This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
{{ discussion top}} I uploaded some non-free album cover arts in order to replace the ones that were already in use. The reason I did this is because the previous ones are too dark in coloring whereas mine are of a lighter superior coloring and quality and also mine show the cover art of a modern day album and not the old vinyl record.I have been going back and forth with User:The Mark of the Beast and he suggested I posted my case here. I think the ones I uploaded should be used as the coloring and quality is superior of those that were already there. -- OfficialDzire ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The ones I uploaded:
The ones that already there:
Original poster has been banned as a sock puppet master. All images in question that were uploaded by the OP have been orphaned and tagged for deletion. Nothing further to do here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} We have at least 3 non-free files of different logos for University of New Mexico athletics, used in 10 articles. This seems excessive. The files are:
I propose that we delete all files except File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png, which appears to be the current logo (judging by Official Athletics Website of The University of New Mexico), and use it only in the two articles that cover University of New Mexico athletics, namely University of New Mexico and Lobo (New Mexico mascot). The remaining uses of these files are for articles on particular teams and years, and having a logo there seems more for decoration that for understanding.
Rationale:
Note: there is also a free text-only logo,
but this seems not to be used by the University currently.
Thanks. -- 69.96.203.133 ( talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - KEEP ALL, Reasoning each logo is used on a different page for a different purpose. For instance, the Lobo Alternative logo (lobo head) is the actual athletics logo it is used on the Basketball court of The Pit. The Logo with "New Mexico" on it is still in current use on school shirts. Nothing wrong with multiple logos used for different pages. Look at other University pages for example. SteveoJ ( talk) 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Only one such logo image currently exists, so it's now moot. – Quadell ( talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This is a photograph of a portrait in mosaic of Cardinal Richard Cushing, who died in 1970.
The image is currently being used as principal infobox image at Richard Cushing. It is also in use in a gallery at Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral, which seems inappropriate to me, as there is currently no text discussion in that article of artworks in the cathedral. Use of the image might be appropriate, not in a gallery, in that article, if a specific discussion was added of art works in the cathedral and this artwork in particular. It's third use, in a gallery of "notable persons" at Boston College, seems definitely inappropriate.
At the moment the image has no NFC rationale for any of its uses, so if we just stand back, process will take its course.
However, I was thinking of adding a rationale for Richard Cushing, (i) as an identifying portrait of him, as somebody who has been dead 40 years; and (ii) since it seems quite a significant thing for him to be immortalised in stone chips in a cathedral.
But I thought I'd seek wider input first. My question: is it appropriate to use an artwork as an identifying portrait, when photographs might be available which, though non-free, arguably contain less expressive input? On the other hand, this is a publicly displayed artwork of a monumental nature in a markedly significant place, showing which brings its own value to the article. So: vis-a-vis copyright law, where do we think we stand on this image? Do we think its current use be considered Fair Use for us and our downstream commercial republishers, and so appropriate? Or would the image itself need more discussion and review? And how does this compare to the legal position for other images we use for dead people (including portraits in oil paint) ?
((Also, one last thought -- has anyone had any success in try to get an organisation like the Eparchy of Newton to release their rights in a particular 2d image of a publicly displayed work of art, while perhaps reserving rights in the underlying work itself, and any other images that might be made of it ? Not that I feel enough for this image to feel like putting in any time to petition them myself).
