- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:AddamsFamilyOCR.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by S.S. Miami ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free album cover art being used twice in The Addams Family (musical): once in the main infobox and once in The Addams Family (musical)#Original Broadway cast recording. The file is only provided with a non-free use rationale for one of the uses, but it doesn't specifically state which one. So, one of the uses fails WP:NFCC#10c and can be removed as such per WP:NFCCE. There is also no need for two uses of the file per WP:NFCC#3a, which means the file should not be used twice in the article even even if another non-free use rationale is provided.
In addition to the above, there are also issues with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 which need to be resolved as well. The non-free use in the section about the recording is similar to the way some people add non-free film soundtrack album covers to "Soundtrack" sections in articles about films. This is something that is not recommended per WP:FILMSCORE, and I think the same reasoning is applicable here. The album cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article, so NFCC#8 is not met per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, unless more is added about the cover art somewhere in the article. The question, therefore, is whether the file's use as the primary means of identification in the main infobox is justified. If the article was about the recording itself, then using it in the main infobox for such a purpose would make sense; the article, however, is about the musical, so it would seem better to use the poster art for the musical instead in the main infobox: such as the poster seen here. Although the two files are quite similiar, the poster art does have "A New Musical Comedy" at the bottom and is missing the names of the two lead actors at the top, while the album cover has the lead's names and "Words and Lyrics by Andrew Lippa". So, it seems they were intended for different branding purposes.
If the consensus is that this difference is not enough to remove the album cover from the main infobox, then fine. I do think though that it would be better to upload the other image as {{ Non-free poster}} using {{ Non-free use rationale poster}} for the main infobox and then delete the cast recording album cover art altogether.
Finally, just for reference, I have notified the uploader of this dicussion, but they have been indefinitely blocked since 2011. So, I don't anticipate any clarification being provided from them about the file's use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Update - I changed the lead image to File:The Addams Family musical poster 2010 Nathan Lane Bebe Neuwirth.jpg. George Ho ( talk) 08:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Other Side of the Game.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Simple2010 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader is not the copyright holder of this non-free image. Binksternet ( talk) 03:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Relicensed to non-free album cover. Discussion should be good for closure now. Salavat ( talk) 05:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Les Pattinson Cebu City.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dippy redhead ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No known version number; without a version number, we can't identify this as any particular free license. ~ Rob13 Talk 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Now updated online to be CC-BY-SA-4.0. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Dario Margeli Dentro Un Vortice Video.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nayumadehrafti ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No version number given. I've emailed the copyright holder and will update when I hear back. ~ Rob13 Talk 14:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Updated 7-December-2017 Creative Commons version CC BY-SA 4.0 has been added to the source page of the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.183.3 ( talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Lichen nitidus.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 1579654863 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No license number given, and this licensing is not listed on the actual journal's website. Instead, they list a non-commercial license, which we can't accept. [1] ~ Rob13 Talk 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Rupertswood Hotel Sunbury 16 April 1898.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BaldHill ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Author is unknown, and this is a historical photo unlikely to have been published by the copyright holder. Doesn't meet the criteria for {{ PD-US-unpublished}}. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:BarlowGirl Hallelujah music video.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LABcrabs ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screen capture does not merit a FUR. The video is not discussed in the article and is used only to decorate the article in which it is used. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I will not be contesting a file removal request. I'm sure that I can expand upon the limited information the article provides on the music video, but since I'm not planning to do this immediately, the file can be kept, deleted or later restored. -- LABcrabs ( talk) 12:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2018 April 28. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Ridiculous, baseless allegation. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Scihub raven.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Distrait cognizance ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
"The well-read raven" by Kate McLelland (www.katemclelland.com). No evidence of permission, so likely a copyright violation, perhaps also by Sci-hub. See a copy of the original drawing along with copyright notice: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/299982025149727176/ Should be deleted unless license granted via OTRS. — kashmīrī TALK 20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Frankly this doesn't matter as it is still a fully valid upload according to
WP:FAIRUSE, and that it is a potential copyright violation is only personal speculation and not something we can go by — and Wikipedia is not violating copyright law no matter how you interpret it. Add to that how there is no date and we can't tell which copy is oldest which is a requirement if we were to pull it from commons. Without being able to tell whether it could be the other way round with SH using the image first or an earlier date it's not even enough to delete from commons. But since this is fair use those things don't matter at all. However, the discription should be updated with this information in mind.
