Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 70
 | 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 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 |
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 27#File:963CruzFMCFWD.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 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.
Canadian radio station logo uploaded as non-free, but seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. Logo is essentially nothing but test, and I don't believe the font and colors used are subject to copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Waldi, Olympic logo 1972.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is used in Waldi, 1972 Summer Olympics#Medals awarded and Dachsund#Symbol of Germany, but only has a non-free rationale for "Waldi" and "Dachsund". "Waldi" is the image's Wikipedia article so I can understand its use there. I am, however, not so sure that the other articles satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly fine at Waldi, and definitely not at Dachsund. I would not accept its present use at the '72 games page but there could be if more sourced discussion about it could be added. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's fine in all cases. There is discussion of the use of Waldi as the mascot in Dachshund#Symbol of Germany, and I think the reader's understanding is enhanced by seeing the picture of Waldi rather than just a text description of him. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Scouts of China 1930s.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is being used in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China and Scouts of China, but it only has a non-free use rationale for "Scouting and Guiding in mainland China". The "Purpose of use" that article, however, says that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. The first usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10c because it has no nfur for the article, but it is not likely that it would satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if it did. Second usage has rationale, but it is incorrect and the image does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8.
Is a caption like the one used to describe the image in particular case sufficient to satisfy NFCC#8? What rationale should used for non-free images not being used as the means for primary identification in infoboxes, but still being used in an article as the subject of critical commentary? Should {{Non-free use rationale}} be used instead of {{Non-free use rationale logo}}? Can "Non-free use rationale logo" be used if |use= is set to "other" and |Purpose= is specified? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It would have to meet the requirements for a non-free historic image, and this doesn't seem to meet that. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Does that mean the images should be removed or that the license should be changed?
- In addition, the source simply says "The logo may be obtained from Scouting in Mainland China." Not sure what that means. The original title of the article was "Scouting in Mainland China". Can the source of the image be the Wikipedia article it is being used in or a Wikipedia editor's user page? I've noticed that many of these scouting-related logos have questionable source information and rationales. In fact, this image in particular appears to have been deleted once before, only to be simply re-uploaded. Is there any recourse when a non-free image which has been deleted or removed once before is simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note-the original image was speedied without discussion, both against Wiki policy, has nothing to do with "simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used". Get over yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kintetsubuffalo: Actually, the two sentences were meant to be completely independent of each other. The first one was about the image in question for sure, but the second sentence was really intended to be more of a general question and not a reference to you or any particular editor. In hindsight, the proximity of the diff and the tone of the second sentence connect the two in a way I failed to fully consider at the time. I certainly could have been more careful and phrased things much better (i.e., more neutrally), so I sincerely apologize for any offense I may have caused. I hope you will accept this apology and my explanation in good faith. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Removed the image from Scouts of China because it does not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by NFCC#10c. Still not entirely clear as to whether use in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China is acceptable as historical image so would like additional feedback if possible. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note-the original image was speedied without discussion, both against Wiki policy, has nothing to do with "simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used". Get over yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Hockey Canada.svg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 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:NFC#UUI §17 except in Hockey Canada. Fails WP:NFCC#9 on three pages. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg, I tend to agree with you Stefan2 about No. 17 of NFCc#UUI. However, as I asked in WP:NFCR#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, some may argue that the logo is the de-facto official logo of all of the teams under the Hockey Canada umbrella and, therefore, should be allowed to be used. Does No. 17 make any allowances for this kind of situation or is strict interpretation appropriate? -Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- The teams are sub-entities of Hockey Canada, as far as I have understood. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaced non-free templates on both images with free templates, specifically {{PD-logo}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Each image is licensed as non-free, but they both appear to be nothing but simple combinations of letters and numbers. These seem at least simple enough to be licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaced non-free tags with {{PD-logo}} and {{PD-USonly}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image appears too simple for copyright and at least OK to license as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. I am not sure about in Australia though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- "PD-USonly" would take that into account and the image wouldn't be tagged for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaced non-free tags with {{PD-logo}} and {{PD-USonly}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another radio station logo that appears simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. I am not sure about in Australia though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as {{PD-logo}} by Marchjuly. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This logo is tagged as non-free logo, but it appears to be solely coloured text with a dot. Is that really copyrightable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Easily PD-USonly, but I would suspect it should be PD everywhere as just switching colors on a font is not "sweat of the brow". --MASEM (t) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Changed licensing to "PD-logo" per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as {{PD-logo}} by Marchjuly. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this qualify as {{PD-USonly}} or is the flag imagery copyrightable? