Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 27 August 2012

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/guidelines

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

File:Superman.jpg

Does not meet NFC Criteria 1 (no free equivalent). There is a free image (File:Fleishersuperman.jpg) available. This alternative image could serve the same encyclopaedic purpose of illustrating the likeness of the character Superman for this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

After posting this NFR - I remembered that there is a discussion on commons that I am involved with that has potential implications for our treatment of the Fleisher superman cartoons as "public domain" works. If these images are found not actually to be in the public domain, then this NFR will have been superfluous as- so I apologise for that. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think I agree that this is not free but is fair use. The fair use rationale says its a cover from a particular issue. if thats the case, it should only be used on an article for that particular issue, or that magazine (superman or action comics, etc). unfortunately, this doesnt seem to be the cover, but the cover art, stripped of the DC logo or the superman logo. that cover art is presumed copyrighted. so I dont think it can illustrate the article on superman. The commons discussion you referred to doesnt seem to have broadened at this point, so I will suggest here and at the article that File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg is also highly appropriate, esp. as it gets the suit color right and has the daily planet featured.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Based on the results of the linked Commons deletion and that the character is still protected under DCs copyright, the Commons Flecher Superman images that contain the character should be removed from Commons. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the Commons image isn't free and should be removed. I vehemently disagree that the current image for Superman should be pulled. It perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. This seems a spurious nom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say the nom is spurious - at the moment there is a supposedly free to use image on Commons - multiple in fact. That those are now up for deletion - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg (the nom there notes the discussion covers, or should cover, the entire cat, not just 1 file) - is important, but does not invalidate putting this forward here. - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• This rather hinges on the Commons discussion, so I'd advise leaving this discussion open until it concludes. If any images containing Superman are determined to be PD the image is replaceable, if they are all found to be still copyrighted, it is not and a nonfree image is acceptable. Since that's the determining factor, we really can't move forward here until that's decided on Commons. Seraphimblade 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Warne-Muralidaran Trophy.jpg

Is this really valid fair use? Can't anyone take his own photo of the trophy instead of using someone else's photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid fair use. The only problem was its resolution. I have uploaded a low resolution version. Sumanch (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that it is valid fair use? Isn't the trophy permanently installed somewhere? The source mentions Australia so I guess that the trophy is in Australia and commons:COM:FOP#Australia suggests that Australian law is similar to British law which applies freedom of panorama indoors. Looks replaceable to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Aussie law can't make it replaceable with a free photo of the trophy; Misplaced Pages's servers are (predominantly) in Florida... OTOH, it's (c)Getty, and that isn't properly noted, oui? Fix! As far as fair use WRT the IP rights connected to the underlying statue, it's a TROPHY - its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use.--Elvey (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how commons:COM:FOP is applied on Wikimedia projects. If freedom of panorama applies in the country of photography, the picture is allowed here as free use. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use means. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, and clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Mosmof (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it matters whether the photo is published under a free license; given that it is a derivative work of the trophy nevertheless, the copyright belongs to the sculpture creator, not the photo, so any possible representation will be derivative from the trophy and thus available only under fair use. But then, I am not a lawyer. Diego (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question whether a free equivalent could be made depends on whether the copyright law of the country where the trophy is located contains a Freedom of panorama provision or not? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the source link of the image the photo was taken in Australia. According to Freedom of panorama#Australia "The copyright in a work ... that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work". Thus the important question is whether the trophy was permanently exhibited at the place where the photo was taken at the time the photo was taken. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would be important to know, whether the trophy is still there. If it is at a place where an image can be taken that would not infringe the copyright in the trophy, then the use of this image fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also it seems the upcoming matches listed at Warne–Muralidaran Trophy#List of Warne–Muralidaran Trophy series might represent future opportunities to take a free image of the trophy. Whether that makes this image a violation of NFCC#1 I am not sure. From the formulation of NFCC#1 it is not apparent to me whether a future upcoming event that represents an opportunity to take a free image of the trophy satisfies the definition of "no free equivalent could be created". The December, 2012/January 2013 match seems to be such a future opportunity. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg

The issue at hand is if the use of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg on Ender's Game (short story) violates NFCC rules.

I believe this image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short story. It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.

Per NFCC it would seem appropriate.

1. No free equivalent.- Y - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Y - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Previous publication.' Passed- Y -Image was published or publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages.
4. Content.- Y - Meets general Misplaced Pages content standards and is encyclopedic.
5. Media-specific policy.- Y - The material meets Misplaced Pages's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Misplaced Pages:Image use policy.
6. One-article minimum.- Y - Is on two pages (or one if not on Ender's Game (short Story).
7. Contextual significance.- Y - I believe it will significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence.
8. Restrictions on location.- Y - It located in an article.
9. Image description page.- Y Image has a description page contains the following

--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely a failure of NFCC#8. The reader gains no context of the story based on the cover of the anthology that the work was published in, particularly when the cover have zero reference to the work at hand. There might be some allowance if the artwork was based on the short story, but that's not even the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The reader "gains" a lot from the image. This image is the "First" publication of a short story that went on to create eleven novels, twelve short stories, and 45 comic issues. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence. To someone who is interested in Ender's Game it is equivalent to saying that an image of the bible isn't "significant" to Jesus Christ since he only appears in the last half.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If Misplaced Pages actually adhered to its NFCC principles, both this image and the second image on the article would be a failure of those principles, and would need to be removed from the article. But, Misplaced Pages doesn't enforce NFCC anymore. So, I fail to see any objection to including this image and/or several other images of publications which included the story. There appear to be at least 10 such publications. Perhaps a gallery of the covers of all the publications that included the story? If we can justify two such images as significantly adding to reader's understanding of the subject (even though both covers fail to mention the story, but those are pedantic details), we can easily justify all ten. We can't let reader's understanding suffer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that it violated NFCC principles, but you fail to cite any NFCC principle it violates. Which one? I went threw each Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteria above and it meets all of them.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And I would not object to taking the other image off, if this one is keeped, since this image is the First publication. The reader doesn't need all 10, but the reader needs at least one.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Be aware, Hammersoft's reply is rather sarcastic. He's poking holes at the logic you offered for the reason to keep it.

