![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is unbelievably tiresome, but, WP policy is that if a copyrighted image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" then it can be used [1]. The company logos significantly add to people's understanding because they can quickly identify FTSE 100 companies with these familiar images. All agreed? Wik idea 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This is "judiciously" using the images. There is no violation of copyright in general, and no violation of the Wikipedia policy in particular. Wik idea 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#10 does apply. Even if people somehow come to the conclusion that the usage can meet WP:NFCC#8 (which they most certainly do not), someone needs to add license tags to each image before adding them back. "Before" is a key word here.— Kww( talk) 20:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I have restored some of the images because I think that those images are below the threshold of originality. Before changing the licence for any of them, is there any logo among those which you think isn't below the threshold of originality? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the structure of the article, which seems illogical. There is a detailed table for March 2013 (section 2), then a simple list for 'Current', stated to be 23 Sept 2013. Is this because no-one has got around to a proper update? If so, I'm happy to do it. If there's something else going on, please explain. Additionally, the process of adjusting the membership is poorly explained, with no reference to get more detail. Heenan73 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the ongoing failure in agreement about copyright issues, over this page version, I have opened (as I hope is correct) a formal review. Here is the link I posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#FTSE_100_Index
The argument is (1) there is no copyright issue under fair use law (we know because logos are used all the time), and (2) the Wikipedia policies are quite comfortable with use of logos. More broadly, I hope that the page can simply look better if it is allowed. The recent edits show how narrowing down can deteriorate the quality of the information (no pics, and apparently no website links) available to readers. This just seems to be entirely the opposite mentality to what we want from an open, informative encyclopedia. Wik idea 16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Also created a dispute resolution page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_FTSE_100_Index Wik idea 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is unbelievably tiresome, but, WP policy is that if a copyrighted image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" then it can be used [1]. The company logos significantly add to people's understanding because they can quickly identify FTSE 100 companies with these familiar images. All agreed? Wik idea 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This is "judiciously" using the images. There is no violation of copyright in general, and no violation of the Wikipedia policy in particular. Wik idea 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#10 does apply. Even if people somehow come to the conclusion that the usage can meet WP:NFCC#8 (which they most certainly do not), someone needs to add license tags to each image before adding them back. "Before" is a key word here.— Kww( talk) 20:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I have restored some of the images because I think that those images are below the threshold of originality. Before changing the licence for any of them, is there any logo among those which you think isn't below the threshold of originality? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the structure of the article, which seems illogical. There is a detailed table for March 2013 (section 2), then a simple list for 'Current', stated to be 23 Sept 2013. Is this because no-one has got around to a proper update? If so, I'm happy to do it. If there's something else going on, please explain. Additionally, the process of adjusting the membership is poorly explained, with no reference to get more detail. Heenan73 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the ongoing failure in agreement about copyright issues, over this page version, I have opened (as I hope is correct) a formal review. Here is the link I posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#FTSE_100_Index
The argument is (1) there is no copyright issue under fair use law (we know because logos are used all the time), and (2) the Wikipedia policies are quite comfortable with use of logos. More broadly, I hope that the page can simply look better if it is allowed. The recent edits show how narrowing down can deteriorate the quality of the information (no pics, and apparently no website links) available to readers. This just seems to be entirely the opposite mentality to what we want from an open, informative encyclopedia. Wik idea 16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Also created a dispute resolution page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_FTSE_100_Index Wik idea 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)