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, reasonably PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Do you think this is OK to tag for a move to Commons since this group using the logo is based out of the US? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Commons requires images to be free in their origin country and in the US, not in the whole world. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Do you think this is OK to tag for a move to Commons since this group using the logo is based out of the US? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another logo that appears to be {{PD-textlogo}} suitable (Also, is .jpg the right file format?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely PDtextlogo. And while nothing wrong with the JPEG this is one of those logos that we can recreate as an SVG (WP:GL might be able to help. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Changed image to "PD-logo" per above. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All non-free files have removed from the article except for File:Lithuanian Riflemen's Union.jpg which is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page contains a fair amount of material tagged as "fair use" which is rather vaguely sourced - somewhere http://www.voruta.lt/v-putvinskis-%E2%80%93-reformatorius-svietejas-kovotojas/ here apparently. I wonder what should be kept and what should be removed, and whether any of these images may be old enough for its copyright to have expired by now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File tagged with {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademark}} by Marchjuly. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free logo being used in Albert Folch Folch. Image is provided with a source link, but not sure if that constitutes a non-free use rationale. Also, "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is unclear. Although the logo is mentioned in the article, I can't find it anywhere on the cited source provided, and the department actually seems to be currently using a different logo. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding this usage? Is it simple enough for {{PD-USonly}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The logo does meet PD-textlogo (if its from a US school, then its free around the world). However, before asserting this is the logo we definitely should have some reasonable proof of that as that can become a trademark issue. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The website of the department in question shows this logo but with additional text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even with the added text, still easily falls into PD-textlogo then (though we should use that link for the source of the image). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerous. So retagging it as {{PD-logo}} and using the source link Jo-Jo found is the agreed course of action? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Licensing changed to "PD-logo"/"Trademark" and source link update per above. Image also tagged with "Copy to Wikimedia Commons". - Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerous. So retagging it as {{PD-logo}} and using the source link Jo-Jo found is the agreed course of action? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even with the added text, still easily falls into PD-textlogo then (though we should use that link for the source of the image). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The website of the department in question shows this logo but with additional text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kept as valid non-free usage (likely copyrightable). --GermanJoe (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the logo eligible for copyright in the US? George Ho (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- My own guess is that the worn appearance is a somewhat creative choice and thus yes that it is copyrightable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm checking around and the stencilling effects around the letters doesn't appear to be from an original font, so those were added in and have artistic value. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged file as {{PD-logo}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I did assess this image's non-free content rationale as being sufficient but I must ask, is that r-b shape creative enough to make it copyrightable? The image is also currently tagged as "PD-textlogo"; either that or "non-free logo" need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's just a font pattern even if the underlying font glyphs make unique shapes like that (eg the FedEx logo has the inverted space arrow but that's still just PD-textlogo). This can be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#8, except in Frank Walsh. Also violation of WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Removed image from all articles, except Frank Walsh, and the user sandbox per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are currently no non-free files in use on User:Davidstewartharvey/sandbox, including the files referenced below. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 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 table contains non-free logos in violation of WP:NFCC#9, but some of the logos claimed to be non-free are in fact {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The non-free ones should be removed from the table and the free ones should be re-tagged as such. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are 11 non-free logos being used in that sandbox.
- File:Bellville Sassoon.jpg
- File:C & J Clarks International company logo.png
- File:Cotswold Outdoor logo.jpg
- File:Logo of Dunnes Stores.png
- File:Logo Hawes & Curtis.jpg
- File:Monsoon accessorize logo.svg
- File:Peacockslogo.png
- File:Viyella logo.jpg
- File:USC (store).png
- File:C&A logo.png
- File:Fenchurch.svg
- Numbers 5,
78 and 10 should stay non-free in my opinion and definitely be removed per NFCC#9. I'm not sure, however, about numbers 6 and 11. It might be best to leave them as non-free just to be on the safe side and also remove them per NFCC#9. The remaining six are probably simple enough for "PD-ineligible-USonly" or an equivalent tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to change "7" to "8" -- 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)]- By my reading, Bellville Sassoon, C & J Clarks International, Monsoon accessorize, USC (store) may or may not be copyrightable (are these unique styles or unoriginal fonts?), Cotswold Outdoor and Peacockslogo may be copyrightable but more likely not and either way the former needs a copy that isn't so artifacted, Logo of Dunnes Stores is a classic textlogo, Logo Hawes & Curtis and Viyella are copyrightable. Fenchurch and C&A I dunno.