In general, per WP:NFCI#1 we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it. As a short story, there is no single published work for it, so to justify the cover, it has to be essential for understanding the article, it cannot rely on the WP:NFCI allowance. As the cover has absolutely nothing to do visually or textually with the short story, it is impossible to assert that it meets WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, for NFCC. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by having the cover, nor is their understanding harmed by omitting the cover image. Ergo, this image is very much inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have said to Hammersoft, I have yet to see any NFCC rule that agrees with what you just said. Where dose it say that "we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it". NFCC says we have to have a reasonable rational. I argue that it is historically significant to the reader. While it may not be an image of the short story directly, it is Historically significant to the history of the entire Ender's series. I argue that the reader's understanding is enhanced just as much as an image of a book cover.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will thank you for pointing out WP:NFCI, that is as close to a justification I have yet gotten, rather then just saying it is against the rules and not explaining why. I still believe it passes WP:NFCI#1, but I will admit, I'm not a 100% sure what it mean, so I will admit that I may be off. If you will explain it better to me, I may see where you coming from.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs)

@ARTEST4ECHO: Please refer to the last bullet point on the bottom of WP:NFCC. It isn't anyone's burden to prove this image doesn't belong. It's your burden to prove the image DOES belong. The simple fact is the cover doesn't mention the short story at all. There's no connection between the cover and the story. I could just as well include on the Coca-Cola article the cover of a TIME magazine because Coca-Cola had an advertisement in that edition. The covers on this article are not visually connected to the subject of the article. A casual fly by reader might even think the top image is there in error as they would be expecting to see something that at least said "Ender" on it. How about we use a picture of the Empire State Building as the primary picture for the Airship article? That doesn't make sense you say? Of course it does! See Empire_State_Building#Dirigible_.28airship.29_terminal. Well, at least as much sense as including a cover that doesn't mention the story in question. If ANYthing were to be included from this first publication, it would have to be the first page in the publication that has the story on it.

All that said, I still think this is pretty moot. We really don't enforce WP:NFCC anymore, and anyone is free to pretty much abuse it as they like. This article only uses two images. That's not enough to even make the report of articles using lots of non-free images. Heck, if we included all ten covers in a gallery as I suggested, it wouldn't even break the top 100. A quick scan of Google images shows they are all available. Since we don't enforce NFCC anymore, why not include them? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg

I'm new to Misplaced Pages images so please excuse me if my terminology below is incorrect. Also, if this section should go somewhere else, please tell me.

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag and its use rationale is not at all clear to me. I'm not advocating its deletion but couldn't someone repair this file page, possibly starting with {{Symbol rationale}} or something else. Or would it be better if it was claimed as a minor, no-original-content modification of the Betsy Ross flag and therefore PD? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be PD. The only difference is inserting "II" in the middle of the blue area, which involves no creative thought. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Toshio on this. Standards of creativity aren't particularly high. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg and two others

I haven't done a lot of work with Non-free images, so apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly.

I added a FUR to three images, but would like a review to determine whether it is acceptable.

The three images:

• File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willliam Newport Goodell With Self Portrait.jpg

1. No free equivalent.- Each item is a one of a kind photograph of an oil painting
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Owner of copyright is proposing this course, so by definition, this is not a problem.
3. a. Minimal usage. This is not the entire collection, but a representative sample, again with permission of copyright holder, so not an infringement. b. Minimal extent of use Low resolution used.
4. Previous publication.' Passed- -Paintings and photograph have been on public display
5. Content.- Meets general Misplaced Pages content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy.- The material meets Misplaced Pages's media-specific policy.
7. One-article minimum. - Is on William Newport Goodell
8. Contextual significance.- The article is about the painter, so examples of his work are critical to the understanding of his work.
9. Restrictions on location.It located in an article and only in an article
10. Image description page.- Images have a description page contains the source, Subject to this discussion, the probable license is {{Non-free 2D art}}. A FUR has been added to each one.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free screenshot of Hill Street Station

File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{multiple image}}

Masem said from WP:MCQ:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

I wonder if this image passes NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, one image is acceptable of a TV episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm reading along the article, which is totally well-written, I see that the pilot has many plots in one episode. The central is the police work, yet police plots come and go, as I'm reading it. This image, as far as I'm concerned, would be from the episode, but the image caption helps me identify both characters from this episode, which could have gone for other articles rather than the episode article. I wonder if this image helps readers overall understand the episode. To me, it doesn't, even with the help of the caption. I see one man holding a phone with frustration and anger, while I see another man with blank expression. True, the caption tells the situation, but that's actual implication. It's nothing compared to title cards or other episode images. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The central element of the plot is a hostage situation and negotiation. This is one that depicts that theme. I don't know what else you need to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing special about that image that can't be described in words (it doesn't even look like a hostage scene), so NFCC#1 may not be met. The only way that the image could be used if the scene is critically commented on by secondary or third-party sources. If neither of these are met, the image is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have captured a screenshot of hostages and robbers. I'm going to upload it if Masem and Tony approve. I might capture more that helps the readers understand the central plot. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I have created File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg as a replacement of other image; moreover, this section's title has changed. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The most talked about scene involves Daniel Travanti's liaisons with Hamel. That might be the best scene for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Motion scenes are different from still images. "Scenes" is a vague word to use. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We're talking "scenes" as parts of a play or dramatic work. If such a scene is discussed in depth in sources, it may be helpful to illustrate it. Right now, there's nothing particularly interesting or novel about the second image (a group of hostages is very easy to describe in words, and while its the central theme of the episode, that doesn't itself make it appropriate to have an image for it.) --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither image is appropiate then? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think either would qualify; the images are not difficult to envision from a text description (two men arguing; a row of bound and gagged hostages in a liquor store) so they would technically fail on NFCC#1. Again, if either of those dramatic scenes - or any other scene in the show - was critically commented on, that may be a better image (for example, as the article is written, they describe the shooting of two officers at the (apparent) end of the episode that was highlighted by critics. There may be smething there.) --MASEM (t) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've captured the moment of gunned-down men. However, I'm reading the article and found out that only two critics mentioned the scene. What about the sex scene between some officer and the female lawyer? Sex scene would count as "romance", which is discussed more than gunned-down. Either sex or gunned-down scene is not suitable for infobox because it is part of a subplot, but I'll remove the infobox image and go for body-paragraph image. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Subplot, plot, it does not matter. All you need is a scene that is critically reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For myself, for an image of an episode to qualify as an infobox picture, it needs to be anything that has been critically commented on by at least a couple of sources, and ideally more than just talking heads or the like. The more technically complex the scene, as well, the better, since that gets difficult to put into text. Two examples that I know are fine: Worlds Apart (Fringe) has a scene that was praised by several critics not only as part of the show's drama, but technically stunning (the same actor talking to a parallel world version of the character (played by himself), with nearly perfectly seamless cuts in how it was presented; it was also happened to be considered a highlight of the show, thus at least assuring that it is some unique measure of the show, but that's a happenstance from all other aspects. The second example is The Doctor's Wife, where we have two elements of interest: the guest actress whose role was commented on, and the specific prop that was part of a contest for kids, also discussed in detail; as well, it also serves as a unique episode identifier by happenstance and not its primary goal.)