Just wondering what people thought. Jheald ( talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell ( talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} Files to be reviewed:
We have File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg for Edmonton Oilers and that might be fine; however, 3 additional colour variants of the same logo design is too much. Their differences is not so significant that they cannot be described in words, using File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg as a reference. The listed 3 fails WP:NFCC #1 in my view. Jappalang ( talk) 09:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Superfluous images deleted, so it's moot now. – Quadell ( talk) 18:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This image does not in increase "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Nor would "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:NFCC#8. It is used merely to illustrate the victim of a crime. If that qualified as fair use, then we could use any copyrighted picture of the victim of a crime in any article about the crime or about the victim. Some of the uploader's rationales for its "fair" use make no sense - "humanizing" the victim? the use of the image is not "confusing" (this isn't trademark)?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. This is an illustrative photo that adds to the reader's comprehension of the background of the case. JakeH07 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} User:Damiens.rf want's to remove the Pieterson image in the Soweto Uprising article, as he believes that it does not satisfy fair-use. I, however, disagee. My reason for the image to be kept, is that the image of Antoinette Sithole and Mbuyisa Makhubo carrying a 12-year-old Hector Pieterson moments after he was shot by South African police, was an iconic image of the uprising. As such, it should be kept. Any opinions? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The RFC discussed above was closed with the decision to remove the requirement that the non-free photos be "subjects of commentary". So that issue is moot. The objection about not crediting the photographer seems to be moot. Are there any open issues here, or can I close it? – Quadell ( talk) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus. – Quadell ( talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This is a non-free scan of a newspaper cover displaying a specific cover story that generated much controversy due to it's huge GOTCHA! headline. While I believe there's enough discussion in reliable sources about this cover to support our texts about the cover itself, and while I believe seeing the cover is necessary for a proper understanding of those texts (since the layout, and not just the wording, of the headline is discussed by the reliable sources), I believe we don't have a reason to replicate the use of this image over 5 distinct articles.
Just one article should discuss the cover, and thus use the image, and others may or may not briefly discuss it and link to the main article.
A proper fair use rationale should be written for the main article once it's decided which one it is (I would gladly write such rationale). -- Damiens.rf 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion has been stale for nearly two months; no clear consensus has emerged in my opinion. Marking file with {{ Non-free reviewed no consensus}}. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{{ discussion top}} No rationale :Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
no rationale}}
, and notify the uploader. (I've tagged it.) There's no need to list it here. –
Quadell (
talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Rationale added. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} About half of the subject timeline appears to be lifted more or less diractly from "Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence". I can't speak to how much taking is fair use, but most of this timeline comes from that "Time Line: The Mechanization of Thinking" starting on page xxiii. 214.4.238.180 ( talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong forum, and resolved. – Quadell ( talk) 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} An issue has come up with the file File:Bond, James Bond.ogg as part of an FA Nomination procedure for the article Dr. No (film). One reviewer for the FA process has raised a concern as to its use under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, saying that it is not a complex scene and is easily replaceable by simple text description. The grounds for opposing the use of the image are given by the reviewer as WP:NFCC#8
The rationale behind pacing the file on the article is that this is the first use of the phrase "Bond, James Bond", an iconic sentence in the film world and thus an important moment in world cinema. The clip is aligned next to the text showing the accolades those particular words have won, let alone the times it, or variants thereof, have been used in parody or homage. The clip is 5.4 seconds long and of low quality. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 09:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell. The clip meets all points of NFCC#8 and it is a very important clip.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be to keep the sound byte, and usage looks like it's within the criteria at WP:NFCC. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This image is currently tagged as free due to age of copyright (published before 1923), however, it has been tagged in the past as being non-free ( [1]).
The argument for it being free appears to stem from this article: [2] where a date of 1913 is given, but specifically this only applies to the word "Longhorns": It was not until 1913, when H.J. Lutcher Stark, a prominent benefactor of the university, made a donation of blankets with the word "Longhorns" sewn into it, that our mascot's name came into existence.. It says nothing of the image of the steer head.
Counter, this article [3] discusses the 50th anniversary of the logo (published in 2011, making the logo copyrighted in 1961), but before I say that's a shut case making the logo non-free, the article specifically discusses how the steer head appeared on many non-official forms before that point. This could create a case that the extraneous use of the logo before 1961 would make the act of copyrighting it ineligible -- but that's a case I can't be sure of.