Distrait cognizance (
talk)
13:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fair use requires (1) correct attribution, and (2) allowed rationale. I can see neither here. Additionally, situations when we can claim FUR are limited to situatoins when it is impossible otherwise. But it is wrong to argue that this drawing serves as irreplaceable logo or visual identification sign when it does not (no raven displayed on Sci-Hub affiliated websites or social media). It's just that someone had an idea to copy the website graphics here, as it it were a logotype, in defiance of WP rules on fair use. — kashmīrī TALK 03:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Brainerdhightn.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bneu2013 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is clearly not just a "text logo" and almost certainly (in my opinion) too complex (even for the c:COM:TOO#United States) to be {{ PD-logo}}. Non-free use in the Brainerd High School (Tennessee) could possibly be justified, but generally mascot logos do not seem to be used in the main infobox of school articles, so the school's crest (shown here) might be a better choice for that encyclopedic purpose. If the school's athletic department was notable enough to support a stand-alone article, then I could see using this file for identification there; however, I don't believe the typical high school athletic department is considered notable enough for a stand-alone article just for existing per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This appears to be a logo for the entire school, not just the athletic department. The school article guidelines, while just an essay and not an official policy, suggest the inclusion of "the school's crest, logo, seal, emblem and/or coat of arms." Bneu2013 ( talk) 00:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to use a non-free logo in the main infobox for identification purposes; I just don't recall seeing any mascot logos being used this way in any high school or university articles. I've asked
John from Idegon to clarify this because John is one of the coordinators (and I believe founders) of
WP:WPSCHOOLS, so he should know what the current practice is. If the file can be used, then I think its licensing should be converted to {{
Non-free logo}}, and {{
Non-free use rationale logo}} added for the infobox use. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree completely this not a PD text only file and is hence misliscensed. However, it should simply be re-licensed as fair use logo and we'll be done here. It's in use, and the only reason it would fail NFCC is if it weren't.
Marchjuly, I think the point you are missing is, at least in the US, the identity of a school is the athletics logo or mascot. Sure, most schools have an official seal or crest, but about the only place you'll see it is on a diploma (and I've even seen diplomas with the athletic logo on them). I've personally uploaded over 150 NFCC files for use in school infoboxes, and at least half (probably more like 75%) have been athletic logos. So my !vote here would be Fix license and keep.
John from Idegon (
talk)
02:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- My main concern was about the PD licensing. If the consensus is to convert to non-free and use in the main infobox, then I'm fine with that. I just haven't seen mascot logos used in this way before; I most see creats or other logos used in high school/university logos and mascot logos used in athletic department articles. I completely understand that school identity is highly associated with the school's choice of mascots. It was the same at my high school and university, but those two Wikipedia article do use the crest in the main infobox. I didn't check every article in Category:High schools in the United States by state, but I checked Alabama and most of the article I saw using infobox images were either using crests or a photo of the school. I did see some using mascot logos, but not nearly as many. Anyway, that was the extent of my very limited research before starting this FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree completely this not a PD text only file and is hence misliscensed. However, it should simply be re-licensed as fair use logo and we'll be done here. It's in use, and the only reason it would fail NFCC is if it weren't.
Marchjuly, I think the point you are missing is, at least in the US, the identity of a school is the athletics logo or mascot. Sure, most schools have an official seal or crest, but about the only place you'll see it is on a diploma (and I've even seen diplomas with the athletic logo on them). I've personally uploaded over 150 NFCC files for use in school infoboxes, and at least half (probably more like 75%) have been athletic logos. So my !vote here would be Fix license and keep.