Thus, in considering episode infobox, look at what the sources drive you towards. Even if it is a subplot, the fact that a scene got highlighted by critics makes it rather important. Sometimes, these subplots are more memorable than the actual episode. But, if you feel they aren't a good representation/unique identifier for the show, using them in the body is completely fine. To get better ideas I recommend reading the FAC discussions for any WP:FA episode article post-2008/2009 (in which image standards were "heightened" to be more demanding of their need at FAC) to get an idea of when and where and what type of episode screenshots can be used. The only thing that I have found to be true for sure is that the more a specific dramatic scene is discussed by secondary sources, the more likely the image of said scene will not come under fire. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What if I can simultaneously provide two scenes of gunned-down and illicit affair, as I will be doing right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss with this nomination. There is extensive commentary on the hostage situation, the negotiations and the illicit affair. Anyone of them qualifies as a scene for an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "extensive commentary", and what counts as "extensive commentary"? What are qualifications of that kind? As for the infobox image, I can't think of any scene or plot that is truly central other than the hostage one. I've watched the pilot, and suddenly, none of subplots to me qualify as part of infobox, even when they were part of the episode. Recently, I've uploaded a cheek-kissing scene in The Boys in the Bar as part of body rather than infobox because it's not totally central but the ending of the central. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically for TV episodes: review sources that critically comment (read: more than just recapping) a specific scene, or a bit of production information that states how a scene was filmed that would otherwise not be obvious by a viewer (eg: The Doctor's Wife image, it is impossible for the viewer to know that the prop console was designed by a child, but this is explained in sources).

As for whether body or infobox, that's totally personable. I think the preference is if you have an image that works (follows NFCC), then it goes to the infobox, even if it is not the defining moment of the show. If you have a choice of images, the more unique one should be used, but if you only have one and its not very unique, it can be used there. You can prefer to have it in the body, but be aware: there is no free allowance for an infobox image for TV episodes like there is for other copyrighted works; this means that if you opt to have an acceptable NFCC image in the body, any infobox image must adhere strongly to NFCC and be just as required per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One question: how unique is the cheek-kissing image in The Boys in the Bar to be an infobox image? If most unique, then maybe infobox? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Cheers watcher (much) but the question to ask is: were one a devote Cheers fan, would that one picture tell you what episode it came from? It sounds like it is, based on the surrounding/supporting text, in which case an infobox is fine. Even if the image is a means of unique identification, it doesn't have to go in the infobox if one feels that the discussion of the scene is too far away (in terms of page layout) from the picture itself; it just often is done more that way. --MASEM (t)

• Can someone use T:MI and layout these four pictures with proposed captions, so I can know what I am considering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There are image links at top of this section. Do you mean layout all images in one area? Well, here's the sandbox revision just for testing. You can then decide, as I do not use the main article or any other page than Sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes either like the sandbox or vertical. It does not matter, but we need to understand the relevance. Please propose the new images with captions. See how I adjusted the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Done more captions. Masem said that any scene must be part of article's critical commentary, not the episode's. The source cannot be just the primary source (ie. episode); instead, secondary or third-party source must make a scene very substantial. To me, the farmost left image is not that substantial, even with captions; that's why I put it under review. Think about the difference between man-made screenshots (image) and motionally moving scenes (video). --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd like to make a case for image 4, but it would be more appealling to me if we could see her. I have not seen this scene lateley, but is there a capture possibility with her good looks visible. Also, I think we need to rework the captions to make the relevance of the images clearer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Based on the current content in the article, what about something like "Attorney Davenport's (Veronica Hamel) sex appeal was part of multiple storylines including an illicit affair with Captain Frank Furillo (Daniel J. Travanti)" as a caption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to point out , but we are not allowed to use NFC on talk pages even for discussions like this. I've left the captions in the source though. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you state your opinion on the best choice from our current menu of possible lead images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, here you go: Sandbox --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rainn Wilson.jpg

This non-free image is too dubious to use because there is a free image in the Casting section: File:RainnwilsonOct07.jpg. I can't find any hint of characterization from this picture other than his usual suit. Moreover, claims of irreplaceability are too flimsy to consider reliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is often allowance - particularly if they are press/media kit images - to use the non-free pictures of characters even if a free image of the actor exists and is substantially similar to the character. The rationale follows from cover art when these come from press kits : this is how the producers/broadcasters want you to envision the characters, so it has implicit branding/marketing associated with it. That becomes less a problem when we're using character images taken from screenshots as now we're putting our own spin on the character. Importantly there is no consistent application here, only that we seem to have less a problem with press kit photos being used in lieu of free photos. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this image specifically. Generally, yes, a non-free photo and a free photo are different from each other, like Batman and Robin. This image.... only substantial things are the suit and the production set. I don't see any much difference between two photos of the same actor, as far as I'm concerned. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am describing the general trends as to qualify why I think this is okay and avoid similar questions. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The image of the Dwight character is used in the Dwight Schrute article; the image of Rainn out of character is not to a real replacement.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:DanChallis.jpg

Use of this non-free film screenshot is too dubious to be fair use. It identifies the actor as one character, but there is no shred of significance that makes this image relevant. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, but in my opinion it seems to fit the requirements listed here. The quality is reduced, it is being used in the article to illustrate the section on "Casting" next to a paragraph that is talking about the actor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the use here does not satisfy NFCI#5 since I do not see how that use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In that sense, the use of the image in that article is likely in violation of NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fernando Primo de Rivera.PNG