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. Actually, I mixed up Nos. 7 and 8, so I agree with you about "Viyella" and "Hawes & Curtis" and think removing them would be uncontroversial. As for the others, maybe a little more discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Commented out File:Logo Hawes & Curtis.jpg and File:Viyella logo.jpg per above. Remaining logos still need to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Add File:Hackett (clothing).jpg, File:Jaeger logo.png and File:MK One.png to the above list. These may also be "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- MK One and Hackett definitively are, the former may be USOnly though. I dunno if Jaeger is original enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I posted on Davidstewartharvey's talkpage and explained WP:NFC and NFCC#9. I believe he decided to remove the remaining logos himself. If any of these are eventually changed to "PD-logo" or "PD-USonly", I'll let him know so that he can readd them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- MK One and Hackett definitively are, the former may be USOnly though. I dunno if Jaeger is original enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Add File:Hackett (clothing).jpg, File:Jaeger logo.png and File:MK One.png to the above list. These may also be "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Commented out File:Logo Hawes & Curtis.jpg and File:Viyella logo.jpg per above. Remaining logos still need to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. Actually, I mixed up Nos. 7 and 8, so I agree with you about "Viyella" and "Hawes & Curtis" and think removing them would be uncontroversial. As for the others, maybe a little more discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- By my reading, Bellville Sassoon, C & J Clarks International, Monsoon accessorize, USC (store) may or may not be copyrightable (are these unique styles or unoriginal fonts?), Cotswold Outdoor and Peacockslogo may be copyrightable but more likely not and either way the former needs a copy that isn't so artifacted, Logo of Dunnes Stores is a classic textlogo, Logo Hawes & Curtis and Viyella are copyrightable. Fenchurch and C&A I dunno.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All 5 mentioned images have been deleted by now. The article itself was redirected to a brief section in Outlook.com. --GermanJoe (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page consists of merely 596 words but has five non-free files. Two of which, File:Windows Live Mail Contacts.png and File:Windows Live People.png are questionably too large. I have linked here from the article's talk page, as I feel we're going a little too far with the non-free media — MusikAnimal talk 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- A logo and a identifying screenshot is generally acceptable in the infobox for software, but none of the interface aspects of the previous versions are subject of discussion so they should be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaced non-free tags with {{PD-USonly}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the British image eligible for copyright in the US? George Ho (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would be ineligible in the US but likely copyrightable in the UK. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho and Masem: It looks like this file should be tagged with {{PD-USonly}}, but I was unable to find a source for this file to include in the {{Information}} template that would replace the FUR template. When I searched for this subject using search engines, the only exact image match that appeared was this one here on the English Wikipedia ... we obviously cannot source ourselves. Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are close-enough covers like [1] and I see evidence for this as being a legit cover from google image search. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I added the website: [2]. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are close-enough covers like [1] and I see evidence for this as being a legit cover from google image search. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho and Masem: It looks like this file should be tagged with {{PD-USonly}}, but I was unable to find a source for this file to include in the {{Information}} template that would replace the FUR template. When I searched for this subject using search engines, the only exact image match that appeared was this one here on the English Wikipedia ... we obviously cannot source ourselves. Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 1#File:Michigan State Spartan Helmet.svg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §14, WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9 on numerous pages. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unless there is a possibility that this is too simple for "non-free", then I agree. Image also fails WP:NFCC#10c for the individual season articles in addition to UUI No. 14. Personally, I think the image is only acceptable for use in Michigan State Spartans and should be removed from every other article per Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Commented out the image from all season articles and from individual team articles lacking an nfur per above. In addition, File:Michigan-State-logo-block-s.svg also appears to be a logo of the school and it is freely licensed. Although it is not the same as the helmet logo, it is being used in a number of Michigan State sports related articles so perhaps it should be used instead of the helmet logos in all the team and season articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as {{PD-USonly}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this PD-ineligible? Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, if it originated from the UK. It would definitely fall into PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that there are currently no non-free files in Template:Bihar Legislative Assembly election, 2015, the concern in this discussion seems to be resolved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Users keep re-adding non-free files to this template in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Incomplete galleries are just begging for them to be completed. I do recommend to remove all images per that and because an incomplete gallery looks bad. Otherwise, we might try to explain NFCC#9 to them (no non-free images in non-article namespace) - I'll call Chanakya Knights here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image from Khamenei twitter of a what appears to be Obama pointing a gun at his head
Answered, and not related to a file currently existing on Wikipedia, so closing discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original source for this appears to be here: [3]. Lots of media have apparently concluded they can use it, e.g. CNN[4], USA Today [5], New York Daily News[6]; googling will turn up others. Can Wikipedia use it? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Based on my understanding, the lack of a copyright agreement between Iran and the US means that an image made there is effectively PD in the US. However, practice on Wikipedia is that Iranian copyrights are still respected for our NFC policies, so that image would be a non-free image unless it's freely licensed or PD even in Iran. <Not a lawyer disclaimer>. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also consider that the Twitter account is only claimed to be associated with Khamenei, not proven, so we are clear enough on the origin to meet the sourcing requirements for NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aye, Twitter has methods to mark accounts that are proven but I can't see it there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also consider that the Twitter account is only claimed to be associated with Khamenei, not proven, so we are clear enough on the origin to meet the sourcing requirements for NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File moved to Commons at C:File:Toby Suzuki.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Photo being used in Toby Suzuki. A non-free usage rationale is provided for the article, but there is no copyright tag provided for the image and it is tagged with {{Attribution}}. The nfur says for "source" that "subject provided this photo at author's request specifically for article", so I'm not sure why this is being treated as non-free. If the subject provided the photo, then this usage would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1 since the subject or someone else could provide the same photo or an equivalent photo for free by following the steps listed at WP:DCP. Finally, the image is also being used inline at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop (instead of being linked) which fails WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c if the image is really non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Calling Kintetsubuffalo here about that.