This does appear to affect the use of the image across a number of articles and if it can be used on a template, so we need to be sure of which way the image should be tagged. I am not seeking deletion of this image, only to clear up the licensing. -- MASEM ( t) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Though the original date of publishing of the image is not immediately determinable from this discussion, it is clear that it was published prior to 1978 and that the use of a copyright symbol or other means of indicating protection was not consistently used, which does not satisfy the then-requirements of a copyrighted publication. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this editor, it is assumed to be in the public domain per pre-1978 U.S. copyright law. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 ( talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}}
{{ discussion top}} It is an image of an album cover important to its article. ChineseLamps ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Image deleted per WP:F4 -no licensing information. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
{{ discussion top}} The image fails criteria #8: contextual significance for WP:NFC. It does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the I Kissed a Girl video, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. The article already contains one non-free image ( the album cover) which provides the same visual information as the screenshot. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Listed this in the wrong place. Now nominated for deletion. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Template states "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. " Yet, the only use is for the Peace Bridge (a "thing[] appearing in the stamp's design").Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Image nominated for deletion. Nothing else to see here. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 ( talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (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.
Uploader has a history of copy-vio's and NFCC abuses, and while most of them are blatant , this one isn't so obvious. Used in Tom McGrath, the FUR claims it's use is justified as it identifies the indiviual's ownership of the company, though I don't see how the use of a logo in a section enhances the reader's understanding of the topic at all - it's purely decorative. File:Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.png also has a very similar issue on the same page and is included in this nomination. Thanks, Acather96 ( talk) 06:57, 1 October 2011 (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.
When File:Obaidullah photo.PDF was uploaded, about 14 months ago, it was uploaded with a {{ PD-USGov}} liscense, but no source. The text uploaded to accompany the image contradicted this liscense, saying the image came from his lawyers.
A couple of months ago a bot added a {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template to the image.
I figure this image is not really a candidate for transfer to the commons, because we can't document that it is in the public domain. It may well qualify for {{ PD-Afghanistan}} -- but only if we can document its source.
I added {{ Non-free use rationale}} and {{ non-free fair use in}} to the image. I figure it may qualify for inclusion, under fair use. I figured others who focus on images will take the position that the lack of an explicit source will be a problem for its inclusion.
I am going to try to upload the original uploader. I would appreciate it if this discussion played out, and wasn't changed to a speedy, so some time was available to look for the image's source. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sven and I agree that if a source for the image can't be found the image doesn't belong on either the wikipedia or the commons.
However, I suggest Sven's removal of my first draft of the "purpose" field the {{ Non-free use rationale}} was intemperate. Contributors discussing this image are enttitled to know someone made a good faith attempt to supply a policy-compliant rationale, and they are entitled to discuss that first draft, and make their own suggestions regarding its adequacy, and whether it can be improved.
Obaidullah was a nobody when he was captured, a youth who ran a small stall in an Afghan bazaar. The possibility that, prior to his capture, a foreigner took this image is vanishingly small. An image taken by his family, an image taken by Afghan security offcials, or an image taken by an employee of the DoD, or CIA would be in the public domain.
I think everyone will agree that we need a source for the image. I hope any additional contributors who weigh in on this discussion will comment on the issue of whether this image met the other criteria for including images here as fair use. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that source can be found. So, since a discussion has been initiated, I encourage those commenting to give some thought as to whether the image would qualify for fair use inclusion if a source was found. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This file was created as a derivative work, using the stylized trillium from another author's work. JDM1991 ( talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This file was created as a derivative work, copying a star from and to another's author's work. JDM1991 ( talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (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.