Non-free use rationale may be improper according to the licensing template which states the image is PD. If the licensing template is improper, then the use of the file in 1897 in the Philippines is a violation of NFCC#10b, NFCC#10c and possibly NFCC#8, since I do not see, why the images presence in 1897 in the Philippines is necessary for the readers understanding of the topic. 1897 in the Philippines already contains a wikilink to Fernando Primo de Rivera, 1st Marquis of Estella, where the image is present. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If the image is in public domain, it is not non-free content and thus it can't be in violation of NFCC criteria. What is incorrect here is the unneeded rationale that describes it as a logo (which is not), not the licensing as public domain. Fixed it by removing the rationale. Diego (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, a PD image can't violate the NFC criteria, that's what I meant. "Improper" perhaps was a poor choice of a word. I am not sure, whether the image is PD or not. As far as I know, the duration of the copyright protection depends on when the author of the image died. Also, it's not entirely clear to me the copyright law of which country applies (US, Philippine, Spanish?). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Established that this image is out of copyright in the Philippines and that it is out of copyright in the United States. Eligible for Commons. --George Ho (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Stanfield Wells.jpg

The use of the image in 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image caption at 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team#Letter winners states the photo was taken in 1910. Given that according to File:Copyright term.svg (see also ) the duration of copyright protection would be 64 years, it seems to be PD (assuming US copyright law applies). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:LewisAsTheTyro.jpg

Use of the file in 1921 in art violates NFCC#10c. In my opinion the use also violates NFCC#8, since the image simply floats along a listing of works from that particular year. The image is already present in Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, where it seems to be discussed. If the image must be mentioned in 1921 in art#Works, the reader should be referred to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s which could be accomplished via a wikilink. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The image was apparently created in 1921. If it was published in 1921 or 1922, then it is in the public domain in the United States. On the other hand, if it was not published in 1921 or 1922, then it is copyrighted in the United States due to the URAA. The painting is called "Mr Wyndham Lewis as a Tyro" and according to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, "After the war, Lewis resumed his career as a painter, with a major exhibition, Tyros and Portraits, at the Leicester Galleries in 1921." Since the word "tyro" appears in both the name of the painting and the name of the exhibition, it is likely that the painting was exhibited on that exhibition. Just exhibiting the painting is not enough (I believe), but maybe it appeared in some exhibition catalogue at that time? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually just exhibiting the painting can be enough, I think this should be PD...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a Canadian-born artist lived in London, so it is still copyrighted in UK until 2028, 70 years after life of the artist. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not relevant except on Commons; we can simply tag an image with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} here. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:The Persistence of Memory.jpg

The use of this file in 1931 in art violates WP:NFCC#10c. Also fails WP:NFC#UUI#6. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the use of this file in 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dali is his most important work and an icon of Surrealism; it is needed particularly at 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting. It no longer violates WP:NFG.

Paintings by Roy Lichtenstein

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Drowning Girl

File:Roy Lichtenstein Whaam.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Whaam!

File:Bedroom at Arles.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Bedroom at Arles Withdrawn

These images are used in Roy Lichtenstein and other articles whose subjects are not mainly images themselves. I wonder whether rationales are valid and whether commentaries are sufficient enough to justify use of these images. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lichtenstein is an important 20th century artist and it is imperative to have the few images used in the biographical article, to educate readers as to what those visual artworks look like...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is completely reasonable to use a few (a few) NFC images for an artist as representatives of their work, as long as the specific examples are called out as demonstrating why they are examples (the work the artist is most noted for? etc.) This is no different than providing a few samples of music for a musician/band as representing their work. How many is allowed, its hard to say, however. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is use of Bedroom at Arles in Lichtenstein article appropiate and sufficient? --George Ho (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not; Bedroom at Arles does not fully represent Lichtenstein's career - leaving out his most famous pieces that relate to Pop Art. I agree with User:Masem however; we've tried to limit the imagery there to 3 important paintings demonstrating his pioneering work in both pop art and appropriation, and we have included 1 industrial commission done late in his career...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Lichtenstein's work actually. At is Lichtenstein's; In is van Gogh's. By the way, I'm withdrawing review on one image. --George Ho (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The use of Bedroom could be a bit stronger, but the text does describe how he applied his style to famous artists, with that being one example against the Van Gogh, so edging on allowance there is fine. (Drowning Girl + Wham, no question that they are well-discussed). Again, we don't use numbers, but 4 non-frees on an artist of this many works and of this fame seems completely reasonable. And no, I'm not saying "4 images" is a number test to apply elsewhere. It just "feels" right given the point of NFCC in balance with whom the artist is. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that Lichtenstein article is already reviewed and resolved, and that Arles image has passed NFCC, let's discuss other images that are used in non-Lichtenstein articles, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:HarryBrowne-LP.JPG

Use in 1996 Libertarian National Convention and 2000 Libertarian National Convention violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Always add {{non-free review}} before you put any image under review. I've done that for you. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to remember that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

File:BD tri-service badge.png

Uses in Jahangir Alam Chowdhury and Muhammad Shahid Sarwar violate NFCC#8, as the use is purely decorative there. The current rationale for Bangladesh Armed Forces as written perhaps could be improved to explicitly state how that badge is related to the topic of the article. Current rationale is a group rationale, while NFCC#10c requires a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This file has several additional issues: The file description says the image is a self created work by the uploader. If that were true, it would be in violation of WP:IUP#User-created images. I don't think that is true anyway, as the file appears to be a derivative work using three (probably) non-free logos. The file is also violating NFCC 10a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Toshio, perhaps you could ask someone in the subject area? It would be very useful to clear up if this is an official badge or logo or a fabricated creation. If the latter, it has no future; if the former the FUR needs some tweaks but would probably stand overall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that I will come across as the uncooperative ass here, but it is really not my duty to do this. Looking at , and makes it appearing very likely that this badge is a derivative work using three logos. Either the part "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" at WP:NFCCE means something or it doesn't. If it doesn't the policy should be changed to reflect that. Apart from that, I do not want to give them my E-Mail address. Someone should do this under a Wikimedia Foundation E-Mail address. Is there someone at the Foundation responsible for something like that? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ford 400 race logo.png

