completely illogical. Please look at the images of dead children in the Holocaust article (make sure you scroll through all of them), and then please explain to me, based on the above arguments, why those images aren't also removed from Wikipedia? In the words of the BSA, "[The Authority] recognises that news programmes will often contain 'violent, disturbing or alarming material', and that broadcasters 'should not falsify by omission, a world in which much violence and brutality occurs'." Thank you, Grollτech (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is one thing to release the photos for public dissemination, but that doesn't put them in the public domain. It appears the Crown Copyright still holds on those, and thus makes them non-free, at which point we have to determine if they are appropriate to include, and the discussion that's closed on that page suggests they are not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than

"the discussion that's closed on that page suggests they are not appropriate",

a more accurate summary of the current situation is

"the closure of the discussion that's on that page suggests they are not appropriate".

There's a subtle but important difference, don't you think? -- Trevj (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck out the first part of my comments above, because it's muddying the waters, and nobody is responding to the other 80%, which is the important part. I've raised these points before here and elsewhere, and never got an answer, but I still would like for someone, anyone, please, to logically explain:

With reasons like: "It's removal enhances the encyclopedic value of the article in that it improves the safety for reusers of our content", or "if the image were removed, the article would still be understandable", or my favorite from WP:ANRFC, "I think a lot of it comes down to bad-taste to put an image of a naked tortured and murdered child in plain view." – why do those reasons apply to the above image, but not to THAT IMAGE THERE? Or to THAT OTHER IMAGE or to several of the other free images on that page? By the way, those images get 3 million page views a year! Most of those views, I'd bet, are from children doing schoolwork. Is there a problem with those images? No. Is there a problem with the above "reasons"? Yes—they don't stand up to logic and reason.
How can so many people deny that "[the photo's] presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" when the "topic" is the photo itself?

I suspect that nobody has (or will) answer either of these questions on point, because it is impossible to logically reconcile them. So therefore, can someone please explain to me why this is anything other than 100% pure, unadulterated CENSORSHIP? There, I said it – and since when did that become a bad word? Grollτech (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 1.: First we are discussing File:Ngatikaura Ngati autopsy rear.jpg here and any justification for inclusion in another article that might apply to any of the other two images you point doesn't necessarily have to apply to this image as well.

Regarding the image File:Ngatikaura Ngati autopsy rear.jpg being the topic of the article Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati, I agree that those autopsy images are in fact the topic of the article, so the article should perhaps be renamed to reflect that fact.

Do the sources discuss the circulated images specifically or do they discuss the subject the images depict (I didn't check the sources myself, but if it is the latter, then I think the article should be renamed and in that case the image violates WP:NFCC#8, if it were the former, then it might be acceptable under WP:NFCI#9). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should try reading the article and sources in more detail, then. I wondered how long it'd be before someone raised the "move the article to a new title and then image inclusion will be undue" argument. -- Trevj (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the sources are discussing the abuse and simply mention that images were circulated on the web. An exception is for example this source and this source, but most of the sources discuss the abuse itself and mention that images were being distributed on the web. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I'll have a closer look - but it probably won't be tonight. If you're sure about the title, then I think it'd be best to try for a requested move. -- Trevj (talk) 16:23, 11 November 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:Flag of the African Union.svg

Removed from all violating articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 20 November 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 numerous articles violate WP:NFCC#8. I already removed some of the violating uses, but some are still present. I might take a look at the other uses tomorrow. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed from Al-Shabaab (militant group) and Azawadi declaration of independence. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I did one a couple of days ago where it was being used as the flag of Africa, clearly wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed from Organisation of African Unity. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:18, 19 November 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:Festival of Britain.JPG

Image retagged as {{PD-BritishGov}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:00, 22 November 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.

No clear rationale. Rationale contained within the summary template at File:Festival of Britain.JPG#Summary could be improved by providing a link to the article for which fair use is claimed. Rationales for Abram Games and Festival Star are absent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this not be covered by the HMSO Open Government License? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proof that this work has been published under that license? If it has, then from what I read here I think use on Wikipedia would be compatible with that license. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at {{non-free Crown copyright}}. If recently, a government work from UK is still copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if it has been released under HMSO OGL it has practically the same status as if released under something like CC-BY-3.0. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it was published in 1951 I would assume Crown copyright has expired, unless you know better. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50 years, so it seems copyright has indeed expired. Thus the file should be tagged accordingly. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be tagged with {{PD-because}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate tag than {{PD-UK}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one: Template:PD-BritishGov. Must be conjunctioned with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged the file as PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Expired British Crown Copyrights are free worldwide (see e-mail link in the template), so {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should not be used. Besides, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files are not free in the United States and are frequently deleted as unfree files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly: Cornell chart. If still copyrighted in UK in 1996, the work is still copyrighted in the United States, unless it was published without notice within 30 days after first overseas publication. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, see the e-mail link in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 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:Ankh-Morpork City Watch.jpg