Taken from the Canada's Wonderland website. Easily replaceable by anybody going to the park with a camera, and therefore not a very strong fair-use rationale. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 23 October 2011 (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 images use on the Steve Jobs article fails NFCC#8, as the article doesn't contain (sourced) critical commentary about the image. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:18, 26 October 2011 (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'm a relative newcomer here. But from the best of my knowledge this should NOT be a CC-BY-SA licensed file given that it is a direct crop from the movie scene. And apparently now it is on the main page as the feature article. Correct me if I'm wrong a fair-use rational should be created by the creator or if not suitable for fair use it should be DELETED. Yong ( talk) 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This is marked as a non-free logo, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a US government PD work. Can someone evaluate this and change it if possible? Dominic· t 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} Almost definitely replaceable (as you can see, no replacability noted [and other things missing]):Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#F7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} I believe image violates a number of NFCC guidelines for the article LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. Main one has to be violating NFCC#1. It is possible that someone has taken a picture of this event and could theoretically release the photo under a compatible license (CC or PD). Failing this, other airliner incident articles have used reasonable representations of the airplanes in question (Example: Airlines PNG Flight 1600, an aircraft incident from over a month back which uses a picture of a similar aircraft owned by the company as it's image. The 2011 Reno Air Races crash has a picture of the aircraft in question that was involved in the crash for a more specific example.) In addition, Wikicommons has several images of the plane involved in the incident pre-crash. In some articles, artist interpretations have been made and used without incident. (Example: Helios Airways Flight 522 uses an artist rendition of the incident, so does Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, Korean Air Lines Flight 902, etc., etc. NFCC#8 is also not met, as a reasonable facsimile could be made, per examples Helios Airways Flight 522, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 & Korean Air Lines Flight 902 among others. Also, it violates NFCC#3 (the image is too big for fair-use). Is my assumptions right?-- Cesario (JPN) ( talk) 07:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F7b. None of the arguments that have been brought forward for keep above has addressed the fact that this is a commercial news agency picture, which makes deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this image for use in Golden Domes. The photo is discussed in the text based on a newspaper account about the taking of the photo. I believe it is a unique and irreplaceable image of an important event which adds to the understanding of the reader in ways which the sources alone do not convey.
(Separately, I also have a different copy of the same image, which was printed with the newspaper account the next day. That copy is quite different from this version, implying that it was retouched to paint in a green lawn and trees. While there are no sources which say so, the juxtaposition would make that apparent to readers. I am considering adding it but have not decided on it yet.)
User:Redtigerxyz gave his opinion that the image fails NFCC in two ways: 1) no free alternative and 2) contextual significance: that there could be other photographs of the event, and that the image does not help readers significantly. We had a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Golden Domes#Taste of Utopia assembly photo. The article is currently nominated for Good Article, but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 01:09, 3 October 2011 (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 was uploaded two years ago and should have been speedily deleted. Never mind the copyright status in the USA, which is {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}. However, what do we do with this image? -- Gh87 ( talk) 05:15, 6 November 2011 (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.
Right now, File:Jacques Maroger SelF-Portrait.jpg is being used in the infobox of Jacques Maroger. It is a self-portrait, so it appears its use there could count as either a) a visual depicition of him, or b) an example of his work. Is this a valid example of fair use? If so, could someone write the rationale on the image page or help me to do so? Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this image meets WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) nor WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) on the RV page. Looks distinctly spammy to me - especially with the website showing so clearly. Just thought I'd get a second opinion though as I don't work heavily in the filespace. WormTT · ( talk) 11:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a scan of a diagram from a book. It's not cover art, despite what the tag says. The fair-use rationale is "Used as a reference to explain Norman's seven stages of action" but that doesn't sound valid to me. The diagram really is helpful in explaining the content, and it's so simple that I doubt a replacement free-use diagram could be made without infringing on the original. The article Seven stages of action includes two other such diagrams. -- Pnm ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (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.
Multiple tags claiming public domain because it was a song by Mozart, GFDL released because of the author and being non-free if not. Source is listed as:
— Moe ε 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
How's it look now? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
How 'bout now? Hyacinth ( talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is used in three articles, Robert Kubica, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix and Canadian Grand Prix. It has the same FUR for the first two articles that I consider to be perfectly valid and acceptable.