Uses in 2003 Ford 400, 2008 Ford 400, 2009 Ford 400 and Ford EcoBoost 400 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Isaf worldsailing logo.PNG

Uses in 2003 ISAF Sailing World Championships and 2014 ISAF Sailing World Championships violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:WAPDAfootballclub.png

Use in WAPDA F.C. violates NFCC#10c (rationale points to WAPDA FC, but the file is used on WAPDA F.C.). Use in 2004 Pakistan Premier League is purely decorative and violates NFCC#8 and 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Sweetbox 13 Chapters RS.jpg

Use in 13 Chapters violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:MichaelKelsoFinale.jpg

This image looks too inadequate or dubious. It merely identifies Ashton Kutcher as Michael Kelso (or Kelso (That '70s Show)). And I don't think any image of him in the show can help matters, especially the promo image. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was a media kit promo image, we'd generally allow it (there's aspects of branding and image in that), but as just a screenshot to show a character that looks exactly like the actor in question? Not needed at all. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Persepolis Teheran Logo(2012).png

Uses in Persepolis FSC, 1999–2000 Azadegan League, Persepolis F.C. Reserves and Academy and Persepolis FSC violate WP:NFCC#10c. Use in 1999–2000 Azadegan League is decorative and violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rationale for Persepolis FSC has been added. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:MizzouPrimaryAthleticMark.png

Uses in 2000 Missouri Tigers football team, 2001 Missouri Tigers football team, 2002 Missouri Tigers football team, 2003 Missouri Tigers football team, 2004 Missouri Tigers football team, 2005 Missouri Tigers football team, 2006 Missouri Tigers football team, 2007 Missouri Tigers football team, 2006 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2007 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2012 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2012–13 Missouri Tigers men's basketball team, Missouri Tigers baseball, Missouri Tigers men's basketball, Missouri Tigers softball and Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry violate WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I question the validity of the rationale provided for the use of this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry. The rationale states the purpose of the use of the file in that article is "to illustrate the primary mark currently used by Missouri Tigers football. This is the primary logo of all Missouri Tiger athletics.". Why does that mark have to be illustrated by this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's standard to include the logos of both teams in the rivalry infobox on rivalry articles. See, e.g. Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, Civil War (college football game), Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, Auburn–Georgia football rivalry, Carolina–Duke rivalry, Army–Navy Game. Mizzou415 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be standard, but such a use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. I am aware of WP:NFCI 2, but I believe the identification in the rivalry article can be accomplished via a wikilink to the team article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that a link to the team article serves the same purpose but regardless, as this identical usage is presently on dozens if not hundreds of articles, the use of a single image is not an appropriate forum for such a broad discussion. Mizzou415 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• When this has come up in the past, suitable text logos were found for most schools. Is there not a similar option for Missouri? (ESkog) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is - I'd recommend File:Missouri Tigers M script.gif from Commons be used on most of the articles listed above, with the likely exception of the main article about the athletics teams at Missouri Tigers. (ESkog) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't actually a University of Missouri logo per http://identity.missouri.edu/logos-design/index.php Mizzou415 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That MU "unified" logo in the above linked page, however, is a perfectly fine free (fails Threshold of originality) alternative. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Use in the rivalry articles is an obvious NFCC violation. It clearly fails NFCC#8. It makes no sense to claim that the reader's understanding of the article is materially impaired by the absence of the logo. The logos are simply unnecessary in articles about subjects associated with the teams. Mickey Mantle is fully comprehensible without a Yankees logo; Phil Simms without a Giants logo; Matt Lauer without a Today show logo, and each and every one of the horde of Playboy Playmates without the rabbit head. Under the nonfree content policy, use of such logos should be limited to articles where the central subject is represented by the logo. Perhaps that may cover de facto subarticles like the individual season articles, although that's a bit of a stretch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Pac-10-Uniform-SU-2002-2007.png

Use in 2005 Stanford Cardinal football team violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This uniform seems uncopyrightable to me. The color-scheme might be trademarked, but I don't think this specific bicolor scheme is eligible for copyright protection. The image seems to be a user created image and should be re released by the creator/uploader under a free license. Otherwise use of the image violates WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

Uses in 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid, 2006 Lebanon War, 9K115-2 Metis-M, 9K52 Luna-M, 9M133 Kornet, Battle of Wadi Saluki, Battle of Zabadani, Houthis, List of Shi'a Muslims flags, List of political parties in Lebanon, List of wars involving Iran, Operation Changing Direction 11, Operation Scorched Earth, Shia insurgency in Yemen, South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), Syrian uprising (2011–present), War of the Camps and Wars involving Israel violate NFCC#10c. All those uses also violate NFCC#8, as they are decorative, except the use in List of Shi'a Muslims flags, where WP:NFLISTS#4 and 6 might apply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah? Guess what? I removed all of the abusive uses many times. But, people keep putting them back in. You see, if you don't put that 23px rendition of the flag featuring yellow with a green smudge into the infobox of South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), people are going to be completely confused and incapable of understanding that Hezbollah was involved in the conflict. So, yeah, we can have this discussion here about whether or not it is appropriate or not, but down the road someone will come along and put them all back in again. I.e., it's a waste of time, just as is the rest of NFCC enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Then lets add all those pages to Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content criteria exemptions. Or better yet, lets file a request at Botreq to add all pages in main namespace to that category. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, like me, the voice of despair. The reality is that playing the game of whack-a-mole to wipe out the violations is unending and fruitless. The violations will keep coming back. So, yes, one alternative is to allow this sort of use. Of course, if we try to get policy modified to do just that, it gets rejected. Isn't this fun? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe you could try asking at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list? If the image is added to that list, it can only be used in articles specifically added to that list by an administrator. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That would never fly, as it isn't scalable to the entire project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Bot_to_target_icon_usage_of_non-free_images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags are inherently public domain for display purposes, atlases and guidebooks publish national flags at will. There is no reason why use of any flag on any page should be restricted so long as it represents the organization that uses it.108.5.245.216 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think flags are "inherently public domain". A flag is essentially a work of art and as thus the creator of that work would normally hold the copyright for it (except perhaps, if the flag were not creative enough and thus inelligible for copyright, but that has nothing to do with it being a flag). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Toshio. Just because a flag can be publicly displayed doesn't make it public domain. There are plenty of flags that are not free license. 108.5.245.216, you should read Gratis versus libre. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag is the property of an organization that has given up its rights by commiting unsanctioned acts of war and terrorism. Even assuming that they were a legitimate nation or respectable organization, their flag and logo being prominently displayed makes it publically available for commentary, review and representation (not public domain, but a blanket fair-use). That they are a declared enemy of everything that Misplaced Pages stands for (free speech in particular) makes me wonder why you're defending them. Krysee (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not so much protecting *them* as protecting any reusers of WP's content from being a problem later by tagging the image as non-free since there's no clear "free" nature to the image. The claim that because the organization has committed unsanctioned acts of war is bogus; it is still copyrighted to the organization. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a bogus claim. I'm not a copyright lawyer (although I am a lawyer), but I believe there are several reasons why the flag of Hezbollah is not protected under copyright law.

