Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 63

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

T Bank

Consensus is both images are PD-ineligible-USonly. TLSuda (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Are the logos copyrightable? If so, then one of them should be removed (and a WP:NFCC#9 violation should be fixed). Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Logos can be copyrightable, but it depends on their complexity. Both here are simple enough to be PD-US, but they are not too simple for that across the globe. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (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:Brossard quebec flag.png

Consensus is the image is copyrightable and therefore non-free. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this copyrightable? The file currently violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The clover-made-of-b-shapes is just unique enough that I would not be comfortably saying it fails TOO in the US even. Treat as non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (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:FN-16 MANPADS.jpg

Taking in to consideration the initial speedy nomination, this discussion and the one on the image's talk page, the overwhelming consensus is that the image is replaceable. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving from {{di-replaceable fair use}} for more input Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a photo from a museum, so means anyone else can visit that museum to take a similar photo and licensing it freely. Even if this museum is a no-photography place (it seems highly doubtful), this is not the only object of its type in the world, and other version still exist that can be taken with a freely-licensed photo. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; this is a wholly reproducible photo, no reason that someone couldn't create a free alternative, just like a living person. It may be difficult as the Chinese military is reclusive, but lots of people on Wikipedia are reclusive too and that doesn't allow us to use non-free photographs of them. James086 ^Talk 13:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Zig Zag Revolver (3D Printed).png

Consensus is the image is replaceable by a freely created one. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Moveing from {{di-replaceable fair use}} for more input Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an image that can have a free replacement. The revolver itself being a utility object (as opposed to one of design) means its design cannot be copyrights, and the 3D printed version would similarly be the same way. But the photograph can be copyrighted (lighting and composition choices of the photographer) and as that came from a copyrighted website, this version is non-free. Since this appears to be something that can be easily replicated through 3D printing (which is nowadays a publicly accessible means of creation) anyone can take a photo of a 3D creation, and as such, we should be able to expect a free photograph of a uncopyrightable design. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (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.

Maat (TV series)

Consensus is two images is against WP:NFCC and there is preference for the newer title card in English. The other should be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The infobox contains two non-free files, but only one is needed. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only one or the other should be used: we have no pejorative against foreign language title cards, but generally we only use the most recent title card for a show which appears to be the English -version one. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 December 2014 (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.

Qatar TV

The logos not in the infobox are unnecessary and therefore fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article contains too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only the current logo should be used (The second one on the current page, with the clean BG.) --MASEM (t) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (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:Walter White2.jpg

The image fails multiple points of WP:NFCC including #1 & #3b on the article about Cranston. It has been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The file itself is fine since it's the top image for Walter White (Breaking Bad), but it's currently used in Bryan Cranston. There's no discussion of the image itself in the Cranston article, so I'm having a hard time understanding how it would pass WP:NFCC#8 there. Plus, even if there were some valid reason, the use would be redundant with the use in the Walter White article and fail WP:NFCC#3b. Mosmof (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As I explained before on the article talk page, Cranston's career drastically soared due to his success on Breaking Bad, and therefore the character responsible for that life change needs to be shown. Naturally, all that is sourced within the article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There exists a free image of Cranston in the Walter White baldcap/outfit (SDCC image IIRC), which is sufficient to show this. The character's image on the notable character page is fine, but not on the BLP page about the actor. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not contradicted my rationale for the image. As for the free image, link please? Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there are significant requirements for NFCC that have to be met, and a non-free image of a character an actor has played on the actor's page is generally not appropriate unless the visual appearance of that character is critical to the reader's understanding of the actor (which rarely is the case). But if you want free images, there's at minimum this one [1] from flickr that is CC-BY, perfect for our use. (more can be found here: [2] ) --MASEM (t) 15:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And those Comic Con photos are already uploaded to Commons as File:Bryan Cranston (9362418167).jpg and File:Bryan Cranston (9362420359).jpg. Either would work in context. Mosmof (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Walter White is a character that marked a significant turnout for his career, his transformation is subject to many sourced discussions, and it is probably the most significant page in the actor's life, therefore it belongs on the actor's page. As for the images, they depict a Walter White mask that was worn by Cranston as a prank. We need Cranston's actual face as Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that playing Walter was a significant part of Cranston's career. But we don't need an image to make that point. A free image can be used to help emphasize that and as such the SDCC photos are just as good, but a non-free image of Craston as Walter does not fit NFCC requirements, particularly as, while it is clearly a staged event in the SDCC photos, there's very little distinction between Craston-wearing-a-Walter-mask, and Cranston made up as Walter to the causal viewer. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"[T]here's very little distinction between Craston-wearing-a-Walter-mask, and Cranston made up as Walter" is a disturbingly amateur statement. This is an encyclopedia. As for importance of having the image, when multiple sources prove that White is his "lifetime" career defying role, the character looks very different, and there is not a single image of that character in the article - that is not very professional either, is it? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

However, we are an encyclopedia with a goal of providing and promoting free content, and explicitly cannot use non-free images of living persons without very good cause, and in the past, a non-free image of a career-defining role an actor has played on the actor's page is not one of the limited exceptions, unless the visual image of that actor is critical to understanding the success of the actor - basically that the looks of the actor in the role are the subject of critical commentary. This is not the case for Cranston. Also keep in mind, the page about Walter is a click away from Cranston's page. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of critical commentary on that within the sources in the Cranston article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not on his visual appearance as White, which would be needed to require a non-free image, and particularly when we have free images that are "close enough" for a bio article. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, "close enough" for an amateur blog, not for an encyclopedia. You wouldn't put a doodle of the Mona Lisa here, would you? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a free content mission, and in this case, yes the free image is good enough if you really feel the need to illustrate the Walter character on Cranston's page. But no non-free may be used in its place. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Free content, with permission for fair use of non-free images with reduced quality. For all the reasons listed above, this qualifies as well. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the image can be replaced with a free equivalent (which can include "no image") we are required to take that by the Foundation. We have a clearly equivalent free replacement, so the non-free is not allowed. It's not "pixel perfect" equivalent, but it is academically equivalent and that's the guideline we use. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

But it's clearly not equivalent, and pixels have nothing to do with it. It's a latex mask vs. the actor's actual face, in an article about that actor playing the role with that face. His mask-wearing prank at Comic-Con is not the subject of discussion, his actual portrayal of Walter White is. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Cranston article that supports the use of non-free imagary of the Walter White character; the reader understanding that Cranston played Walter White is not diminished by the lack of an image. Yes, it is an important role, but there is no indiciation of the visual appearance of the role as it specifically pertains to Cranston's biography, it is just a role, so non-free may not be used to represent it. Note we don't do this for other actors as well as a rule, so we're not going to change it here. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, except for everything I stated earlier. Yes, the reader's understanding is diminished by lack of image, because it is a different image, yet very notable. Please refrain from unilateral removals until this discussion runs its course. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. There is nothing in the article that provides contextual significance for the use of that image - that is, there is not a single line of prose that explains the importance of the visual look of Walter White on how it impacted Cranston's career. Playing the character of White certainly had an effect on his career, but we stay that with prose, the reader has no need to see the image of the character to understand that facet. Period. Look at most other actor pages - we do not include non-free images of characters they are most notable for on living actor bio pages because of non-free. On the character page, yes, its completely in line, we want press kit images of characters "in the mood", to speak, but there's zero need for them on bio pages under our free content mission/non-free policy requirements. Further, you have a failure of NFCC#10 here as well. Furthermore, we have a free replacement image in the SDCC mask images, which work for the purposes of WP, so if you really need to have an image of White, you have those free images to use. NFCC is a hard policy, and is strongly enforced like BLP, and in this specific case, there is no question this is a failure of imagery. Do not readd the image. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK. Masem is quite correct here. There is nothing unique about the "real" photos that cannot be served by the free equivalent in the Cranston article, and as his physical appearance as White is not the subject of any discussion in the Cranston article, no image is an acceptable substitute. Almost every actor has their major roles. Almost none of them have photos in that role. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as an counter example: Robin Williams (while deceased) has only one non-free image, this of him in his Mork-personality circa the 80s, which is arguably one of his critical roles. It is not because this image displays the Mork character, but because the image itself has discussion within the body of the text relating to Williams the actor have two sides to his performance, and how the image was used to respect the actor after his death. That's the type of critical commentary that we would expect to have about a non-free image of a character played by an actor to use that image on the actor's page. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dark night.jpg