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, then help me out. I don't upload this kind of image often, have no idea what tag should apply here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kintetsubuffalo. A photo of a living person almost always fails NFCC#1 since it is possible that a free equivalent could be taken by someone and uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. Generally, the photographer, not the subject of the photo, is considered the copyright holder. Do you know if Mr. Suzuki took the photo himself or whether the photographer transfered the copyright to him? If either is the case, then he can simply upload the photo to Commons himself as {{PD-self}} or one of the free licenses listed at WP:ICT/FL. He could also donate the image to Wikipedia per WP:DCP#Donating your photographs. You could upload the image to Commons on his behalf if that's easier by following the instructions listed at c:COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. If, however, Mr. Suzuki is not the copyright holder or did not take the photo himself, then I believe you need to request permission from the photographer to use the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, then help me out. I don't upload this kind of image often, have no idea what tag should apply here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- He's submitted the letter, I also forwarded Wikipedia the letter, received ticket #2015101410000721.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- His original ticket # is 2015101310005067. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.2.103.226 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Kintetsubuffalo. The image has been tagged with "OTRS pending", so I think it's safe until OTRS decides either way. For reference, Wikipedia OTRS currently has a backlog of only 1 day, so there shouldn't be much of a wait until a volunteer gets to the file. If things seems to be taking longer than necessary, then you can always post at WP:OTRSN and directly ask an OTRS volunteer to check into things for you. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looked through my files and found and trimmed one up I could label mine, changed the license appropriately.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK Kintetsubuffalo. Just for reference, I think it's better to simply upload the different image as completely separate file since it's not really a "new" version. This helps avoid confusion and allows each file to have a unique name and edit history. I think that's why it was tagged as {{Split media}} by Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Different files should be under different file names, in particular if they have different authors and and copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK Kintetsubuffalo. Just for reference, I think it's better to simply upload the different image as completely separate file since it's not really a "new" version. This helps avoid confusion and allows each file to have a unique name and edit history. I think that's why it was tagged as {{Split media}} by Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free screenshot which has non-free use rationales for Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) and TV-am, but does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either usage. The nfur for the "Good Morning Britain" states that the screenshot is needed to "To show both the style (including set and clock) and presenters of the Good Morning Britain television programme at that time. Note that this displays a different aspect to the logo image File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg, and thus use of two shots is believed justified.", but this is something that is can be more than sufficiently done using text: The reader does not need to see the image to understand that the main set consisted of a sofa and other furniture or that a "famous" analog clock was displayed at the bottom right of the sceen. The nfur for"TV-am" states "This was both TV-am's flagship show and the one for which they are best known, so it was core to their success and thus warrants inclusion here", but that information is not obtained from the screenshot at all. Doesn't a screenshot of four people sitting on a sofa smiling simply show four people sitting on a sofa and smiling?
Usage in both cases seems to be, at least in my opinion, purely decorative and not warranted at all. - Marchjuly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 2015-10-11T12:22:25
- 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.
Invalid gallery of non-free emblems has been removed. --GermanJoe (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free logo being used twice in Sydney Roosters. The first usage in the infobox seems problem free since the logo is being used as the primary means of identification of the team. Usage in Sydney Roosters#Emblem is problematic per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG. There is really no need to use the same image twice in the same article since no new information is being provided to the reader that cannot be done using only text alone (NFCC#3a). The second usage also lacks the separate, specific non-free use rationale it needs per NFCC#10c and is being used in a gallery which is not really allowed per NFG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs uses the same image twice (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs#Name_and_emblem). Without the current logo in the Emblem History gallery, the gallery would be missing vital information. Another example would be the Miami Heat who also use the same image twice (Miami Heat#Logos).
KC Roosters — Talk 05:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)- The same non-free logo shouldn't be being used twice in those articles as well. The fact that non-free images are being inappropriately used in other articles is not really a good reason for doing the same thing in this article. Each usage of a non-free content (not each article where such content is being used) requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale. Each usage of non-free content must satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. The non-free use rationale for the Roosters' logo states that it is being used in the infobox, not in a section of logos. Since it is being used in the infobox, there's no really no good reason to use it again since no new information is being provided to the reader that cannot be provided using only text. You can add a caption to the logo being used in the infobox if there's a need to explain when it was used. Moreover, non-free images are generally not allowed to be used in galleries for decorative purposes, which means the other non-free logos being used in that gallery also have problems with WP:NFG. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @KC Roosters: Please note that per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". The only non-free rationale for the logo is for use in the article's infobox, so that is the only place the logo can be used per WP:NFCC. If you wish to use the logo twice in the same article, then please provide a "valid" non-free use rationale which complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs uses the same image twice (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs#Name_and_emblem). Without the current logo in the Emblem History gallery, the gallery would be missing vital information. Another example would be the Miami Heat who also use the same image twice (Miami Heat#Logos).