1. The design is seen in different variations and used by people who associate themselves with a particular political ideology, not just the people who run Hezbollah. The design is also used by the Revolutionary Guards. Its purpose, then, is to be used as an ideological symbol, like a peace sign, and is therefore not copyrightable.

2. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. US courts would never enforce copyright on behalf of Hezbollah on the image. If there are no legal consequences for using the flag, then an exception to the normal copyright law is carved out.

3. An "organization" cannot hold copyright; a person can. The individual designer (or designers) of the flag might be able to claim to hold copyright, or Hezbollah if it was a corporation (which it is not as far as I know) could hold copyright, but Hezbollah as a shadowy criminal "organization" cannot hold copyright.

4. Nobody has come forward to say that the flag or its symbolism belongs to them. Not Hezbollah, not an individual designer. The authorship of the design has been lost to the sands of time. If there's no potential copyright holder then there's no potential copyright.

Lexicon (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

3. An organization is also a person, albeit an artificial one. I am fairly certain artificial persons are also capable of holding the copyright in a work.

4. I don't think we (the English Misplaced Pages community) regard a work as free as long as no one claims ownership of the copyright in that work. I think we assume a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did make reference to artificial persons re corporations. An organization which is not incorporated, however, is not a person. Is Hezbollah incorporated? I'm pretty sure it's not. As such, the copyright would have to be held by the individual creator or creators of the work. As for assuming copyright, yes, that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright in the unfettered use of the motif in other militant organizations (the Revolutionary Guards). But add the two together and I'd say you have a strong case that it was never copyrightable, or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright (as against, for instance, the Revolutionary Guards). Finally, even if it is copyrighted, the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot.

I would argue that as Hezbollah itself is not an entity subject to law (it is not a corporation, nor is it a state), the copyright for the flag, if it is copyrightable, would by necessity HAVE to be held by its individual creator or creators. As the creator is likely unascertainable in law, and as the motif was obviously "donated" to use in a political cause, the flag was released into, and remains in, the public domain. Lexicon (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"...that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright..."

What evidence that the flag isn't copyrighted or capable of being copyrighted are you referring to?

"...or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright..."

Again, where is the evidence for this claim?

"...the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot..."

I am not aware of a consensus at the English Misplaced Pages that has determined we can use (supposedly) copyrighted works under the assumption that law might not be enforced. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely with Toshio on this. If the creator were not a member of Hezbollah, this would definitely be in copyright pending close analysis (but this isn't what's being argued here). Currently, works of Hezbollah enjoy (or do not enjoy a negative) right as far as I can see in the US. The US as a country has before declared works to be in the public domain, such as those from Afghanistan and other countries with whom the US does not have a copyright treaty. The copyright status of Nazi works is unclear, i.e. despite all Nazi actions, even they appear to attract copyright protection. In light of no evidence that the Hezbollah organisation has been singled out, this should remain fair use. (When was it designed, by the way?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG

Use in Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon violates WP:NFCC#8 and 10c. Use is purely decorative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the file should also be removed from 2006 Lebanon War. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Aarons499 logo.gif

Uses in 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So, this image which is used in those articles violates some rule. But why not 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, then? The image's page has the same "Non-free media information and use rationale" for them also... 82.141.66.248 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time I tagged the file, it only had rationales for Aaron's 499, 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, but lacked rationales for 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499. NFCC#10c requires that the file has a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationales for all uses have been added. Still the uses in the yearly articles seem to violate NFCC#8. Can I have some more opinions? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a more general discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Uncceptable image uses. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:CBI logo.jpg

Use in 2008 College Basketball Invitational, 2009 College Basketball Invitational, 2010 College Basketball Invitational and 2011 College Basketball Invitational violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ogden Nash

Hoping that this is the right way to do it; I've never come here before.

I'm concerned about the amount of non-free text in this article. We currently have part or all of nine Nash poems here; if Nash were a painter, we wouldn't tolerate complete or partial displays of nine different paintings. Of course we should quote something, just as an image of No. 5, 1948 is appropriate in the Jackson Pollock article, but I'm concerned that we use too much nonfree content for the Nash article. No complaints about the image of Nash, which as the only image in the article plainly isn't a case of excessive use of nonfree material. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Text unfortunately has been determined to be outside NFCC's bound, but we still have to content with the text meeting normal fair use allowances that would be required by CC-BY-SA. One or two snippets, as you suggest, would be reasonable, but the amount present is far too much in talking about the poet. It definitely does need to be trimmed down. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When/where was that determined? If that be the case, we really need to update WP:NFCC, which spends time discussing quotations of non-free text before paying any attention to images, recordings, or other non-textual media. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the guideline WP:NFC as opposed to WP:NFCC which is the policy on non-free media. This is the discussion I believe that led to including some statement about text at NFC, the point is that with text, we don't require the rigors of a non-free rational and licensing, and therefore outside NFCC's scope, but it is still a "non-free" issue.