It doesn't have a rationale for Canadian Grand Prix, and while the rationale used for the other two articles could be used for this third article, I'm not sure it is valid to use it on the specific 2007 Canadian Grand Prix article and the generic Canadian Grand Prix article. I would like opinions on this from people more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I copied the rationale for the Grand Prix article, and tweaked the wording on each to be more-specific. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
{{ discussion top}} I uploaded some non-free album cover arts in order to replace the ones that were already in use. The reason I did this is because the previous ones are too dark in coloring whereas mine are of a lighter superior coloring and quality and also mine show the cover art of a modern day album and not the old vinyl record.I have been going back and forth with User:The Mark of the Beast and he suggested I posted my case here. I think the ones I uploaded should be used as the coloring and quality is superior of those that were already there. -- OfficialDzire ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The ones I uploaded:
The ones that already there:
Original poster has been banned as a sock puppet master. All images in question that were uploaded by the OP have been orphaned and tagged for deletion. Nothing further to do here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} We have at least 3 non-free files of different logos for University of New Mexico athletics, used in 10 articles. This seems excessive. The files are:
I propose that we delete all files except File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png, which appears to be the current logo (judging by Official Athletics Website of The University of New Mexico), and use it only in the two articles that cover University of New Mexico athletics, namely University of New Mexico and Lobo (New Mexico mascot). The remaining uses of these files are for articles on particular teams and years, and having a logo there seems more for decoration that for understanding.
Rationale:
Note: there is also a free text-only logo,
but this seems not to be used by the University currently.
Thanks. -- 69.96.203.133 ( talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - KEEP ALL, Reasoning each logo is used on a different page for a different purpose. For instance, the Lobo Alternative logo (lobo head) is the actual athletics logo it is used on the Basketball court of The Pit. The Logo with "New Mexico" on it is still in current use on school shirts. Nothing wrong with multiple logos used for different pages. Look at other University pages for example. SteveoJ ( talk) 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Only one such logo image currently exists, so it's now moot. – Quadell ( talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This is a photograph of a portrait in mosaic of Cardinal Richard Cushing, who died in 1970.
The image is currently being used as principal infobox image at Richard Cushing. It is also in use in a gallery at Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral, which seems inappropriate to me, as there is currently no text discussion in that article of artworks in the cathedral. Use of the image might be appropriate, not in a gallery, in that article, if a specific discussion was added of art works in the cathedral and this artwork in particular. It's third use, in a gallery of "notable persons" at Boston College, seems definitely inappropriate.
At the moment the image has no NFC rationale for any of its uses, so if we just stand back, process will take its course.
However, I was thinking of adding a rationale for Richard Cushing, (i) as an identifying portrait of him, as somebody who has been dead 40 years; and (ii) since it seems quite a significant thing for him to be immortalised in stone chips in a cathedral.
But I thought I'd seek wider input first. My question: is it appropriate to use an artwork as an identifying portrait, when photographs might be available which, though non-free, arguably contain less expressive input? On the other hand, this is a publicly displayed artwork of a monumental nature in a markedly significant place, showing which brings its own value to the article. So: vis-a-vis copyright law, where do we think we stand on this image? Do we think its current use be considered Fair Use for us and our downstream commercial republishers, and so appropriate? Or would the image itself need more discussion and review? And how does this compare to the legal position for other images we use for dead people (including portraits in oil paint) ?
((Also, one last thought -- has anyone had any success in try to get an organisation like the Eparchy of Newton to release their rights in a particular 2d image of a publicly displayed work of art, while perhaps reserving rights in the underlying work itself, and any other images that might be made of it ? Not that I feel enough for this image to feel like putting in any time to petition them myself).