- That whole non-free image gallery has a very shaky rationale. I would have opposed that article at FAC on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure if this image is appropriate to represent the subject which it is meant to represent, 4chan. My worry is in regards to the picture at the top of the image: the picture of the Atlantis spacecraft. Yes, this is an entire screenshot of the web page with the "recent images" section blacked out, but does the image of the Atlantis spacecraft need to be blacked out as well to meet proper fair use guidelines? Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The photo is credited to "hiroyuki", Hiroyuki Nishimura, the current owner of 4chan. This is referred to by him on Twitter as well: [7]. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is probably used improperly. There is already a free image in the infobox in Chicago Police Department that helps identify the subject. For that reason, this image seems improperly used and unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per my response above in WP:NFCR#File:Chicago Police Logo.png, usage of logo in infobox seems unacceptable per WP:NFCC#3a. It may be possible to use later in the article is the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 can be provided. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Chicago Police Patch can stay. The Chicago Police logo can be deleted as I already removed it from the infobox. Asher Heimermann (talk)
- Writing in bold-type does not necessary make the file NFCC compliant. The number of free images being used in an article is probably something that should be discussed at the article's talk page. The patch in question, however, is non-free, so what determines whether an it should be used is WP:NFCC. I think Steel1943's concern about WP:NFCC#1 has some merit and should be discussed a little more. "Primary means of visual identification" implies a single image, at least it does to me, so if a free equivalent is available that provides essentially the same information and serves essentially the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., to identify the article is about the Chicago Police Department), then the free image is to be preferred over the non-free. So, simply removing the free image because you wish to use the non-free image instead is not really in accordance with NFCC#1.
- FWIW, there may be another option worth considering based upon the c:COM:VPC#Baltimore police patches at the Commons Village Pump. Apparently, it may be possible for the patch to be considered {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} if it can be shown it was used prior to March 1, 1989. If that's the case, then WP:NFCC would no longer be applicable as long as the copyright issues related the photograph of the patch can be resolved as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Chicago Police Patch can stay. The Chicago Police logo can be deleted as I already removed it from the infobox. Asher Heimermann (talk)
- The logo of the Chicago Police Department and the patch was in the infobox for years until I keep along and updated both. Then I have User:Marchjuly come along and complain. As I stated above, I've removed the logo and the patch can remain because there are numerous other articles about police departments, sheriff departments, fire departments, and other public safety agencies that have patches in their infobox. Are you going to challenge all of those as well? The image in question is a photograph of the Chicago Police Department patch, a photograph I took and own the copyright of the picture. So once again, the patch stays. The logo has been removed. The issue here is resolved. Time to move on to real copyright issues here. Asher Heimermann (talk)
- @Asher Heimermann: That's not how this works. Concerns presented in this discussion have yet to be resolved, including my belief that the free image that is already on the article is the most adequate logo for the subject of the article since, plain and simple, it exists. Also, in most cases, if a person takes a picture of a unique work where the work is the clear focus of the image (such as what you have done with taking the picture of the patch), the photo could be considered a derivative work, and the copyright would belong to the creator of the design. Either way, primary concern is that this image's use, in my opinion, violates WP:NFCC#1 since the free image currently on the article illustrates the same point you claim that the patch illustrates, leaving the patch image's use in the article a violation of fair-use per WP:NFCC#1. The proper fair-use in the infobox is to illustrate specifically the subject of the article as best as possible, and the free image seems to do that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Asher Heimermann: Just for reference, it was Steel1943 who started this NFCR discussion about the patch, not me. I just feel there is some merit to their concern so that this should be discussed some more. Moreover, the fact the other stuff exists is not always so clear when it comes to WP:NFCC because each usage requires its own separate, specific non-free use rationale. Since you say the photo is yours, I am assuming you uploaded it to "Wisconsin Public Safety". That site says "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, so you may need to provide a free license for the photo (possibly something like {{self}}) in addtion to the non-free rationale for the patch. Finally, the {{non-free review}} tag should stay on the file's page until the discussion has be formally closed. At that time, it will be changed to {{non-free reviewed}} by the editor who closes the discussion or simply removed depending upon the result. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The logo of the Chicago Police Department and the patch was in the infobox for years until I keep along and updated both. Then I have User:Marchjuly come along and complain. As I stated above, I've removed the logo and the patch can remain because there are numerous other articles about police departments, sheriff departments, fire departments, and other public safety agencies that have patches in their infobox. Are you going to challenge all of those as well? The image in question is a photograph of the Chicago Police Department patch, a photograph I took and own the copyright of the picture. So once again, the patch stays. The logo has been removed. The issue here is resolved. Time to move on to real copyright issues here. Asher Heimermann (talk)