You also may want to point to WP:QUOTE where this is more directly discussed from a text standpoint. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean NFCC, which says "Articles and other Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.". Moonriddengirl's note about the page not mentioning textual content is no longer the case. At any rate, is there any other page (other than the article's talk page, of course) for discussing the appropriateness or lack thereof of nonfree textual content? I'd be happy to take this there if it exist. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I asked Moonriddengirl to chime in here (describing it as a "minor (and friendly) disagreement"), since what she wrote is part of the issue. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it still comes down to the fact that when we generally talk NFCC, its about media files, as required by the Foundation. I think that line there is simply to acknowledge that text is handled differently. But as to where else to discuss, I'm not really sure; it's not like its an outright copyvio problem, so this would be the next best place. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were telling me "wrong forum" without pointing me elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Just thought you were looking to get support to getting rid of the excessive copy. But yes, this is probably the best page for discussing excessive text. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:CliffhangersDebut.jpg

This image is used in List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Cliff Hangers. However, I don't think this image helps readers understand. Rather the image has not been commented in this article. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecesary. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Plinkoseason37.jpg

This image is used in List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Plinko. I'm not sure if this image is needed, but the board is mentioned very little, unless I missed something. Maybe the rules are simple to explain, but execution is different? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an image where we could get a free, simplified rendition of the Plinko board (that itself is not copyrighted) if it needs to be explained. The non-free is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, this use fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But there are no replicas of this board. It is a sculpture made for Plinko players only. How can we have access to taking a picture of the Plinko board? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If a picture is necessary, it is easy to demonstrate with a user-made, non-photograph, computer drawn layout of the board; its not a "sculpture" in that it has a utility value to it, though the specific decorations on it would be a problem; hence a computer-drawn recreation of the board would be sufficient to show the pin layouts. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one could make a schematic representation of the board that would serve the same purpose (or could do it even better, maybe). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rachel green.jpg

This image is under review. It lacks rationale, and the image is not appropiate for The One Where Estelle Dies. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate in the episode article. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why on Earth not? We do it all the time? Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager), What Is... Cliff Clavin?, Here Comes My Girl (Cougar Town). I updated the rationale to reflect the article where it is used. Problem solved, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Even when rationale is added, the issues are not yet resolved. As for the Cliff Clavin part, I used the still image of Cliff's losing all winnings to help readers identify the episode and to illustrate what is already in the critical commentary. Other images I must put under review. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd no idea you had any connection to that episode. I just randomly picked. It's common practice to use a screenshot from an episode on the article about that episode. I see no reason to not include this image on the episode article, and given that it is such common practice... --Hammersoft (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, you've a long road in front of you. Looking at List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, a vast majority of the episodes have a screenshot I think. Oh, and that's just one TV series. One. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlike cover art which there is consensus to include as long as the work is notable, there's nothing equivalent for episodes, particularly when it is talking heads, like this image. There's nothing that can't be explained by free media or text. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cougar town 109 thanksgiving.jpg

This image is not part of article's critical commentary. It may identify the episode, but it may fail WP:NFCC criteria. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in the previous section. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Easily described by text, and a scene of no note in sources. Delete. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you nominate it for deletion? --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've simply removed it, a bot will tag it orphaned, and it will be deleted in 7 days unless restored. If it restored, then FFD would be the next step. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • And I've restored it. Per my comments in the next section, there should be a centralized discussion regarding screenshots not specifically mentioned in the article. Please don't misinterpret my action; I'm not trying to be obstructionist here. But, given the enormous amount of discussion that erupts over NFCC enforcement, not having a centralized discussion to refer to as supporting proof of the need of removal is bad. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • We already have advice, from the TV project itself, from WP:MOSTV : "For episode articles, a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode - that is, the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary - and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood. There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode." There is no need for central discussion when this has been long-standing, its just a matter of cleaning up under it. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • (please take as humor) Is there where I'm supposed to say you're being heavy handed? As would be said back to me if I tried it, WP:MOSTV isn't policy. Further, common practice is that there is an allowance for an image per episode where the episode has its own article. It's all over the place (ex: Category:Monk episodes, Category:South Park (season 9) episodes. So, we have a case where reality and guideline don't agree. You claim reality is wrong, but if I fix it I'm being heavy handed and if you do it you're...what? An angel? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I understand the humor, but it's important to separate OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic from what actually is established. Unless there has been some significant review of the articles, we can't just if the image use is appropriate, being aware that newer editors tend to follow the patterns of established articles without referring to guidelines ("Oh that episode article has an image, must be okay here..."). Given that I've gotten one positive response at the TV project to clean up the various series of inappropriate screenshots for infoboxes, it is definitely true that the practice is not for automatic allowance for images and they must follow NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
              • I think you are wrong. First, Wikiprojects don't set policy. Second, the common practice is as I described. It's not a question of otherstuffexists. It's a question of what is routinely done. Episodic screenshots exist in probably thousands of articles across the project. Whether it is wrong or right is really beside the point at this point; it's not a clear violation of WP:NFCC, and there's no question this sort of use is very common. What are you going to do when these sorts of uses are routinely reverted? Is that when you become heavy handed, point to a wikiproject and a manual of style and declare them to be wrong? Or, as you seem to have previously suggested in related matters, we have to bring each of these cases here or to FfD? Hmm? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                • First, WP:TV's guideline on episode article images falls right in line with NFCC; my point is that the fact the project acknowledges there is no immediately allowance for episode screenshots shows that the project as a whole is aware of this. Secondly, that's why I posted just earlier the message to help with clearing of unnecessary screenshots from TV episode articles. Either that will prompt them into action (meaning they will help fix images added by newer editors that are simply mimicking how other episode articles are presented), or will spawn discussion that should affirm the consensus or set up a new one. If the TV project has no objection to this remove, then there's no point in spending the time to FFD such images since there's agreement for those affected. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • I don't really care what the project thinks, since (as I noted) projects don't set policy. You seem to imply an assumption that it is only newer editors are adding episodic images. Evidence? The TV project aren't the only ones affected. Every reader of every episode article is affected, not just the few hundred listed as in the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • This use clearly fails WP:NFCI#5. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:ST-VOY Time and Again.jpg

This image is too dubious, and the article still lacks enough balance. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in section two above. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Easily described by text, and not a scene of note in the article. Delete. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you're going to do that, then all episode shots from this series should be grouped together in an AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, not necessarily. Not that I've looked at that, but there may be cases within the series where there's critical reception of the scene (mind you, my knowledge of Voyager says, "very unlikely" given the general lack of any critical reception for the individual episodes). A mass FFD would be disruptive, but I'm sure there's an appropriate venue somewhere (WP:TV maybe) to get input. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• In cases where the images are not mentioned in particular, not doing a group FFD is itself disruptive. Doing it piecemeal causes an enormous amount of work, rather than the whole issue being discussed in a reasonable fashion in one coherent place. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Festival of Britain.JPG