Consensus is the image is not copyrightable. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

It this copyrightable? Somewhat unusual typography, not sure if that is copyrightable or not. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: As there is a different image on Commons under this name, I've requested a rename to File:Dark Night of the Soul.jpg. Please refer to this new name after the renaming. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, at least within the US it would be too simple to copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (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:Diran Kelekian.jpg

Image is freely licensed. Changed to Commons version as no need for both copies. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

A different variant of this photograph is on Commons as c:File:Diran Kelekian.jpg under a CC licence, which looks incorrect. That one, in turn, refers to c:File:April24Victims.jpg, where the picture is claimed to be in the public domain. I'm not sure if this is correct, though. Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The base image of the 10 persons appears legitimately in the PD (if you check the file history, you can see a few editors played around with orientation to get a good working image). So all derived images are (presumably) free; there is no need for the non-free version here. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (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.

User:Taxman1913

Images that violate WP:NFCC#9 have been resolved by the user. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This page violates WP:NFCC#9. Various non-free files are used in collapsible sections labelled as travelling. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My violation of the fair-use policy was unintentional. In order to rectify the situation, I've reviewed the status of each media file invoked on my user page of the type described with the disposition of each as follows:

Flag of Bali – public domain
Flag of Banten Province – free use
Flag of Central Java – free use
Flag of Jakarta – public domain
Flag of West Java – public domain
Flag of West Nusa Tenggara – free use
Flag of Kedah – public domain
Flag of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – public domain
Flag of Taoyuan County – public domain
Seal of Phuket (blue) – public domain
Flag of Dili – free use
Flag of Abuu Dhabi – public domain
Flag of Dubai – public domain
Flag of Greater London – public domain
Flag of Northern Ireland – public domain
Antrim arms – free use
Tyrone arms – free use
Bronx Flag – public domain
Flag of Dutchess County, New York – public domain (minor dispute about the precise status of this image, but apparently free use in any case)
Flag of Brooklyn – public domain
Flag of Nassau County, New York – status of image not clear on file page, but created at least as early as 1899, and must be public domain due to its age
Flag of New York County – public domain
Flag of Orange County, NY – non-free use – removed from my user page
Flag of Queens – public domain
NY-Staten Island – free use
Flag of Rockland County, New York – non-free use – removed from my user page
Flag of Suffolk County, New York – non-free use – removed from my user page
Sullivan County, New York seal – non-free use – removed from my user page
Flag of Ulster County, New York – non-free use – removed from my user page
Westchester County Flag – non-free use – removed from my user page Taxman1913 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Taxman1913: You can use this tool to determine what is non-free. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I sure wish I had known about that earlier. Thanks. Better late than never. Taxman1913 (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: With regard to the Flag of Nassau County, New York, the blazon for this flag was approved and published by the county on 3 January 1899.[3] Obviously, the flag has been in use long enough to be in the public domain. Another editor questioned on the file's page whether the particular rendering that has been uploaded might have some protection. I don't know how this is possible. Once something is in the public domain, doesn't it remain there forever and ever? I find myself among a group of folks who are clearly more knowledgeable about these matters than I am. So, rather than simply changing the status of the file to public domain, I am seeking advice and comments to ensure that we get it right. Taxman1913 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: It is apparent that the coutesy I extended to you with a promt, complete and polite response to the issue you raised has not been reciprocated. You simply deleted the image from my user page. I was interested in getting the image properly classified. I don't know what your interests are; this is disappointing. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I must have forgot about this discussion. This page contains two different drawings of the same coat of arms. Per c:COM:COA#Copyright on the representation, the two different drawings are not necessarily subject to the same copyright restrictions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thank you for the clarification. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Iichirō Hatoyama

Consensus is two non-free identical (yet cropped) images violates WP:NFCC. Preference seems to be given to the original uncropped version. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There is no need for two copies of the same photograph (one cropped, one not cropped). Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; there's no problem using the uncropped version as the infobox image as long as it is captioned with "(center)" or something to be clear whom the person in question is. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 30 December 2014 (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:Leelah Alcorn.jpg

The consensus at the time (January 2015) was that there likely was not a free image that could replace it, but potentially one could exist due to the subject's public nature. The digressers argued that this may be true, but due to the subject's recent death there had been no chance to see if a free image would surface. Taking this discussion into account with it being four months later, I believe the consensus leads to the image not failing WP:NFCC#1 due to the subject being deceased. TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

non free file - lots of reason to believe there are and will be free files of this person. Please don't comment from your heart, read and comment only in regards to the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria, as is apparently usual in these cases, the file is no longer hosted at its original uploaded location - http://lazerprincess.tumblr.com/ originally uploaded by User:Sam Walton - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Samwalton9 - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of case that yes, just because they have died, that they lived a very social life and as such there is a good chance that there will be a free image that we can get (particularly as this is still "breaking"). One option would be to approach the family but well after a fair period of mourning, like 3-6 months down the road. So while we cannot create a free image, the likelihood one already exists has yet to be tested. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Reddon666: who was the original uploader, I just reduced it from the original definitely-not-NFCC-compatible resolution. Sam Walton (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Well considering that a lot of personal issues are copyrighted at the time they are taken, including the selfie included, I'm not sure if it would be possible to have one released. The family might have some they might be willing to release, but we can't and shouldn't make that assumption. Tutelary (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
My search using google engine reveals a lot of pics of her, she had blogs and a strong looking public persona, she was not a private person in any way that I can see, there is a good strong likelihood that there is a free licensed pic of her out there. The fact that a non free picture has been added to the article seems to me is stopping anyone looking for a free one? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completely changed the license behind this image; it is now listed as "a unique historic image". This must subsequently affect, and perhaps even invalidate, the discussion which has taken place here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not a unique image, given that there are plenty of other picture of this person on the Internet. It is far too soon after their death to be using a non-free image when there's a very likely chance that a free image can be obtained, particularly in light that they have become a major figure for a cause. After 6 or so months, if no free image has become available and asking appropriate people (like the family, but not until a reasonable amount of time of mourning has passed) then we might consider a non-free. But not in the short term. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you User:Masem the recent changes to a claim of unique image have actually served to weaken the case for its non free usage on wikipedia - also the additions to the file description by User:Midnightblueowl such as the claim that, She cited the transphobia and discrimination that she faced in life as a key reason behind her decision to commit suicide....and, it was the transphobic harassment that she faced which led to her death has additional issues in regards to wiki policy and guidelines imo - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed those words as a clear BLP violation. St Anselm (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem Since the family's reaction to the subject's trans nature was a major component of their suicide, it is unlikely that the family would release a photo of the subject as a female. A male photo would be unlikely to gain consensus in the post-manning MOS:IDENTITY world. That raises an interesting point of if there are identity or other "filter" arguments about a photo, does that factor into the "reasonably available" issue. Its seems that it would per the examples in the policy about actors/athletes whose appearance was notable only in a certain time period. However, all of the trans issues aside, NFCC generally has an exception for dead people does it not? Why would that not apply to this person? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We do allow for non-free photos of deceased persons, but here we have a case of a person that seemed (to me) to be very social in the age of social medium, so we shouldn't rush to include a non-free until we've had some reasonable time to check for other sources, particularly for someone who's visual appearance was not a cornerstone of their notability. And yes, I do agree that even if we wait for a respectible amount of time before asking the family they may be hesistent to give us an image of the person as a female as I understand the story. That said, I also know their name is out there as a big awareness drive for transgendered/gender identity, and it would make sense to try to approach those leading those drives to ask if they have images they would be willing to share in a free manner too. The point, basically, is that NFC policy is not set up to say that as soon as any person passes away, a non-free image can be used; instead the circumstances of the person's visibility in the recent past should be considered, and this is a case where we should just wait for the chance for a free image to surface due to the public visibility of the story. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that in this case, "unique historic image" applies. It's the one most often associated with the story of her suicide, so it should be included in the article. That would seem to conform to her wishes for her death to make a difference. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly in a few months, if no free image has emerged, this would be fine as a historic image, but what we have to be careful of is this immediately "giving up", claiming there cannot be a free image of the person now they have died. We should try to see if we can get one before falling back on using the non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