- using a patch image is OK for the purpose, as that is what will be distinctive about the uniform, in order to distinguish from other police. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Understood, so my "derivative work" concern doesn't apply here. However, that still leaves my concern about the image's placement since it is placed in the infobox identifying the subject of the article, which is the police entity. There is already a free image in the infobox that serves that very purpose, so the need for a non-free image in the infobox is unnecessary for illustrative needs (WP:NFCC#1.) In my opinion, for this image to remain in a useful fashion, it would need to be moved to a "yet-to-be-written" section in the article explaining a subject which the patch could provide contextual significance, such as a section describing the various stars and/or patches that represent levels/awards/etc. for the police force. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, yes, I did notice that there is a field in the infobox for the patch, but is there any consensus to use non-free images as such in the infobox to illustrate these fields, given that the purpose of infoboxes is to describe the subject of the article and not subtopics (unless a separate section is created in the article with a separate infobox to identify the subtopics, such as how songs may be redone by a different artist, and thus have a different album cover in a section identifying the alternate version of the song?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- using a patch image is OK for the purpose, as that is what will be distinctive about the uniform, in order to distinguish from other police. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am more worried about File:Chicago Police Star.png which claims to have been produced by GoBlue85, but is so low resolution, and so unlikely that it is either a copyright violation or a fake (not genuine). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Good point. Obviously, if no free alternatives existed, then my concern regarding using a non-free image would be absolved. If the free image is deleted as a copyvio, as you state, then the patch would truly be a means to identify the subject at that point since no free alternative would then exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the Commons image is deleted as copyvio, then I could also see using the patch in the infobox as well. I'm not sure, but it is possible that the image came from here or here. Since the file is already on Commons, any nomination of it for deletion needs to take place at c:COM:FFD. Regardless, a copyright license might still need to be provided for the photo in addition to the non-free rationale for the patch. That should be fairly easy to do if needed since Asher Heimermann says the photo is theirs.
- There is another possibility as well. If the patch was used prior to March 1, 1989, it may be eligible for "PD-ineligible" based upon the Commons VP discussion I mentioned above. In that case, only the licensing of the photo needs to be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am more worried about File:Chicago Police Star.png which claims to have been produced by GoBlue85, but is so low resolution, and so unlikely that it is either a copyright violation or a fake (not genuine). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, As discussed on Commons, this patch design is most probably {{PD-US-no notice}}. @Clindberg:, do you agree? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Yann. I see you've changed the licensing to "PD-no notice" for the patch, now all we need to do sort out the licensing for the photo and I think WP:NFCC will no longer be an issue. @Asher Heimermann: Since you hold the copyright on the photo, all you need to do is pick an appropriate file copyright tag, add it to the file's page, and replace the non-free use rationale with {{information}} and everything should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Attribution}} was added by Asher Heimermann for the photo, so now both the photo and patch are no longer non-free. File still has a non-free use rationale which it no longer needs and this probably should be changed to {{information}}, but otherwise this all appears to be resolved. Anyone disagree? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image retagged as {{PD-logo}} by User:Marchjuly. Non-admin closure. --RJaguar3 | u | t 13:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pretty clearly a textlogo IMO - just some lines are not copyrightable. Just wanted to know whether it'd be PD-USonly or the general PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- PD-textlogo. It's a NY based company (it appears) and as such the logo is ineligible for copyright in the US and thus the world. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per above. Image did have problems with WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9, but these should no longer be an issue. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image removed from hero graphic as a violation of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable). Image has been tagged as orphaned fair use (WP:CSD#F5). Non-admin closure. --RJaguar3 | u | t 13:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image's use in hero graphic could easily be replaced a free use substitute. There's no special reason to use a shot from Apple.com as opposed to any generic website. czar 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is definitely replaceable, even if just a user-made mockup. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 something like this replaceable as a free alternative for its intended purpose, or would that be copyright infringement as a derivative work? Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, a free version can be made to demonstrate this. Most of the articles under American football strategy appear to use freely made images, and I can't see how the actions of the players on the field is a copyrightable element. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the idea @Steel1943:. I will replace it, but feel free to put a better one up if you were planning on doing it. Cake (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c on numerous pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The image seems to be being used by Template:jct to add the image to Manitoba Highway 1, Manitoba Highway 41 and Manitoba Provincial Road 257. I don't see how such usage complies with WP:NFCC#8 so simply adding a nfur for each of those articles does not seem appropriate at all. I believe the