John from Idegon (
talk)
02:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to use a non-free logo in the main infobox for identification purposes; I just don't recall seeing any mascot logos being used this way in any high school or university articles. I've asked
John from Idegon to clarify this because John is one of the coordinators (and I believe founders) of
WP:WPSCHOOLS, so he should know what the current practice is. If the file can be used, then I think its licensing should be converted to {{
Non-free logo}}, and {{
Non-free use rationale logo}} added for the infobox use. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:AddamsFamilyOCR.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by S.S. Miami ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free album cover art being used twice in The Addams Family (musical): once in the main infobox and once in The Addams Family (musical)#Original Broadway cast recording. The file is only provided with a non-free use rationale for one of the uses, but it doesn't specifically state which one. So, one of the uses fails WP:NFCC#10c and can be removed as such per WP:NFCCE. There is also no need for two uses of the file per WP:NFCC#3a, which means the file should not be used twice in the article even even if another non-free use rationale is provided.
In addition to the above, there are also issues with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 which need to be resolved as well. The non-free use in the section about the recording is similar to the way some people add non-free film soundtrack album covers to "Soundtrack" sections in articles about films. This is something that is not recommended per WP:FILMSCORE, and I think the same reasoning is applicable here. The album cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article, so NFCC#8 is not met per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, unless more is added about the cover art somewhere in the article. The question, therefore, is whether the file's use as the primary means of identification in the main infobox is justified. If the article was about the recording itself, then using it in the main infobox for such a purpose would make sense; the article, however, is about the musical, so it would seem better to use the poster art for the musical instead in the main infobox: such as the poster seen here. Although the two files are quite similiar, the poster art does have "A New Musical Comedy" at the bottom and is missing the names of the two lead actors at the top, while the album cover has the lead's names and "Words and Lyrics by Andrew Lippa". So, it seems they were intended for different branding purposes.
If the consensus is that this difference is not enough to remove the album cover from the main infobox, then fine. I do think though that it would be better to upload the other image as {{ Non-free poster}} using {{ Non-free use rationale poster}} for the main infobox and then delete the cast recording album cover art altogether.
Finally, just for reference, I have notified the uploader of this dicussion, but they have been indefinitely blocked since 2011. So, I don't anticipate any clarification being provided from them about the file's use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Update - I changed the lead image to File:The Addams Family musical poster 2010 Nathan Lane Bebe Neuwirth.jpg. George Ho ( talk) 08:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Other Side of the Game.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Simple2010 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader is not the copyright holder of this non-free image. Binksternet ( talk) 03:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Relicensed to non-free album cover. Discussion should be good for closure now. Salavat ( talk) 05:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Les Pattinson Cebu City.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dippy redhead ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No known version number; without a version number, we can't identify this as any particular free license. ~ Rob13 Talk 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Now updated online to be CC-BY-SA-4.0. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Dario Margeli Dentro Un Vortice Video.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nayumadehrafti ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No version number given. I've emailed the copyright holder and will update when I hear back. ~ Rob13 Talk 14:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Updated 7-December-2017 Creative Commons version CC BY-SA 4.0 has been added to the source page of the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.183.3 ( talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Lichen nitidus.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 1579654863 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No license number given, and this licensing is not listed on the actual journal's website. Instead, they list a non-commercial license, which we can't accept. [1] ~ Rob13 Talk 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Rupertswood Hotel Sunbury 16 April 1898.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BaldHill ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Author is unknown, and this is a historical photo unlikely to have been published by the copyright holder. Doesn't meet the criteria for {{ PD-US-unpublished}}. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:BarlowGirl Hallelujah music video.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LABcrabs ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screen capture does not merit a FUR. The video is not discussed in the article and is used only to decorate the article in which it is used. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I will not be contesting a file removal request. I'm sure that I can expand upon the limited information the article provides on the music video, but since I'm not planning to do this immediately, the file can be kept, deleted or later restored. -- LABcrabs ( talk) 12:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2018 April 28. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Ridiculous, baseless allegation. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Scihub raven.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Distrait cognizance ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
"The well-read raven" by Kate McLelland (www.katemclelland.com). No evidence of permission, so likely a copyright violation, perhaps also by Sci-hub. See a copy of the original drawing along with copyright notice: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/299982025149727176/ Should be deleted unless license granted via OTRS. — kashmīrī TALK 20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Frankly this doesn't matter as it is still a fully valid upload according to
WP:FAIRUSE, and that it is a potential copyright violation is only personal speculation and not something we can go by — and Wikipedia is not violating copyright law no matter how you interpret it. Add to that how there is no date and we can't tell which copy is oldest which is a requirement if we were to pull it from commons. Without being able to tell whether it could be the other way round with SH using the image first or an earlier date it's not even enough to delete from commons. But since this is fair use those things don't matter at all. However, the discription should be updated with this information in mind.