Just wondering what people thought. Jheald ( talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell ( talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} Files to be reviewed:
We have File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg for Edmonton Oilers and that might be fine; however, 3 additional colour variants of the same logo design is too much. Their differences is not so significant that they cannot be described in words, using File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg as a reference. The listed 3 fails WP:NFCC #1 in my view. Jappalang ( talk) 09:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Superfluous images deleted, so it's moot now. – Quadell ( talk) 18:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This image does not in increase "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Nor would "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:NFCC#8. It is used merely to illustrate the victim of a crime. If that qualified as fair use, then we could use any copyrighted picture of the victim of a crime in any article about the crime or about the victim. Some of the uploader's rationales for its "fair" use make no sense - "humanizing" the victim? the use of the image is not "confusing" (this isn't trademark)?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. This is an illustrative photo that adds to the reader's comprehension of the background of the case. JakeH07 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} User:Damiens.rf want's to remove the Pieterson image in the Soweto Uprising article, as he believes that it does not satisfy fair-use. I, however, disagee. My reason for the image to be kept, is that the image of Antoinette Sithole and Mbuyisa Makhubo carrying a 12-year-old Hector Pieterson moments after he was shot by South African police, was an iconic image of the uprising. As such, it should be kept. Any opinions? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The RFC discussed above was closed with the decision to remove the requirement that the non-free photos be "subjects of commentary". So that issue is moot. The objection about not crediting the photographer seems to be moot. Are there any open issues here, or can I close it? – Quadell ( talk) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus. – Quadell ( talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This is a non-free scan of a newspaper cover displaying a specific cover story that generated much controversy due to it's huge GOTCHA! headline. While I believe there's enough discussion in reliable sources about this cover to support our texts about the cover itself, and while I believe seeing the cover is necessary for a proper understanding of those texts (since the layout, and not just the wording, of the headline is discussed by the reliable sources), I believe we don't have a reason to replicate the use of this image over 5 distinct articles.
Just one article should discuss the cover, and thus use the image, and others may or may not briefly discuss it and link to the main article.
A proper fair use rationale should be written for the main article once it's decided which one it is (I would gladly write such rationale). -- Damiens.rf 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion has been stale for nearly two months; no clear consensus has emerged in my opinion. Marking file with {{ Non-free reviewed no consensus}}. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{{ discussion top}} No rationale :Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
no rationale}}
, and notify the uploader. (I've tagged it.) There's no need to list it here. –
Quadell (
talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Rationale added. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} About half of the subject timeline appears to be lifted more or less diractly from "Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence". I can't speak to how much taking is fair use, but most of this timeline comes from that "Time Line: The Mechanization of Thinking" starting on page xxiii. 214.4.238.180 ( talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong forum, and resolved. – Quadell ( talk) 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} An issue has come up with the file File:Bond, James Bond.ogg as part of an FA Nomination procedure for the article Dr. No (film). One reviewer for the FA process has raised a concern as to its use under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, saying that it is not a complex scene and is easily replaceable by simple text description. The grounds for opposing the use of the image are given by the reviewer as WP:NFCC#8
The rationale behind pacing the file on the article is that this is the first use of the phrase "Bond, James Bond", an iconic sentence in the film world and thus an important moment in world cinema. The clip is aligned next to the text showing the accolades those particular words have won, let alone the times it, or variants thereof, have been used in parody or homage. The clip is 5.4 seconds long and of low quality. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 09:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell. The clip meets all points of NFCC#8 and it is a very important clip.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be to keep the sound byte, and usage looks like it's within the criteria at WP:NFCC. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} This image is currently tagged as free due to age of copyright (published before 1923), however, it has been tagged in the past as being non-free ( [1]).
The argument for it being free appears to stem from this article: [2] where a date of 1913 is given, but specifically this only applies to the word "Longhorns": It was not until 1913, when H.J. Lutcher Stark, a prominent benefactor of the university, made a donation of blankets with the word "Longhorns" sewn into it, that our mascot's name came into existence.. It says nothing of the image of the steer head.
Counter, this article [3] discusses the 50th anniversary of the logo (published in 2011, making the logo copyrighted in 1961), but before I say that's a shut case making the logo non-free, the article specifically discusses how the steer head appeared on many non-official forms before that point. This could create a case that the extraneous use of the logo before 1961 would make the act of copyrighting it ineligible -- but that's a case I can't be sure of.