let's be clear here - historic - there is nothing historic about this picture, the event has only just happened, also, does wikipedia conform to anyones wishes for their death to make a difference, no , at least not within its policies and guidelines it doesn't Govindaharihari (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but it goes toward "would Leelah have wanted this picture to be used in the article". I think the answer is "yes", and we should therefore use this picture. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What part of wikipedia's non free guidelines WP:NONFREE does the subjects assumed position come into play? "would Leelah have wanted this picture to be used in the article" - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"let's be clear here - historic - there is nothing historic about this picture, the event has only just happened"; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most historians understand as "History". History encompasses the past, whether that be the distant past or the very recent past. Like it or not, Leelah Alcorn's death has entered history. Her death is a historic event, as is the international reaction which followed it. Insisting that this is a recent event and that is is therefore not history is simply not a convincing argument that can be used in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's break this down. WP:NFCCP says:

No free equivalent -- Nobody's come forward to say that there's an equivalent free-licensed version, and we clearly can't get a new one.
Respect for commercial opportunities -- replacing the original market role isn't an issue
Minimal usage -- low-res, and picture is only being used in the one article
Previous publication -- Clearly met.
Content -- meets standards
Media-specific policy -- seems to meet them
One-article minimum -- met
Contextual significance -- leaving it out would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic
Restrictions on location -- only used in articlespace
Image description page -- properly indicates source and use

So, don't see any problems here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

While the rest are true, this is a unique case where NFCC#1 does not yet apply 100%, in the same manner that BLP still applies to the recently deceased. There is a good chance that there can be a free image that we can obtain from the family or friends, but it is completely inappropriate for us to ask for that during this time of mourning. In a few months, if that is asked and they aren't willing to license one as free, then yes, the image is fine, but we have to give some time for that to prove out. We're trying to encourage free image use, and this is a case that a bit more work is needed to prove out no free image does exist due to the nature of this person's life (involving modern social media) and attention post-death they got. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Masem, my take on that is that because of her family situation, the odds of getting a freely licensed picture of Leelah is vanishingly small. A freely licensed picture of Josh would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The aspect that makes this picture very relevant is the fact that they are in a dress, expressing their feminine side, and knowing the family did not support that. That's great and all, but from the article's current perspective, there is nothing yet that says we need to see that image for identification over the possible likelihood of a free one that the family might be able to provide; we arguably do not need to see someone in a dress to source the fact they considered themselves transgendered when text sources do the same. But that said, I also know this image has been a rallying cry on twitter about promoting tg and the issues of harassment and concerns of suicide, making the image itself critically notable, but that is not (as best as I can tell) discussed in the article to any degree. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with SarekOfVulcan's analysis of the situation here, and express my support for their arguments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

- Sarek - you forgot to mention the part that says, There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. and you also forgot to mention that the default position and desired position on wikipedia is free - User :SarekOfVulcan your position is that as you have no free picture then you can use a non free one, that is not the wikipedia policy position - this is the default - https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement - not, ow, I want a photo in my story and so I will use any I find - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Whilst I'm no expert on the many nuances of free versus fair-use, I have to say that I find the comment "lots of reason to believe there are and will be free files of this person" to be rather bizarre. Leelah is now deceased, so there will be no new photographs of her, and what are these "lots of reasons to believe" that people will release free pictures of her? I find that to be very much a WP:CRYSTAL-style statement, not to mention one that doesn't make sense. I do tend to agree with Masem's comments here; it seems unlikely that we will have a free image of Leelah displayed in her preferred gender released by her family, as they didn't support that she wanted to live as a woman. I also agree that we don't necessarily need her to be wearing a dress; any picture where she is obviously presenting herself as female would do. I personally view this to be a situation where we can't win; including a picture of her as a man will draw a lot of (mostly valid) comment from transgender supporters (of which I am one); a picture of her as a woman will keep drawing the trolls that keep trying to change her gender back to male and her name back to the birth name, and no picture at all is going to draw both sides to criticize or try and add pictures in themselves, most of which would, of course, not meet the copyright rules. And if her family were to release a free picture of her as a male... that would create an enormous mess. I simply can't see them doing that; it makes them a major target for harassment (even more so than they currently are). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well put. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

TV Land

Consensus is the non-free logos aren't acceptable, but that all but File:TV Land Christmas logo.png are likely free. As non-free the file violates WP:NFCC and should therefore be deleted. The remaining logos can be updated to reflect their copyright status (@Masem:@Stefan2: if one of you would put the correct copyrights, that'd be greatly appreciated.) Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article contains too many non-free logos, but some of the logos which are claimed to be non-free seem to be free. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that all but the one with the Santa hat are PD-US. The santa hat one is non-free, and not required. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Katara (Avatar: The Last Airbender)

Consensus is the images outside of the infobox fail WP:NFCC#3a and should be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article fails WP:NFCC#3a as there are too many pictures of the character. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only the infobox one is necessary (in addition demonstrating her waterbending powers). --MASEM (t) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

YTV (TV channel)

Consensus is the former logos all fail WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article contains unreasonably many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the old logos are all non-free (no chance of PD-US) and not discussed, and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Olive Edis

No consensus seems to have formed and no discussion since January 2015. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

It says that "She served as a war artist in World War I." Therefore, there should be plently of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} pictures by her. The article seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That there were pictures of her aboard is possible but not reasonable to assume. It's fair to have a non-free for now, but editors should be encouraged to try to see if a free photo does happen to exist. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that I am talking about pictures by her, not pictures of her. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

List of Presidents of Afghanistan

The non-free images in this article fail both WP:NFCC and WP:NFG and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The three non-free pictures violate WP:NFG and two of them also violate WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and particularly as the list already has free placeholders for those that lack images. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

List of Punjabi-language newspapers

Consensus is non-free images in this article are unacceptable per policy. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

A page like this should not contain non-free newspapers but should instead refer to articles about the newspapers where such images can be found. Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, though the lead image is reasonable. If the editors want images to break up the lists, the titles of these papers (alone) would be reasonable free (at minimum PD-US due to being just text logos) replacement images. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Anime Network logo.png

Consensus is image is PD-logo. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

{{PD-logo}}? If not, fails WP:NFCC#8 as a former logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PD in the US for certain. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Palm, Inc.