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:51, 21 November 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 rational is "it is only being used for informational purposes to illustrate the characters in question, the main characters of several Discworld novels, the four most important Ankh-Morpork City Watch members, which is not possible in any other way". While I can see fictional characters from visual arts such as comic books being appropriately free use where the presentation of a character is iconic and dependent upon the visual, I dont think the same can be said of a particular graphic interpretation of a character(s) that are from a text based source. Particularly when there is no third party commentary about the illustration and how it is an iconic representation of those characters. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Argeed, unless there is official serialized visual media, images of original-text characters makes no sense, barring assured critical commentary about them. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 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:Akali dal logo.png

Removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:55, 21 November 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 Lok Sabha violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:50, 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:Samajwadi.PNG

Removed. VernoWhitney (talk)

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 Lok Sabha violates WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:56, 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.

Ogden Nash

Portions of 9 poems trimmed and reduced to portions of 4 poems. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:35, 26 November 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.

Hoping that this is the right way to do it; I've never come here before.

I'm concerned about the amount of non-free text in this article. We currently have part or all of nine Nash poems here; if Nash were a painter, we wouldn't tolerate complete or partial displays of nine different paintings. Of course we should quote something, just as an image of No. 5, 1948 is appropriate in the Jackson Pollock article, but I'm concerned that we use too much nonfree content for the Nash article. No complaints about the image of Nash, which as the only image in the article plainly isn't a case of excessive use of nonfree material. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Text unfortunately has been determined to be outside NFCC's bound, but we still have to content with the text meeting normal fair use allowances that would be required by CC-BY-SA. One or two snippets, as you suggest, would be reasonable, but the amount present is far too much in talking about the poet. It definitely does need to be trimmed down. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When/where was that determined? If that be the case, we really need to update WP:NFCC, which spends time discussing quotations of non-free text before paying any attention to images, recordings, or other non-textual media. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the guideline WP:NFC as opposed to WP:NFCC which is the policy on non-free media. This is the discussion I believe that led to including some statement about text at NFC, the point is that with text, we don't require the rigors of a non-free rational and licensing, and therefore outside NFCC's scope, but it is still a "non-free" issue.

You also may want to point to WP:QUOTE where this is more directly discussed from a text standpoint. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean NFCC, which says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.". Moonriddengirl's note about the page not mentioning textual content is no longer the case. At any rate, is there any other page (other than the article's talk page, of course) for discussing the appropriateness or lack thereof of nonfree textual content? I'd be happy to take this there if it exist. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I asked Moonriddengirl to chime in here (describing it as a "minor (and friendly) disagreement"), since what she wrote is part of the issue. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it still comes down to the fact that when we generally talk NFCC, its about media files, as required by the Foundation. I think that line there is simply to acknowledge that text is handled differently. But as to where else to discuss, I'm not really sure; it's not like its an outright copyvio problem, so this would be the next best place. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were telling me "wrong forum" without pointing me elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Just thought you were looking to get support to getting rid of the excessive copy. But yes, this is probably the best page for discussing excessive text. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 7 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:Mahjong Titans 7.png

Apparently all sorted . VernoWhitney (talk) 14:26, 15 December 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've been reducing per WP:NFCC. This edit summary sums up the reverting editor's viewpoint: "(WP:RV: ignoring a portion of WP:NFCC per WP:IAR)". I have a suspicion that NFCC isn't an IAR sorta thing... --Lexein (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC) All sorted. --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 22 November 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:This image supports HP Cloud Services Solutions.png

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:24, 15 December 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 illustration has been used in the HP Cloud Services article under a claim of {{PD-shape}}, but it seems to me that it goes well beyond the Threshold of originality. Could someone with image copyright expertise please review? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is WELL beyond threshold of originality. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, there's not even a chance that would be considered non-original. Must be marked non-free and used appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt feedback. I've removed the image from the article and alerted the uploader. Does the image page need to be changed too? - Pointillist (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If the uploader wants to continue to use the image, they would need to 1) give it a non-free license (via template) and 2) include a non-free rationale with it. That said, while this specific image is going to be copyrighted, the facts it contains are not, and it would be rather easy to use free images from Commons or generated by the user to recreate - maybe not as pretty but jut as factual - the data shown here. Thus, really, this specific image is a non-free that is clearly replacable by free media, and should eventually be deleted. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 08:46, 6 December 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:Shishido surgery.jpg

Nominated for deletion in WP:FFD. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 22 December 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.