This does appear to affect the use of the image across a number of articles and if it can be used on a template, so we need to be sure of which way the image should be tagged. I am not seeking deletion of this image, only to clear up the licensing. -- MASEM ( t) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Though the original date of publishing of the image is not immediately determinable from this discussion, it is clear that it was published prior to 1978 and that the use of a copyright symbol or other means of indicating protection was not consistently used, which does not satisfy the then-requirements of a copyrighted publication. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this editor, it is assumed to be in the public domain per pre-1978 U.S. copyright law. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 ( talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}}
{{ discussion top}} It is an image of an album cover important to its article. ChineseLamps ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Image deleted per WP:F4 -no licensing information. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
{{ discussion top}} The image fails criteria #8: contextual significance for WP:NFC. It does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the I Kissed a Girl video, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. The article already contains one non-free image ( the album cover) which provides the same visual information as the screenshot. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Listed this in the wrong place. Now nominated for deletion. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Template states "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. " Yet, the only use is for the Peace Bridge (a "thing[] appearing in the stamp's design").Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Image nominated for deletion. Nothing else to see here. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 04:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 ( talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (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.
Uploader has a history of copy-vio's and NFCC abuses, and while most of them are blatant , this one isn't so obvious. Used in Tom McGrath, the FUR claims it's use is justified as it identifies the indiviual's ownership of the company, though I don't see how the use of a logo in a section enhances the reader's understanding of the topic at all - it's purely decorative. File:Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.png also has a very similar issue on the same page and is included in this nomination. Thanks, Acather96 ( talk) 06:57, 1 October 2011 (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.
When File:Obaidullah photo.PDF was uploaded, about 14 months ago, it was uploaded with a {{ PD-USGov}} liscense, but no source. The text uploaded to accompany the image contradicted this liscense, saying the image came from his lawyers.
A couple of months ago a bot added a {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template to the image.
I figure this image is not really a candidate for transfer to the commons, because we can't document that it is in the public domain. It may well qualify for {{ PD-Afghanistan}} -- but only if we can document its source.
I added {{ Non-free use rationale}} and {{ non-free fair use in}} to the image. I figure it may qualify for inclusion, under fair use. I figured others who focus on images will take the position that the lack of an explicit source will be a problem for its inclusion.
I am going to try to upload the original uploader. I would appreciate it if this discussion played out, and wasn't changed to a speedy, so some time was available to look for the image's source. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sven and I agree that if a source for the image can't be found the image doesn't belong on either the wikipedia or the commons.
However, I suggest Sven's removal of my first draft of the "purpose" field the {{ Non-free use rationale}} was intemperate. Contributors discussing this image are enttitled to know someone made a good faith attempt to supply a policy-compliant rationale, and they are entitled to discuss that first draft, and make their own suggestions regarding its adequacy, and whether it can be improved.
Obaidullah was a nobody when he was captured, a youth who ran a small stall in an Afghan bazaar. The possibility that, prior to his capture, a foreigner took this image is vanishingly small. An image taken by his family, an image taken by Afghan security offcials, or an image taken by an employee of the DoD, or CIA would be in the public domain.
I think everyone will agree that we need a source for the image. I hope any additional contributors who weigh in on this discussion will comment on the issue of whether this image met the other criteria for including images here as fair use. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that source can be found. So, since a discussion has been initiated, I encourage those commenting to give some thought as to whether the image would qualify for fair use inclusion if a source was found. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This file was created as a derivative work, using the stylized trillium from another author's work. JDM1991 ( talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This file was created as a derivative work, copying a star from and to another's author's work. JDM1991 ( talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (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.