Removed Commons duplicate image. File:Palm logo 2003.svg and File:Palm Roundel 05.svg deleted for failing WP:NFCC per this discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This page contains too many non-free logos. Some of them might not be copyrightable. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

File:HP Palm.svg is on Commons as Commons:File:HP Palm Logo.svg. File:Palm logo 2003.svg and File:Palm Roundel 05.svg probably pass TOO due to reflection / gradient. File:HP Gram Logo.png looks like being below TOO. File:Palm logo 2003.svg and File:Palm Roundel 05.svg should be removed from the article for violating WP:NFCC#8. They are used for identification of the company for which NFC is normally only accepted at the top the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lutz Bachmann posing as Hitler.jpg

There is no consensus whether this file complies with our non-free use policies defaulting to keep. It may be nominated at Files for deletion though. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

(formerly File:German neo-Nazi Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler.jpeg}

This image is used in two article. Is either use appropriate and adherent to the rules? George Ho (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, because it has separate rationales for each article, and because it is relevant and subject of commentary in both articles (in the biographical article and in the article on the organization he founded and led until he resigned as a consequence of the discussed photograph surfacing). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the uploader, so I'm waiting for another person's analysis, please. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the policy on non-free content before starting such discussions? There is no prohibition against using a photograph in two relevant articles with appropriate rationales. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not fight each other, okay? The "contextual significance" is the matter here. Also, the person is living, so we should be cautious because of WP:NFCC's "no free equivalence" criterion and WP:NFC's discouraging non-free images of living people. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This particular image has made the front pages in newspapers the world over and led to his resignation from the group. There is no free equivalent, this is a unique historic photograph. This person is also only known for starting and leading this particular group, the significance of the photograph for him and his political group is enormous. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/world/europe/pegida-hitler-photo-germany.html?_r=0 Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Even so, there is a difference between news and encyclopedia per WP:NOT. I'm not nominating for deletion. Please have some patience. Just wait for a third party to settle this. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In line with WP:GF I'd say that it's safe to assume that George Ho, with his extensive edit history, has at least some knowledge of WP:NFC. Therefore the remark "Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the policy on non-free content" is uncalled for and unnecessarily rude. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This definitely needs some additional input. In my opinion using it as the only image of Bachmann in the Lutz Bachmann article is of poor taste. The article already mentions - twice - that he dressed as Adolf Hitler, I don't see how adding an image will increase the reader's understanding of the related material. It's disproportionate and goes against WP:NPOV. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Supplement to my previous comment above. The reason the photo sparked outrage is because it is considered to be offensive/vulgar/distasteful. In my opinion the textual description is sufficient, because omission of the image does not cause the article to be less informative. Therefore, per WP:MoS/Images#Offensive images and WP:GFFENSE), I believe the image should be removed from the Lutz Bachmann article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think that applies here. For better or worse, that image is what the article subject is best known for, particularly outside Germany. It's natural for people to want to look at the image to judge what they think of it. For that purpose, text is not a full substitute.

There could be an argument for removing it as a general BLP consideration. Having resigned, perhaps Bachmann is entitled to enough respect for his privacy that we don't use the image (particularly since there are no others in the article). I'm not sure whether I would actually support that or not, but I think arguing that the image is trivial and/or uninformative is a non-starter. Formerip (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

From an NFCR POV, the image is not needed on the organization page - the controversy was with the person, not the organization, so unneeded there. From an NFC POV the image is unnecessary. He is a living person so a free image can be taken, and we don't need a photo to show him dressed as Hitler, to understand that a photo of him dressed as Hitler lead to a controversy around his position. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The person and his political organization are primarily known (especially internationally) for this particular unique historic photograph. No other photograph can replace it. We are talking about the front pages of just about every major German language newspaper and just about all significant coverage in international media relating to the person and to the organization. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's doubtful to claim it is an "historic" photo. Further, a replacement for non-free does not have to be another image - saying this pose had a photo of himself looking like Hitler is sufficiently equal. The existance (or more specifically the public availability) of that image is critical, yes, but not the image itself. And while the person is/was the head of that organization, it is improper to tie the controversy of one person to the organization. It likely needs to be mentioned, but even if this photo was used on the person's page, it should absolutely be not used on the organization's page. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I find your claim that the person (and his organization) is (are) "primarily known" for the photograph dubious. The photo was in the media because the person in the photo and his organization had already become well-known internationally as a result of their public demonstrations (marches). He's primarily known for being the (now former) de facto leader of PEGIDA, not because of the photograph. As the organizer and regular speaker of PEGIDA. Also, in my opinion, in a historical perspective, adding the image in addition to the textual description is giving too much emphasis on - overvaluing - a recent event. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Critical" or "historic" is too high a bar here. For our purposes, the photo should be excluded only if it contains little or no information that can't be captured by the text. But it's an image that's highly important to the article, because it is what the subject is best known for. Whether or not it counts as offensive, whether it was meant as a tribute to Hitler or a bad-taste joke and so on and so forth are all things that it is reasonable for a non-prurient reader to want to know. To provide that information, nothing else beats having the actual photo in the article. Formerip (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"A headshot of Bachmann with a fake Hilter moustache and hair combed like Hitler". There, that's a free text replacement. (And as a living person, a free image of Bachmann is possible). It is not the visual merits (or lack thereof here) that is important or the subject of discussion, simply that there's a visual record of this guy looking like Hitler, which created controversy leading to him stepping down. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To add "nothing else beats having the actual photo in the article" is not the mindset a free content encyclopedia can work with, keeping in mind we are a tertiary source and that we know other sources will readily have that photo to be seen. It is not critical to have that photo to understand that a publication of that photo would cause a stir. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem, policy does not require the image to be "critical", just more than trivially useful, which it unarguably is, having been at the centre of a significant social/media/socialmedia event, which readers are entitled to be interested in. To demand a higher standard than policy requires is to offend against NOTCENSORED. It can't be properly replaced by text any more than any image on WP. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NFCC#8 requires that the addition of the image significant helps the reader's understanding of the topic (which it arguably does here), and its omission significantly harms the reader's understanding of the topic; this latter test is where it fails, as we can say "a published photo of Bachmann looking like Hitler led to a controversy"; the image of the photo is not needed to understand that at all. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That text isn't sufficient to capture it. For a start, it didn't simply lead to a controversy, it also lead to an enormous increase in Bachmann's public profile and to his resignation. Was that a predictable outcome or an overreaction? How will it seem from the perspective of 10 years' time? How much of the acres of commentary about the image appears fair when you consider what the image actually looked like? Does Bachmann's explanation of the circumstances of the photo make sense? These are all perfectly legitimate questions for someone to expect Wikipedia to provide help with, and removing the image would significantly impede the reader in that respect. If the whole episode were tangential to the article, then you might have a point, but it isn't. At the same time, not that policy requires one, but there is no appreciable upside to removing the image. Formerip (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The upside is that we maintain the free content mission that we are tasked with doing by the Foundation, minimizing the use of non-free where it is not needed. All the factors you explain about future understanding do not require seeing the photo, only being aware of the existence of the photo, adding the fact that at the time this person was a leader of a neo-nazi anti-Islamic group. It doesn't take much to connect the dots to understand that just the mere public existence of that photo is going to set up a chain of politically-charged events; seeing the photo is not required. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem, please pause and allow this to sink in: "require" is not the correct standard. It's over-zealous. The photo is not required in order to make understanding of the topic possible, but its presence in the article would substantially help many readers. That's all that policy demands. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NFCC#8 is pretty clear on requiring understanding. It's a two-pronged test for this reason. Give me any non-free image that is even slightly related to a given topic, and I can absolutely show the image improving understanding, but its the second part of NFCC#8, omission harming understanding, that will nearly always fail for images like this. And it's not just policies, you have the Foundation's resolution that specifically says that non-free images of living persons are nearly always inappropriate for a free content work. Remember, we aren't the last resource on the Internet - we're a tertiary source, so if someone really needs to see this picture, the numerous sources we have will help document that. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it important what he looked like; a shaved mustache is a lot different then a Nazi uniform, which shows more camp and less commitment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The God Delusion

This issue seems to have been resolved. Mostly on the talk page of the article. The TOC has been removed from the article. --Rettetast (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

On the article about the Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, the table of contents of the book was added. Afterwards, the question of the copyright issue was raised on the page of discussion. Could you help us to know if there is really an issue here? Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