Distrait cognizance (
talk)
13:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fair use requires (1) correct attribution, and (2) allowed rationale. I can see neither here. Additionally, situations when we can claim FUR are limited to situatoins when it is impossible otherwise. But it is wrong to argue that this drawing serves as irreplaceable logo or visual identification sign when it does not (no raven displayed on Sci-Hub affiliated websites or social media). It's just that someone had an idea to copy the website graphics here, as it it were a logotype, in defiance of WP rules on fair use. — kashmīrī TALK 03:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Brainerdhightn.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bneu2013 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is clearly not just a "text logo" and almost certainly (in my opinion) too complex (even for the c:COM:TOO#United States) to be {{ PD-logo}}. Non-free use in the Brainerd High School (Tennessee) could possibly be justified, but generally mascot logos do not seem to be used in the main infobox of school articles, so the school's crest (shown here) might be a better choice for that encyclopedic purpose. If the school's athletic department was notable enough to support a stand-alone article, then I could see using this file for identification there; however, I don't believe the typical high school athletic department is considered notable enough for a stand-alone article just for existing per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This appears to be a logo for the entire school, not just the athletic department. The school article guidelines, while just an essay and not an official policy, suggest the inclusion of "the school's crest, logo, seal, emblem and/or coat of arms." Bneu2013 ( talk) 00:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to use a non-free logo in the main infobox for identification purposes; I just don't recall seeing any mascot logos being used this way in any high school or university articles. I've asked
John from Idegon to clarify this because John is one of the coordinators (and I believe founders) of
WP:WPSCHOOLS, so he should know what the current practice is. If the file can be used, then I think its licensing should be converted to {{
Non-free logo}}, and {{
Non-free use rationale logo}} added for the infobox use. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree completely this not a PD text only file and is hence misliscensed. However, it should simply be re-licensed as fair use logo and we'll be done here. It's in use, and the only reason it would fail NFCC is if it weren't.
Marchjuly, I think the point you are missing is, at least in the US, the identity of a school is the athletics logo or mascot. Sure, most schools have an official seal or crest, but about the only place you'll see it is on a diploma (and I've even seen diplomas with the athletic logo on them). I've personally uploaded over 150 NFCC files for use in school infoboxes, and at least half (probably more like 75%) have been athletic logos. So my !vote here would be Fix license and keep.
John from Idegon (
talk)
02:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- My main concern was about the PD licensing. If the consensus is to convert to non-free and use in the main infobox, then I'm fine with that. I just haven't seen mascot logos used in this way before; I most see creats or other logos used in high school/university logos and mascot logos used in athletic department articles. I completely understand that school identity is highly associated with the school's choice of mascots. It was the same at my high school and university, but those two Wikipedia article do use the crest in the main infobox. I didn't check every article in Category:High schools in the United States by state, but I checked Alabama and most of the article I saw using infobox images were either using crests or a photo of the school. I did see some using mascot logos, but not nearly as many. Anyway, that was the extent of my very limited research before starting this FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree completely this not a PD text only file and is hence misliscensed. However, it should simply be re-licensed as fair use logo and we'll be done here. It's in use, and the only reason it would fail NFCC is if it weren't.
Marchjuly, I think the point you are missing is, at least in the US, the identity of a school is the athletics logo or mascot. Sure, most schools have an official seal or crest, but about the only place you'll see it is on a diploma (and I've even seen diplomas with the athletic logo on them). I've personally uploaded over 150 NFCC files for use in school infoboxes, and at least half (probably more like 75%) have been athletic logos. So my !vote here would be Fix license and keep.
John from Idegon (
talk)
02:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to use a non-free logo in the main infobox for identification purposes; I just don't recall seeing any mascot logos being used this way in any high school or university articles. I've asked
John from Idegon to clarify this because John is one of the coordinators (and I believe founders) of
WP:WPSCHOOLS, so he should know what the current practice is. If the file can be used, then I think its licensing should be converted to {{
Non-free logo}}, and {{
Non-free use rationale logo}} added for the infobox use. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.