|shield=in Module:Road data/strings/CAN/MB is what needs to be edited, but I have no idea how to do that and don't want to much up the template. So, I am pinging the creator of that particular module, @Happy5214:, and hoping they can help figure this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) - The issue is not the module per se. The module looks for File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg, which currently redirects to the offending file. This should be a separate file like File:Manitoba secondary 248.svg, which is a free-use image. @Fredddie: Can you create a new free-use shield to replace the aforementioned redirect? -happy5214 07:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is already a free variant under that name on Commons, but the redirect prevents us from using the Commons file on English Wikipedia. See c:File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: ...And it looks as though due to the way that {{Jct}} is built, it can only display the file by the title of its redirect (File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg), not its current name ... meaning that it may be difficult to orphan the redirect. I may try to resolve this; best case would be to just delete the redirect local to Wikipedia, but I'm not finding a clean, uncontroversial way to do this, but I'm looking at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Only update the filename on those pages on which we should use the local file. Once those pages have been updated, the redirect can be speedied, and then the Commons file should automatically appear on those pages which should use the Commons file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: What I am saying is that what you just asked (the part about "updat[ing] the filename") is technically impossible. All file links for this file are links to the redirect File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg, which matches a format for displaying files by title that is built directly into {{Jct}};
all fourthree of the links to this file are due to {{Jct}} transclusions. Either way, I have requested the redirect be speedy deleted. Hope the wording is proper. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC) - @Stefan2: Made some corrections above. Either way, having the current links link to any other title seems impossible due to their title patterns being built in {{Jct}} (three links) and {{Infobox road}} (one link) in a specific way. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Per the description of the Commons file that is overshadowed by the redirect to the file being discussed here, the image of the bison was removed from the sign (which seems to have been done with every sign) to avoid copyright issues. This file on Commons is truly a full free replacement for every instance of the file in discussion, it seems. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: What I am saying is that what you just asked (the part about "updat[ing] the filename") is technically impossible. All file links for this file are links to the redirect File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg, which matches a format for displaying files by title that is built directly into {{Jct}};
- Only update the filename on those pages on which we should use the local file. Once those pages have been updated, the redirect can be speedied, and then the Commons file should automatically appear on those pages which should use the Commons file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: ...And it looks as though due to the way that {{Jct}} is built, it can only display the file by the title of its redirect (File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg), not its current name ... meaning that it may be difficult to orphan the redirect. I may try to resolve this; best case would be to just delete the redirect local to Wikipedia, but I'm not finding a clean, uncontroversial way to do this, but I'm looking at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is already a free variant under that name on Commons, but the redirect prevents us from using the Commons file on English Wikipedia. See c:File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The redirect File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg has been deleted from the English Wikipedia, exposing the Commons file it overshadowed. At this point, the file discussed here is now orphaned, and thus, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 possible fails WP:NFCC#1 since the intent of this image is to illustrate the person, but since the person is still alive, an image to illustrate who the person is can still be created. However, the image states that the image's purpose is to illustrate the person's emotion in a moment, but this really doesn't seem illustrated in the least here. The image doesn't seemingly add substance to the article in a way for the image's fair use claim to be considered proper. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree and will also add that this doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS as well. The non-free rationale claims the image is needed "To depict the current world record holder of Super Mario Bros. speedruns and give a somewhat more concrete idea of his feelings during the speedrun, in ways text could not." Looking at the image does not do any such thing in my opinion and the usage appears to be purely decorative. It's probably OK to add free images of Darbian and the other record holders, but not non-free ones (at least not in this way). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I can't really argue against this. Though I felt this image met requirements, I understand your arguments. ~Mable (chat) 07:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion was resolved at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_July_19#File:2015OrangeBowl.png. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image appears to be a user-created montage of File:College Football Playoff Logo.png and File:GoodyearCottonBowl.png so likely doesn't satisfy Wp:NFCC#3a. Moreover, even though the image has a nfur for 2015 Cotton Bowl Classic (December), it's not clear if this is the official image of this particular, just the image of the event's sponsor per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI, or simply just original research. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete - most likely a self-made, unusable collage.The original uploader has uploaded several of such, already removed, logos for various sports events. Official website does not show that combined logo. The upload also lacks a clear source information (no URL). GermanJoe (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)- Withdrew own recommendation. I opened an analogous case here and am no longer sure, if such special collages are usable in that context or not. (I am not even sure, they count as "collage" and not simply as 2 logos displayed next to each other). This needs someone more knowledgeable to decide. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Images are not different enough to both be necessary. It seems the consensus is to replace the PNG with the SVG version. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logo of organization Ansar al-Sham uploaded as non-free. Logo has a non-free use rationale for article, but my question is whether it is significantly different from the freely licensed File:Logo of the Islamic Front (Syria).svg. The only difference I can see between the two is the text added to the Ansar al-Sham logo and that it is a png file. I cannot read the text, but my understanding is that text is not protected by copyright. Does the non-free logo satisfy WP:NFCC#1 and does it need to be non-free? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I am not sure if these shapes (outside of the text) are original enough to be copyrightable. I would prefer to use the SVG file regardless of copyright status though, it has a higher resolution and quality. Whether it's right that both images have different copyright status I don't know.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already marked as indicated in the discussion, so the file is no longer nonfree at least for US purposes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this image eligible for copyright in the UK? It contains just black background, album title, and record label logo. George Ho (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it would fall under the threshold of originality. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can I at least tag it as "PD-ineligible-USonly"? --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Cat logo