Taken from the Canada's Wonderland website. Easily replaceable by anybody going to the park with a camera, and therefore not a very strong fair-use rationale. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 23 October 2011 (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 images use on the Steve Jobs article fails NFCC#8, as the article doesn't contain (sourced) critical commentary about the image. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:18, 26 October 2011 (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'm a relative newcomer here. But from the best of my knowledge this should NOT be a CC-BY-SA licensed file given that it is a direct crop from the movie scene. And apparently now it is on the main page as the feature article. Correct me if I'm wrong a fair-use rational should be created by the creator or if not suitable for fair use it should be DELETED. Yong ( talk) 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This is marked as a non-free logo, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a US government PD work. Can someone evaluate this and change it if possible? Dominic· t 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} Almost definitely replaceable (as you can see, no replacability noted [and other things missing]):Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#F7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ discussion top}} I believe image violates a number of NFCC guidelines for the article LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. Main one has to be violating NFCC#1. It is possible that someone has taken a picture of this event and could theoretically release the photo under a compatible license (CC or PD). Failing this, other airliner incident articles have used reasonable representations of the airplanes in question (Example: Airlines PNG Flight 1600, an aircraft incident from over a month back which uses a picture of a similar aircraft owned by the company as it's image. The 2011 Reno Air Races crash has a picture of the aircraft in question that was involved in the crash for a more specific example.) In addition, Wikicommons has several images of the plane involved in the incident pre-crash. In some articles, artist interpretations have been made and used without incident. (Example: Helios Airways Flight 522 uses an artist rendition of the incident, so does Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, Korean Air Lines Flight 902, etc., etc. NFCC#8 is also not met, as a reasonable facsimile could be made, per examples Helios Airways Flight 522, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 & Korean Air Lines Flight 902 among others. Also, it violates NFCC#3 (the image is too big for fair-use). Is my assumptions right?-- Cesario (JPN) ( talk) 07:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F7b. None of the arguments that have been brought forward for keep above has addressed the fact that this is a commercial news agency picture, which makes deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this image for use in Golden Domes. The photo is discussed in the text based on a newspaper account about the taking of the photo. I believe it is a unique and irreplaceable image of an important event which adds to the understanding of the reader in ways which the sources alone do not convey.
(Separately, I also have a different copy of the same image, which was printed with the newspaper account the next day. That copy is quite different from this version, implying that it was retouched to paint in a green lawn and trees. While there are no sources which say so, the juxtaposition would make that apparent to readers. I am considering adding it but have not decided on it yet.)
User:Redtigerxyz gave his opinion that the image fails NFCC in two ways: 1) no free alternative and 2) contextual significance: that there could be other photographs of the event, and that the image does not help readers significantly. We had a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Golden Domes#Taste of Utopia assembly photo. The article is currently nominated for Good Article, but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 01:09, 3 October 2011 (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 was uploaded two years ago and should have been speedily deleted. Never mind the copyright status in the USA, which is {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}. However, what do we do with this image? -- Gh87 ( talk) 05:15, 6 November 2011 (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.
Right now, File:Jacques Maroger SelF-Portrait.jpg is being used in the infobox of Jacques Maroger. It is a self-portrait, so it appears its use there could count as either a) a visual depicition of him, or b) an example of his work. Is this a valid example of fair use? If so, could someone write the rationale on the image page or help me to do so? Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this image meets WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) nor WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) on the RV page. Looks distinctly spammy to me - especially with the website showing so clearly. Just thought I'd get a second opinion though as I don't work heavily in the filespace. WormTT · ( talk) 11:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a scan of a diagram from a book. It's not cover art, despite what the tag says. The fair-use rationale is "Used as a reference to explain Norman's seven stages of action" but that doesn't sound valid to me. The diagram really is helpful in explaining the content, and it's so simple that I doubt a replacement free-use diagram could be made without infringing on the original. The article Seven stages of action includes two other such diagrams. -- Pnm ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (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.
Multiple tags claiming public domain because it was a song by Mozart, GFDL released because of the author and being non-free if not. Source is listed as:
— Moe ε 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
How's it look now? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
How 'bout now? Hyacinth ( talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is used in three articles, Robert Kubica, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix and Canadian Grand Prix. It has the same FUR for the first two articles that I consider to be perfectly valid and acceptable.
It doesn't have a rationale for Canadian Grand Prix, and while the rationale used for the other two articles could be used for this third article, I'm not sure it is valid to use it on the specific 2007 Canadian Grand Prix article and the generic Canadian Grand Prix article. I would like opinions on this from people more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I copied the rationale for the Grand Prix article, and tweaked the wording on each to be more-specific. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)