Fair use, but free equivalent exists at File:Joe Shishido 2005.jpg. --Ori.livneh (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I speedily removed the image from the article as per wp:blp. You may wish to add an entry at the blp notice board to clean up the article. IMHO it seems that the surgery is stressed too much.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ori.livneh, do you have objections to speedy deletion of this image? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all --Ori.livneh (talk) 23:39, 20 December 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:RB Stratos test jump - Felix Baumgartner in free fall ((c) Luke Aikins Red Bull Content Pool).jpg

Nominated for deletion; no need to discuss further. --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 23 December 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 Red Bull Stratos seems to violate NFCC#8. Use in Felix Baumgartner might not comply with WP:NFC#UUI#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The file description clearly says it is released for use in wikipedia - that is incompatible with Wikipedia so the image must be deleted as it lacks appropriate permission.--ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

F3 doesn't apply to images used under a fair use claim. Use in Felix Baumgartner fails WP:NFCC#1 and use in Red Bull Stratos fails WP:NFCC#8, so the image should nevertheless be deleted, but for a different reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that, from now_on, it's not upon me to keep or delete the file. I did as well as I believed I could, but I'm not going to fight. Best, &cu, [w.] 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold on - we're talking about a one-time event that is not common at all - and certainly not easily accessible to nearly the entire population of the planet. Capturing a shot of Baumgartner in free fall like this is not going to be easily replaced by a free image, so the NFCC#1 issue doesn't hold. (If it was the case of a promo photo of Baumgartner out of his suit, standing in front of a crowd, that's different - that's replaceable. This isn't.) There's other reasons to consider deletion (I don't think it's necessary on Baumgartner's page, and on the Stratos page, there's a better camera shot showing the actual jump itself from the high-altitude launch platform - so this is sorta duplicative), but let's be careful about NFCC#1 issues. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise: THISone will not ever happen again, and any&all footage or image material is copyrighted by "Red Bull Content Pool" -- and they won't argue, and meanwhile even refuse to answer WP:COM's or my emails.

So, enWP may either find a way to use the image under an appropriate "fair use" term, or leave it. Anyways, ~120+ years from now on, it should be free ;)) -- hoping&wishing that Luke makes another 50 years [today, it's his birthday, BTW. Meet him on facebook ;] [w.] 14:44, 21 November 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:NancyHansonLanza.jpg

Deleted for violating WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 23 December 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.

Isn't it free since she's dead? Thank you Keeeith (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The copyright status has nothing to do with wether the subject is dead or alive. Consider images of buildings or ships or other things that are dead to begin with. In this case, the fact that she is dead makes it harder (or even impossible) to get a free image, but that does not make this image free, it only provides for a stronger fair use case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 16 December 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:Lushington Hall Main Façade, August 2012.jpg

Deleted as replaceable by free content. --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 23 December 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.

It fails the No free equivalent criteria of WP:FUC. It was already deleted citing the same reason, that it was replaceable. Being a photo representing the front facade of a school, I don't think this copy is irreplaceable & hence, fair use doesn't apply. Suraj T 14:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

India enjoys freedom of panorama for buildings (per [[17]]), ergo, you are right, this is replaceable. Will tag speedy. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 16 December 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:Lawandorder01.jpg

Image has been replaced with higher resolution version with free license tag. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:40, 30 December 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.

Is this ineligible for copyright or non-free? This image consists of only text with flashy lights and black background. This licensing warring is messy. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the license it's a screenshot. A screenshot of a copyrighted work retains the copyright of the work. However, a non-free svg of exactly the same thing could be created. Weird, but that's why, when the revolution comes, lawyers will be the first against the wall. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is a screenshot or not. What matters is whether it is too simple to be copyrighted or not.