Partially resolved by deletion of a redundant image; image to be removed from all but main school article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to be the logo of Weber State Wildcats and should only be used in that article. The logo violates WP:NFCC#8 in Weber State University and WP:NFC#UUI §17 in several articles. Since there are two identical copies of the logo, one of them could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F1, provided that that version is unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on all points, though of which of the two logos to keep I can't see any real difference even though one has a small byte size than the other. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that use of the logo is only valid on Weber State Wildcats and not in the university or individual team articles. I am wondering whether the photo/logo used on the Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team's [Weber State Wildcats official Facebook page] could be used for that article. It is the same logo, but the basketball in the background might make it specific enough for use on the team's article. Not sure if its acceptable since it seems to be the logo superimposed upon a photo. Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- File:WeberStateWildcats.png has been been nominated for speedy deletion per WP:F5 since it was replaced by the other image in the articles where it was being used. The problems with No. 17 and File:Weber State Wildcats logo.png, however, still remain since it is now being used in six articles. There are also new problems with WP:NFCC#10c since the image only has non-free rationales for three of these uses. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image replaced and deleted. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we need a non-free picture of religious leader Nirmala Srivastava on the history section of Sahaja Yoga article?
Ms. Srivastava no longer alive, so, I understand the use of this image in her biography. But I don't agree the presence of this non-free image "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the history of spiritual technique Sahaja Yoga.
The article says Srivastava invented Sahaja Yoga, and this is important. But what she looked like is not relevant.
Do we use non-free pictures of people in sections discussing topics related to that people, just because they are mentioned? --damiens.rf 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is one of those uses that we disallow. If it was Srivastava perhaps actually demonstrating the technique there might be some logic, but not just a picture of the person with no other concept. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem:, is this just an opinion or is it based on some policy or guideline? Recently, I have unsuccessfully tried do remove this image from that article a few times.--damiens.rf 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- NFCC#8. The picture of the person (otherwise doing nothing directly related to the yoga exercise) can be removed from the article without hindering the reader's understanding of the topic of the yoga exercise; it is effectively decoration in that manner. That's why I mention that if it was the person actually doing one of the positions that the yoga exercise calls, that might help contribute towards the reader's understand. Instead, we can link to that person and the reader can click through if they really know what it is. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Damiens.rf: I agree with Masem on this. I do not see how this image is needed for the article. There's a wikilink to Nirmala Srivastava in the very first sentence of the lead (in fact, it's the first wikilink in the entire article) where any reader interested in learning more about Srivastava will see the same picture in the infobox. Definitely does not meet the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8. I'm not sure, however, if it was a good idea for you to remove the non-free use rationale for "Nirmala Srivastava" and the image's licensing with this edit because now the image has no nfur for any usage or any licensing at all. If the image is non-free, it needs to have a nfur for each use per WP:NFCC#10c and I believe all images are required to have information on their copyright and licensing status per WP:IUP. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That was by mistake! The rationale can now be seen, after I have fixed a template parameter name.--damiens.rf 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- From what I saw, there several photos of free license of Nirmala Srivastava in Wikimedia Commons. It is not necessary a photo with Copyright of this woman in Wikipedia.--Isinbill (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I have replaced the remaining usage with Commons file File:Shri_Mataji_Nirmala_Shrivastava.jpg (OTRS), and marked the non-free image as orphaned. GermanJoe (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- From what I saw, there several photos of free license of Nirmala Srivastava in Wikimedia Commons. It is not necessary a photo with Copyright of this woman in Wikipedia.--Isinbill (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That was by mistake! The rationale can now be seen, after I have fixed a template parameter name.--damiens.rf 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem:, is this just an opinion or is it based on some policy or guideline? Recently, I have unsuccessfully tried do remove this image from that article a few times.--damiens.rf 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyrightable element is de minimis, rest not copyrightable for TEXTLOGO/insufficient originality reasons. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the logos in the top right hand corner of the album cover de minimis enough for this to qualify as PD-simple or PD-textlogo in which case the NFUR rationale can be amended to a simple information template. Nthep (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would argue yes, it just meets de minimis - of the logos, its the MPS one that has potentially copyrightable elements but at the size that this exists out there, they're not usable so should be okay. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.