While a list of chapters is just a list, and thus probably not eligible for copyright, inclusion of subtopics within chapters might rise to the level of creative action. That was my concern. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree that the level of subchapters starts getting iffy. Major chapter titles would be okay; however, a question to ask is if the TOC is really necessary - for most books, the ISBN links (to a number of bibliography sources) will provide this), so unless it is discussed, it would be better to leave out. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The question was about the potential copyright issue. As cited in the above-mentioned talk page, the table of content is freely available on-line through various websites (see the editor, Google books and this link). Do you think that the publication of this list violates some law? Latheae smitherii (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Maybe, maybe not - just because another site has the list doesn't mean its legal. We play a tighter game in terms of copyright, and would avoid anything that's not clearly within fair use, and this might be such a case when you get past the major chapter titles. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Carol Peletier

All non free images except the infobox pic and the comic picture have been removed per consensus. --Rettetast (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This page contains unreasonably many non-free pictures, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to being excess plot coverges, only two non-frees are appropriate: the infobox pic and the comic picture. The other nonfree screencaps are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2:,@Masem: I didn't see this when I posted this below, but since my post is also related to an image used on Carol Peletier I thought I'd link it here too for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:'Stormtroops Advancing Under Gas', etching and aquatint by Otto Dix, 1924.jpg

Image removed from [Stormtooper]] where there was no rationale for its use. Not used outside main space so the #9 violation seems to have been fixed. --Rettetast (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Additionally, it violates WP:NFCC#10c on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

keep Firstly we should have an article on this single work, Stormtroops Advancing Under Gas.

As to the articles we have today, then this major work is vital to Otto Dix, as probably his most important and most famous work. Even more so than his portrait of Sylvia von Harden.

This work makes an easy case under fair-use for German Expressionism, Art of the Weimar Republic, New Objectivity and degenerate art. I can't see a justification for it at military art or stormtrooper. It's rather harder to judge in Art of the Third Reich as it simply isn't such, and it's only in there in a section under degenerate art as a counter-example to it. As much such art was produced by Jewish artists who were killed more than 70 years ago, WP could also take a rather cynical line that degenerate or Weimar art could be illustrated adequately entirely from the works of dead artists killed by the Nazis.

Yet again though, I find myself questioning why Stefan, the hardest-working editor in image deletionism, finds an image so important that it's used in several articles, rightly questions some of these, but their reaction is then not to question the use of the image per-article, but rather to seek blanket deletion of the image itself. That is far from constructive and it's a habitual behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

NFCR is not about deletion (as it allows for non-admin closures), and Stefan isn't asking for deletion. He pointed out (at the time of nomination) that there was at least one use of the image that was not in mainspace, failing NFCC#9, and there is at least one use of the image that is lacking a rational for that specific use, so should be removed from there. None of the other uses are directly in question by Stefan's posting here (though they certainly can be discussed). --MASEM (t) 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"This file violates WP:NFCC#9." Not "this use" of the file, but this file. Other than deleting it, what other change to the WP corpus is Stefan advocating here? He's always trying to delete files, he does little else.

Just look at his latest, File:Al Lewis 01.jpg. An obvious one-role-actor-in-character portrait, a shoo-in for NFC. It's eight years old and so doesn't use a FUR template that didn't even exist back then. Does he fix this by the obvious process of just fixing it? – No he tags it for speedy deletion WP:CSD#F7. I'm tired of this – it's regularly damaging, it's bureaucracy for the sake of it and it's harmful to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And as his tagging on that points out, it is missing any rationale for inclusion or use on the actor's page (which I will say is a valid use). NFC, per the Foundation, requires these elements, so the fact they are missing is a problem. Arguably it is a simple fix (something like "To illustrate the televisin character that the actor was best known for"), but going back to the whole issue with Beta some years back, this is not a trivial fix, one would have to be aware of the actor, the character and the use of the image, and that's something the uploader or editors on the page should be correcting.

In terms of this specific image, I know what Stefan means and as the header on this page says, this is not for deletion; we need to review all the uses and remove those that are offending, but keep the file otherwise assuming at least one use is okay. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The solution to any problem is not to speedy delete all concerned. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Except speedy delete of non-free that fails to meet policy is expressed demanded by the Foundation per their Resolution. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be simple-mindedly ridiculous, you'll leave nothing for Stefan to do.

There is no reason whatsoever to delete this file. No sensible policy calls for it. It was uploaded in 2006, to the standards of that time. If our standards for filing (and not our policies on accepting content) have changed since, then that is a reason to update the paperwork, not to delete images. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And that's why it was tagged for a deleted deletion, to give the uploader time to fix the rational to match the required paperwork. This is not a case where you can expect Stefan to fix the rational because it does require knowledge of the work itself to understand what the proper rationale is. (In contrast if it was a simple typo to be fixed, that's a reasonal expectation for Stefan to have fixed). And this isn't about adding a template - that's not a requirement, but a justified reason why the image is to be used is one. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what a "deleted deletion" is. It was actually tagged for WP:CSD#F7 speedy deletion – potentially immediate deletion as fast as an admin encounters it, certainly without a fixed minimum time for discussion, or by advertising its status to other editors. This is the quickest means to delete the image Stefan could possibly have chosen. He could have listed it on this page instead, where it would be seen and reviewed by others, but he did not do this. Nor is it reasonable to expect an uploader from 8 years ago to be attending every current request.

Also the file already had a rationale, labelled as such with a heading, and adequate by the standards of 2006. There was no reason to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The file at the time of tagging did not have a rationale. A section labeled "Rationale" but with no explanation of how it met NFCC#8 is not a rationale. And our process is set up that files without rationale are put up for delayed deletion - giving seven days for the file to be fixed before an admin reviews and deletes it. FFD is not the venue for this process, NFCR is not the venue for this process, as there's nothing to discussion - it lacked a NFCC-required rationale so we require its deletion. This has been long established practice and meets the goals of the Foundation in maintaining a free content work to assure non-free meet the requirements for their exceptional use. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacking Stefan is a non-starter in this discussion. If you have an issue with his supposed "habitual" and supposedly destructive behavior, you are more than aware of the appropriate noticeboards. Such accusations, true or not, are out of place here and add nothing to the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other noticeboard at which to raise Stefan's ongoing damage. At one time we had RFC/U (and some others), but no longer. We no longer have any useful noticeboard left to deal with such issues. Or are you suggesting Arbcom?! This is an issue about NFCR, this is where those active in NFCR are to be found. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN/I if you believe his actions are against policy and damaging, so that an admin can review and block him. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This board is about reviewing the use of non-free files. Stefan does not appear to be a non-free file. Therefore, reviewing his editing is not apropos to this board. Even if Stefan was guilty of everything you and anyone else might claim * 10000, there is nothing this board will ever do in regards to his behavior. It simply isn't appropriate here, and it's completely out of line for the discussion at hand. Follow the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:51give.svg

Resolved. The jpg image have bin deleted and there is no use in violation of WP:NFCC#9 left. --Rettetast (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a problem - as mandated by NFCC#9, the image is used only in article namespace [4]. NFCC#9 anyway does not talk about files but about their locations, if you think a file's location is wrong just correct it, don't mess up with files. kashmiri ^TALK 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Its the issue with the image automatically appearing in the "SVG Version Available" template on the jpg page. We should not have both images, and lacking any official source of the location of the SVG original we should default to the jpg version. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So, why not to discuss this at the template page instead of tagging countless image files individually across the Wikipedia? Or, edit the template? It would be much quicker and spare countless hours of work combined, by those who will later have to remove the tags. kashmiri ^TALK 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:BelovedNovel.jpg

removed from user space. --Rettetast (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This violates WP:NFCC#9, but is probably below the threshold of originality. Opinions? Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tighter crop to remove the shadows of book spine and corners (or a better source image like [5]) would be better, the base text is definitely below TOO. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Council of the European Union.svg