Text is not supposed to be copyrightable in the United States, but the image looks more complex than the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States. There is some distortion on the image, but this is maybe just caused by the JPG compression, and in that case, the distortion wasn't created by the one who made the logo. This image could maybe go either way, due to the light effects. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The "light effects" are just the same letters, just blurred and offset. Which is itself a completely generic and commonplace graphic design technique. So I'm leaning towards not copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I would edge on uncopyrightable as the blur/glow is a generic photoshop effect. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How doesn't it matter whether it's a screenshot or not? If it's not a screenshot, then I agree that this is probably ineligible for copyright protection which means it could be uploaded as being in the public domain. However, if it is indeed a screenshot, then the copyright applying to the entire work would apply to this image as well, in which case it would have to be uploaded under a fair use claim and would thus be subject to the NFC criteria. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Yes, it is a screenshot from a TV episode that, as a whole, is copyrighted, but when you copy only part of something you always have to determine whether whatever portion you copied is, by itself, actually copyrightable. This particular screenshot is not, because the words "Law & Order" and the fonts are not. One video frame out of a million could still be public domain even if the other 999,999 frames are creative and copyrightable. Imagine that someone took a photograph of this copyrighted painting, but cropped and zoomed down to one corner: the result would be a featureless blue rectangle, itself uncopyrightable even though it was copied from a copyrighted painting. Or take any copyrighted book that includes public domain images: a scan of such a public domain image would not be copyrightable just because the entire text and possibly every other image in the book you took it from were copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Postdlf - just because the work is copyrighted doesn't mean every frame is necessarily copyrightable (it's the overall ensemble work that is). That said, I am sure that someone can make a free SVG or equivalent image of the L&O logo to even take that out of the picture. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems not be in agreement with what Commons:Screenshots says. According to that, screenshots are subject to the same copyright applying to the original work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That mean that we must delete many a titlecard screenshot of copyrighted television show, like Shameless, uploaded in Commons. --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a great example of a titlecard that would be ridiculous to consider copyrighted. It's five words, plain white text on a featureless black background. Nothing about it is remotely eligible for copyright protection. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That Commons page is incorrect then, or at least is incomplete in that it seems to be written under the assumption that all copyrighted videos have no uncopyrightable parts. If you think about it, that approach simply doesn't make any sense. You don't magically get copyright over things that are either public domain or ineligible for copyright just because you've wedged them in the middle of other things that are copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no conflict: from Commons: "A screenshot may be published under a free license only if all the content shown have a free license. If, for example, all of them are in the public domain, then the screenshot is too, because there is no creative work in creating a screenshot. If a screenshot contains icons or content of non-free sites, it is not free". The assertion here is that the L&O title card is uncopyrightable and thus would public domain. Since that's all the screenshot is, a screenshot of the title card will be public domain as well. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Commons page also says: "Screenshots are subject to the copyright of the displayed work, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program."

As I assume that the series is copyrighted, per the commons page this screenshot is subject to the same copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are interpreting it wrong, with the sentence I quote clearly outlining a case of where a single frame of a copyrighted work may be treated as free. Otherwise that would give the creator of the show the ability to copyright things already in the public domain, which is unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So this screenshot can be regarded as a derivative work of the word logo, which fails the threshold of originality for copyright protection? Well, kind of seems to make sense, since if I'd create an artistic film showing, say, some moving geometric shapes such as circles, squares etc., it seems illogical that a screenshot of such a work could be copyrighted. So, yeah, this image alone also seems ineligible for copyright protection and thus in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, when you talk about the whole work - movement, sound, voices , etc. - I don't think any such work will ever meet the threshold of originality (eg John Cage's 4'33" of silence is a copyrighted work.) But the single element of the word logo - which is used as an element that represents the entire "brand" of L&O - isn't copyrightable, and thus any L&O episodes "derives" from that word logo as part of the intro, but doesn't change the logo's uncopyrightable nature. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If others agree, then I am going to remove the rationale and the non-free licensing tag. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We agree that this logo is free to use. I'll request undeletion of bigger version soon. --George Ho (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now it is out of copyright. May anyone please close this review? --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 29 December 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:Flag of ASEAN.svg

Seems to have been removed from pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 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 violates WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and presumably WP:NFCC#8 on a number of pages. At Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of ASEAN.svg, it was argued that the flag presumably meets the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely #9 problem particularly in a template (which I believe the user page uses extend from). Removed the template use immediately. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 29 December 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.