Consensus is the image is likely copyright, although possibly PD in the United States. The image has been removed from the offending WP:NFCC#9 violation since this discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Logo only used in article namespace, in the infobox, as required by NFCC#9. If you don't like that it is used in two articles, then I am sorry that two distint bodies (Council of the European Union and European Council) use the same logotype. kashmiri ^TALK 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the use of the image in the .png version's file page from the "SVG Version available" template, which is causing the problem. We either should have the SVG or the PNG, and given that the SVG was user created and a non-free, that version should be deleted in favor of the low-res PNG. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So, why not to discuss this at the template page instead of tagging countless image files individually across the Wikipedia? Or, edit the template? It would be much quicker and spare countless hours of work combined, by those who will later have to remove the tags. kashmiri ^TALK 17:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2 and Masem: This image is very similar to File:European Commission Logo.gif, which we are claiming is PD-ineligible. Do you have an opinion? My initial inclination is that Commons is wrong and File:European Commission Logo.gif should be deleted from there and (possibly) moved to here under a claim of fair use if appropriate. I have nominated a related logo File:Europarl logo.svg for deletion at Commons, which seems to clearly pass the threshold of originality with flying colors. --B (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that logo is in the PD. It would fail the test in something like the UK where "sweat of the brow" is used as the test. It probably should not be hosted at commons, by my understanding. Note the details on the commons page about the restrictions of usage of File:Flag of Europe.svg (which I will assume has been vetted in detail at commons due to its high usage), and this is more complicated than this. It might be a question to pose to Commons. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: So far, the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europarl logo.svg seems to be more of an exercise in WP:ILIKEIT than a serious discussion of its copyright status. The one thing I would point out, though, is that File:Council of the European Union.svg and File:European Commission Logo.gif are more geometric in their design, whereas File:Europarl logo.svg has rigid edges on its lines and curves that are artistic, not simply mathematical. So I wouldn't yell+scream too loudly if the answer was that File:Europarl logo.svg is copyrighted but File:Council of the European Union.svg and File:European Commission Logo.gif are PD-ineligible. My opinion, though, is that all three should be treated as copyrighted (I'm just less certain of the latter two.) --B (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg

Local image have been deleted. For the record; The commons image with the same name is not the same image. --Rettetast (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This discussion was first listed here, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 January 10#File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg. That was not the right place. If you look at File talk:Elsinore Theatre.jpg you'll see that this image was uploaded as {{NoRightsReserved}} by a new user not familiar with wikipedia. They contacted the image owner and got permission, just not in the correct manner. I have reached out to the theater, and copied OTRS to try and resolve what the original intent was of the image's donor. The image is currently in use and is of a better quality than the free images currently available. This just needs some time to resolve. --evrik ^(talk) 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As this file is unfree, it can't be on Wikipedia as it violates WP:NFCC#1. However, the file has already been tagged with {{subst:rfu}}, so the section on this page is unnecessary. It used to be marked as a free image, but a user decided to change the copyright tag to an unfree one and close the PUF section, thereby presumably speeding up the deletion process. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ummm no, you listed the file for deletion stating that the permission wasn't good enough. So, I changed it. However, a permission was clearly given, but it's unclear that the original uploader knew what they were doing or that they filed the permission with OTRS. So, we can change the permission back to the original permission and go back and argue it on the other page. Also you're now driving an edit war. Why not give this time to work itself out ... oh, probably because working things out and being patient is HARD, so hard. So instead of trying to hurry a decision and driving an edit war ... just leave it be for a few days. --evrik ^(talk) 04:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

----

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

San Diego Flash

Image gallery with old logos removed. --Rettetast (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article contains too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, particularly with how minor the changes the logo have been, do not need the historical logos at all. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:The Walking Dead, The Grove still.jpg

Already removed from character pages and left on the article page only. --VernoWhitney (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This WP:NFCC#4 file has permission to be used on The Grove (The Walking Dead) per WP:NFCC#7. It is, however, also being used on the pages Carol Peletier and Lizzie and Mika Samuels. WP:NFCCE states that "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." so I am assuming it is OK, at least for the time being, to remove the file from the article's that it does not have explicit permission to be used, until said permission have been provided per WP:NFCC#10. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine for the episode page (give or take but it's far less an issue), and not for the character pages. While that episode was defining moments for both characters, we don't need to see the image to understand that factor. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Masem. I'm asuming that means it's OK to remove the image in question from the other pages, right? Which reason do you think I should give? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

NFCC#10c failure to start (there's no rational given for the character pages), but also that in general would fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. I have removed the image from the two character pages and left a note on each page's talk page linking to this discussion. Hopefully, that will answer any questions other editors may have. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:RKHS shield.png

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC on multiple accounts. Likely the image should be removed as failing both WP:NFCC#8 & #9. The issue with the pages is not a copyright issue, and although it should be addressed, this location is not the correct place. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This file violates WP:NFCC#9 as disambiguation pages are not articles according to the wording in WP:NFCC#9. However, I'm not sure if the article really is supposed to be a disambiguation page, so I'm not sure how to best solve this violation. Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Assume best case, and this file still would need to be deleted. It's copyrighted material, doesn't substantially increase anyone's understanding about the high school in question, and no reasonable person would argue that the identification argument would apply to an obscure coat-of-arms for a high school.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the file is used on three pages, but it only has a fair use rationale for the disambiguation page where it isn't permitted in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think someone made the page on the middle school to distinguish it from the main school and then created this mess of pages and image. Logo is only valid on the higher school page, and the middle school page should be moved back into that. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Baby I.ogg

Consensus is the image has a valid place in the article, but the fair use rationale needs to include a better explanation of why a reader would need to see the image to understand the article (WP:NFCC#8). @MaranoFan: as its your image, could you please update the fair use rationale to better reflect why it is needed to understand the article (probably about the musical style). Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Frivolous use with no indication of why this sample is important to a reader's understanding of the song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The rationale could be better to explain why it is needed but this is a fixable thing - the article does discuss the musical style of the song so a song clip can be seen as a reasonably use here. Also, this should be discussed at FFD since deletion is the only option if this is not kept. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - What is the problem? What is the difference? There is sufficient info on the song's composition to support a sample. You need to see files for some Good articles. You may refer File:Rihanna and Jay-Z - Umbrella.ogg or File:Katy Perry - Birthday.ogg. This is a perfectly good file. MaRAno ^FAN 09:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:360px-CarlS5BPortrait.png

The issues of WP:NFCC#4 have been resolved with using the appropriate original source and copyright holder. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Also File:CarolPeletier.jpg, File:360px-AbeS5BPortrait.png and File:360px-EugeneS5BPortrait.png

Are these files acceptable per WP:NFCC#4? They are all taken from "The Walking Dead Wiki" which describes itself as "a collaborative website for the continuing story of the survival horror, The Walking Dead, that anyone can edit." They were all uploaded to the above website, but none of their respective source pages contain any licensing information that I could find. I'm not sure that just because these images were uploaded to "The Walking Dead Wiki" they are covered under the "The Walking Dead Wiki's" CC-BY-SA license since the site's licensing page says "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file. If you are uploading files to Wikia, you should cite the source of the file, attribute the authors, and note any copyright information, where applicable. Individual communities may elaborate upon and refine requirements for file uploads." It seems to me that there's no way to verify the copyright information for the files from their source pages. Isn't such verification needed for NFFC#4? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that they are crops of screenshots from the show - while the wikia is not the "owner" of the copyright, it is clear what the true source is. The rationale should be improved to show that these come from the AMC show, but they are not otherwise "wrong" to require any removal or the like. They are properly marked non-free, and do no seem to try to use the CC-BY license. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Masem. No problems then. How should the rationales be improved? Just change the "Author or copyright owner" for each file to AMC? FWIW, I did a google image search and it looks like all of the above files, except for "File:CarolPeletier.jp", are originally from this AMC blog page. Does that matter in any way? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, to be clear , the episode the screen shot is taken from should be ID'd, and the copyright should be to the show's production/distrubtion channel (this being AMC Studios). The link to the wikia of the original source is fine, but the addition of the episode would allow anyone else to verify the raw source of the image. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I kind of understand, but are "File:360px-CarlS5BPortrait.png", "File:360px-AbeS5BPortrait.png and "File:360px-EugeneS5BPortrait.png" screenshots for sure? The AMC blog page says they are "character portraits" with credit given as "Photo by Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC". My guess is that someone just copied them from the AMC page and just pasted them into the "The Walking Dead Wiki". - Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They would still be fine if they are charater portraits from AMC, but then in such cases it would be better to use the link to the more official source for that. --MASEM (t) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Just a few more questions.

Can anyone fix the rationale or does it have to be done by the uploader?
Is it OK to link to the AMC slide show page for those character portraits or does each file have to be linked to an individual page?
Should the "Author or copyright owner" be listed as "Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC"?
Should the "Description" for each file be changed?
What should be given as "Date"?
Is it OK to use these NFCC files if other NFCC files are being used in the same article per Wp:NFCC#3a? NFCC files for the comic book character are being used in Carl Grimes, Eugene Porter and Abraham Ford.

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can fix the rationale in good faith (as this would be). Links to AMC are good, the copyright change would be good, you could update the description to mention what the image is (the character portrait from the show's official site), date would be the best guess of when it was taken, but if you can't nail down, I would put a best guess as to the earliest year the photo could have been made. The last part there is no simple answer, but it is generally fair in this situation (a character common to comic (original work) and series) that if the comic image is the lead/infobox image, the show photo is fair to include if there is critical discussion of the character/actor in that role for the series. But note this is very subjective and could be reviewed later. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help and suggestions Masem.

- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Cruel Summer (song)

Consensus is most of the extra covers fail WP:NFCC except one of the original Ace of Base Covers and the lead cover. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This article contains unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We would normally not use coverart for the other covers. However, I could argue that one cover from the original Ace of Base cover would be okay given the popularity/notability of that cover alone. But not all three, and none of the additional coverarts are needed/appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Destiny Evans

Consensus is that only the main image should be kept. The extra non-free image fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: only one picture is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, don't see a need for the character as a child. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Helen Desha Beamer.jpg

I don't believe any consensus was reached in this discussion. There seems to be some grey area on whether or not a public domain or freely licensed image exists. This discussion does not have any implications on our policies and should not be used as precedence as there is no consensus/understanding of how to apply our rules and copyright law to this particular photo. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This image fails NFC as replaceable. The image itself may even be prior to 1924 as the subject was 42 years of age at that date and this could well be the subject in the Edwardian period of about 1912 at the age of 30. At any rate, images of the subject in the public domain exist and would be just as encyclopedic in value.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We would need to have the existing PD images identified to be able to call this replaceable - Keep in mind that pictures published before 1923 could be copyrighted if the author was known in some cases. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We actually have not had that requirement before but simply point out that such free images are available. Cool lets just keep this. I call this passing the mustard. I will refer back to this discussion if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that in this case, since we know a new free image cannot be made today, then to say it is freely replaceable, a free replacement must be clearly identified or a situation where a free image is surely to exist (which is not a certainty in this case). If there are free images that you are aware of, just provide the link to them and this fails NFCC#1 with no question. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify, I went to do a google search on this person, but there was no immediately clear obvious free images. That's why we need a link to one to affirm it is available. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are making very little sense at this point based on past reviews and discussion here. I already did a Google search and there are indeed many images of the subject that are indeed in the public domain because of age. They do not need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons to know they are available to upload. I will not link anything to prove this is fails NFC. I will leave it, as I am leaving the other images that have been placed into the public domain that I am aware were not actually published until 1995 and also have the possibility of copyright from the photographer. Having the image benefits Wikipedia and those searching for the person and subject even if the fair use fails our own policies. Legally it is not endangering the foundation or the uploaders as far as I can see and I am willing to just let it go and agree with you based simply on that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For public domain, we need proof that the image - even if it was clearly taken before 1923 in the US - was published before 1923, to mark it PD. It is completely possible that if an image was created before 1923 and published in 1978-2002 would be in copyright until 2047 at worst. If any of those images via google search are shown postiviely to have been published before 1923 in the US, then yes, we have a free image and that should be used to replace the others. If we cannot safely proof their pre-1923 publication or another condition that would make them PD, then we have to assume they are not free, meaning that the above image is fine as it since there is no clear/possible free replacement for it. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes...said as much, but my point is...this isn't commons. We are only concerned with the fact that there are public domain images available or not and you are asking for a demonstration. I'm saying...that's OK. I'm happy to leave it as it is and not prove the public domain status if that is all it takes to keep it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"[S]ince we know a new free image cannot be made today" No, we don't know that. We know neither of us are going to attempt to do it, not that it isn't possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My Google search for images of this subject labeled for reuse shows two images right off the bat, but hey...I don't think that demonstrates anything but a Google search.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The first four images on a google image search for me, excluding the Wikipedia hit, have no publication history. We cannot assume these were published before 1923 simply due to what her lifespan was and her apparent age in the photo. We're not commons, but we also work on the principle of assuming the worst - that files are non-free unless proven otherwise. And when I speak of "a free image cannot be made today", I mean no one can go photograph her since she has long since passed away. Acquiring a free one as to be uploaded onto WP, that's what we need to figure out, and for that we need to be sure that the images are clearly in the public domain. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

File:David Brewster Grand Staircase and Furnace.jpg

Consensus is the article does not need so many non-free images (under WP:NFCC) and extraneous ones should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There are 4 images on the David Brewster BLP, all contain his works. The quantity should be minimal to satisfy fair use. Fæ (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The image of him painting is off commons, and the issue there might be if the painting itself in shot is within de minimus. That's an issue to deal with there. The other three of his paintings only, while we'd allow for one or two representative examples of a painter's work if the paintings aren't individually notable, three might be too much particularly without any specific discussion of any work. I'd argue of the three non-free, really only one (the one in portrait mode) is needed, but I could see reasonable justification for two. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Gary Sanchez Productions logo.png

Image meets WP:NFCC#4. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Does this meet NFCC #4? It was sent through OTRS (#2015011410017784) from a verifiable address, but it's not on the website. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly based on the other logos of the website and the production company, just the placement is off. I can't see the ticket to know the details, but if it is sent from a person that legally represents the company and assures the logo is okay, then we should be fine. (That is, it's not an exact previous publication but it is clearly the same thing and not a significant misrepresentation of it). --MASEM (t) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mrigaya.jpg

No consensus reached. No discussion in 3 months. @Vensatry: If deletion is the desired result, try WP:FFD. TLSuda (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mrigayaa.jpg was uploaded by the same user under the non-free criteria. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely fails criterion #3(a) of WP:NFCCP —Vensatry _(ping) 11:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

FIle: Taylor Swift - Today Was a Fairytale.png

WP:NFCC#9 issue resolved. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is an album cover that has proper permission to be used in Today Was a Fairytale. The file usage section of the same image, however, shows that it's also being used in this userbox. I'm assuming that "elsewhere on Wikipedia" in WP:NFCCP includes userboxes, sandboxes, etc., right? Moreover, WP:UB#Remove all fair-use images from userboxes states that such images are never acceptable on user pages and in such cases an {{Images on userboxes}} template may be added to inform the UB's creator of relevant Wikipolicy. The wording on the template seems to imply it is being added after the image is removed. So, I have two questions: (1) Is this kind of thing a violation per NFCCP#8, #9 and #10c? and (2) What is the best way to proceed in this particular case? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a violation of NFCC#9 (can't be used outside mainspace), and the best way is simply to remove or comment out the image as I have already done. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. Is "commenting out" as you did preferred to simply removing the file altogether? Just curious. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is to be modified so that the image no longer is displayed. How to do this modification is up to the person doing the modification. A fast way to remove files is to use Twinkle's unlink feature, which moves the file name to HTML comments. If the file only is used outside the article namespace, an alternative option is to tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F5, which will result in the issue being automatically resolved when the file is deleted one week later. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan2 for clarifying things for me. - 02:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

File:640px-5x16 - Felina PROMO 5.jpg

No discussion or consensus in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for educational purposes but for decoration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Chase logo 2007.svg

Consensus is the image is Public Domain. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This image is tagged as fair use, but seems to make use of only text and simple geographic shapes. I believe it should be PD-ineligible, but would like to get a second opinion before doing so. B (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That version would be. I know their newer logo includes gradients on the shapes and that makes it questionable, but this is well inside PDtext limits. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They have gradients on some of their cards ... but right now, this moment, the logo at the top of https://www.chase.com/ looks like the logo we have here, except that the color is off a bit. --B (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the SVG version is copyrightable as computer software. The logo itself is not copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The svg was created by someone drawing in inkscape (I looked) - it's not actual source code that someone typed out. Computer software is only copyrighted to the extent that it embodies the programmer's original expression and there is no original expression involved in an SVG being generated automatically from a non-copyrightable logo. --B (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

At its heart, SVG is a programming language, but tools like Inkscape and Illustrator make it easy to "create" that code graphically. As such, its copyright falls comparably to HTML - which is in an iffy area where there's no real case law. To play it safe, we do want SVG images that have free graphics to be have been freely created by an editor. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In order to be copyrightable, there has to be something creative. There is nothing creative that occurs by using an automated code-generation tool. --B (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But how can you tell the difference between code generated automatically from a vectoring program, and one assembled by a user manually (which is completely possible for very simple graphics)? It's the same way you can't tell the diff between the HTML output written by hand and written from a WYSIWYG program. Mind you, courts have stated that in cases of where there is 100% objective computer translation, no new copyright can be generated, but there is a range of case law, without conclusive nature, of how this applies to hypertext language that applies to HTML, XML, and SVG. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1. If you look at the file in Notepad, it says it was saved by Inkscape and the uploader says in his upload summary, "Converted to SVG by User:Closeapple using PDF2SVG (also described at [6]) and given 1% internal margin using ...". So I'm guessing/assuming that he used PDF2SVG to convert it and then maybe cropped it in Inkscape or something? Either way, it's clear that it was converted by an automated process, not handwritten by a human - a cursory inspection of the SVG makes that obvious. 2. Even if it were handwritten by a human, it is only copyrightable to the extent that it is creative. If I write a "hello world" program that incorporates no creativity, it is not copyrightable. Now, if my "hello world" program was a really cool example of obfuscated programming, then that is probably copyrightable. But a simple algorithm that involves no creativity is not copyrightable. --B (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support for {{PD-logo}}. (Well, PD-ineligible is a generalized version.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sriracha_"Rooster"_sauce.jpg

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC and should be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Photo of a bottle of hot sauce used in the articles Sriracha sauce and Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods). Uses a non-free rationale, but lists the source as Wikipedia Commons and the author as c:User:Ttony21 who has no record of the file in his user contributions. It looks like the file was deleted from Commons by either c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sriracha hot chilli sauce.jpg or c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sriracha_"Rooster_Sauce".jpg and I'm not sure how that affects its non-free usage rationale for Wikipedia since the file no longer has an author or a source (WP:NFCC#4).

Moreover, the article "Sriracha sauce" is general article about Sriracha sauce and not a particular brand of Sriracha sauce. The article is already using a free file File:Siracha sauce.jpg so not sure why a non-free image is needed at all per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. Despite this claim to the contrary, the file seems only directly relevant to "Siracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)" since this as an article about the actual sauce being pictured. Lastly, I'm also concerned about the size of the image in "Siracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)". It's seems a little big to me per WP:IMGSIZE, but maybe that something better off discussing on the article's talk page. Anyway, thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture is not appropriate in either article - we have the Huy Fong Foods logo standalone on the company's page, so we don't need the bottle in either page indicated at all. If the bottle was turned away to hide most of the label, that would be a reasonable picture to include to show this.--MASEM (t) 22:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. What's the best way to proceed? WP:FFD or WP:CSD#Files? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

FFD. failures of things like NFCC#8 which while seemingly obvious in this case should be taken to FFD in case someone presents a fair argument to keep. CSD should only be for clearly unnecessary non-frees (such as a clear free replacement, etc.) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I removed the file from Sriracha sauce. Please re-add or fix if my edit was inappropriate. I am not sure how to proceed with Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods). Do you think the picture should be removed from there as well and replaced with File:Huy Fong Foods logo.gif? If the file is also removed from that article, it will not satisfy WP:NFCC#7. Should it then be nominated for deletion via "FFD"? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, there's really no allowance for the use of a non-free logo of a brand name on a specific product page (if the product had its own logo, that might be something, but that's not the case here). But the fair route at that point would be to nominate at FFD just in case someone argues that the file should be kept. (Arguably you could just tag it with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} but that's usually considered inappropriate to remove and then tag orphan if the use is not a CSD-type problem. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

OK Masem. Understand about using the log as a replacement. Which rationale should be used then to remove it from "Sriracha hot sauce (Huy Fong Foods)"? Couldn't it be argued that the image is helps the reader understand the context better per WP:NFCC#8? Removing if from "Sriracha sauce" seemed pretty straight forward since there's already two other "free" images being used and the article was not about this particular brand of hot sauce. Not so sure in the second case. Are you aware of any similar examples I can use for reference? Finally, a procedural question: Should the image be removed before nominating it via FFD? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguably yes, even though from a NFC standpoint, there's almost no rationale to justify the use of the image by NFCC#8, but NFCC#8 is not a allowance for speedy deletion or delayed deletion. And no, you should not remove the image from the last page while at FFD, only to be within process. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Should I return the image to "Sriracha Sauce" then for procedural reasons before I go to FFD? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can keep it off, though if you are doing the FFD, maybe explain it was also used at that article before. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Aurora community channel.svg

Image fails WP:NFCC per consensus. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

If unfree, then this logo violates WP:NFCC#3a as an extra logo, but I'm not sure if it is copyrightable in the first place. Opinions? Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the shape in the "O" is sufficiently simple (for how we catalog things normally) but would like a second opinion for that. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with calling this PD. Take a look at a larger rendering. One of the examples Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States gives is that when this not copyrightable Car Credit City logo gets a little decoration added to it, it is copyrightable. This Aurora logo looks to be similar in complication so I'm not comfortable with claiming that it's ineligible for copyright. (I agree that it should be deleted as an extra logo.) --B (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree w/ B. Shape in "O" likely nudges this past TOO. As such, and as there is already another logo w/ identifies the subject, this file needs to be deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Saturn rings false.jpg

Image is public domain. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Non-free image Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 08:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How so? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep - This is the source image's caption file. Neither source link nor additional background link mention any exception or a different author's copyright. It looks like a "normal" free NASA/JPL image, unless the nominator has additional information (?). GermanJoe (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:SearsCrosstownConstruction.jpg

Consensus is the image is non-free and the file fails WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Picture from 1927 showing the construction of Crosstown Concourse used under a claim of fair use. If this image is non-free, it violates WP:NFCC#8 as its use is not essential to the reader's understanding of the topic. If we had something more to go on other than that it was published in a newspaper, it's at least possible that the image is public domain. B (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is non-free, it needs to go. The article doesn't reference the image, and there's nothing particular about the image that we need that can't get from the free image on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sylvia Fedoruk.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC on all articles except Sylvia Fedoruk. It has been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Sylvia Fedoruk. Also fails WP:NFCC#9 on two pages. Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rip it out of anything but Sylvia Fedoruk. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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