No clear rationale. Rationale contained within the summary template at File:Festival of Britain.JPG#Summary could be improved by providing a link to the article for which fair use is claimed. Rationales for Abram Games and Festival Star are absent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this not be covered by the HMSO Open Government License? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proof that this work has been published under that license? If it has, then from what I read here I think use on Misplaced Pages would be compatible with that license. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at {{non-free Crown copyright}}. If recently, a government work from UK is still copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if it has been released under HMSO OGL it has practically the same status as if released under something like CC-BY-3.0. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it was published in 1951 I would assume Crown copyright has expired, unless you know better. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50 years, so it seems copyright has indeed expired. Thus the file should be tagged accordingly. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be tagged with {{PD-because}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate tag than {{PD-UK}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one: Template:PD-BritishGov. Must be conjunctioned with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged the file as PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Expired British Crown Copyrights are free worldwide (see e-mail link in the template), so {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should not be used. Besides, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files are not free in the United States and are frequently deleted as unfree files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly: Cornell chart. If still copyrighted in UK in 1996, the work is still copyrighted in the United States, unless it was published without notice within 30 days after first overseas publication. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, see the e-mail link in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Venetia phair.jpg

I don't really think that the photo is needed in the article Pluto, but that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. If you want to see the photo of her, you can go to the article dedicated specifically to her instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Copyright Act of 1909 applies to the photo, it seems to be in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was taken at the age of 11 and Venetia Burney was born in 1918, so it can't have been published before 1923 at least. Without more information, it could go either way, all depending on whether it has been published and whether formalities were followed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the maximum duration of copyright would be 56 years, if it was published before 1956 (which I can't confirm right now) then it is in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one could ask. This seems to suggest the copyright holder might be Galaxy Picture Library and they have contact details here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm? The United States copyright term is one of publication+0 years, publication+28 years, publication+95 years, life+70 years and creation+120 years. Where do you find the statement about 56 years? --Stefan2 (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If our article Copyright Act of 1909 is correct, that act would apply to works published between 1909 and 1976. Duration of protection would be 28 years with the possibility of renewal for another 28 years once. Assuming copyright was renewed once, that would be 2 x 28 = 56 years. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that figure of 1956 above from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, the law was changed. As far as I can see, the Copyright Act of 1909 states that the maximum copyright term is publication+56 years. This meant that works under the Copyright Act of 1831 were copyrighted for at most 56 years instead of the original 42 years, unless the copyright already had expired. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the total term from 56 years to 75 years, unless the copyright already had expired, which affected works under both the Copyright Act of 1831 and the Copyright Act of 1909. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act finally extended the total term from 75 years to 95 years, affecting works under the Copyright Act of 1909, but works published before 1923 had already entered the public domain since the earlier shorter term already had expired. See chart to the right (which assumes that works were renewed and published with a notice). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think without knowing when exactly the photo was published, it is impossible to determine whether it is in the public domain or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The photo blatantly does not belong on the Pluto article. Further, I seriously doubt the article Venetia Burney should exist at all. She is 'famous' for exactly one thing; suggesting the name for Pluto. That's it. Nothing else. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but is a different issue that should be resolved at AfD. Who wants to be BOLD and make the nomination? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've prodded it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• And it's immediately unprodded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, another error with the image: it currently fails WP:NFCC#10c. Specifically, it says that you should have "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". However, the two articles currently share the same FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• We had a discussion at WT:NFC about group rationales before, with the conclusion that they are inappropriate. Doesn't really matter. People do them anyway, and the use of them is common. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec ×2) {{Non-free historic image}}, which generates the instructions on the page, says "A rationale must be provided for every article any non-free image is used in, ...", nothing about "separate". It would help users if the template said "A separate rationale..." or whatever if that is what is required. Please can one of you update it? The shared rationale section can easily be split into two specific rationales, so that in itself is not a ground for removal, rather a quality issue to be corrected. --Mirokado (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• That current rationale is blatantly inadequate in its current form. Lacks nearly all necessary components. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur, and to Mirokado; separating these Siamese twin rationales doesn't fix anything. Per Toshio, the rationale is woefully inadequate, and it doesn't even belong in the Pluto article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the rationales does not fix any other problems. In case what I said above was not clear: (1) the instructions in the template need to be improved; (2) the shared rationale in itself can be fixed rather easily if necessary so let's concentrate on substantial issues. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:FURG does say "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." So I have started to do that. Even if we remove the file from Pluto, the separate rationales mean that we can concentrate on improving them (or not) individually. I've started by adding separate, completed, template rationales corresponding to the original editor's information. Since I've not done this before, constructive criticism would be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the picture is not necessary in Pluto. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No further comments for a month, so I have removed the image from Pluto and updated the rationale accordingly. I also updated some of the rationale text and I hope this is now satisfactory. --Mirokado (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg

Use in Art of the United Kingdom seems inappropriate. I question the third point of the rationale File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg#Fair use for Art of the United Kingdom, which seems dubious and inadequate to me. I do not see where this specific portrait is discussed in the article. The only thing in the article that seems to have any connection to the image seems to be the statement "The "London School" of figurative painters including Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, Frank Auerbach, Leon Kossoff, and Michael Andrews have received widespread international recognition". No direct reference is made to the image in that article. Thus I question whether the use of that image in that article satisfies NFCC#8. It appears to me it doesn't. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again Lucien Freud is an integral and crucial figure in the Art of the United Kingdom and it is important that his work be visually included in the article; probably needs more text...Modernist (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCI#7 says a non-free image of a painting can be used "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." In which way does the current use of this image in Art of the United Kingdom constitute critical commentary? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Toshio's right in that this is just being example of a named artist's work just to have an image there, but no reasoning behind the image. We're obviously going to have images like that on the artist's page and possibly on the artwork's own page if it exists, but there needs to be much stronger reason to include it as an example on a summary article like "Art of the UK". --MASEM (t) 12:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• We have a proscribed and limited reservoir of Freud's imagery. Lucien Freud (1922-2011), is or rather was along with Hockney and a very few others the most important living British artist and amongst the most significant figure painters of the 20th century. The image that we have to use is a portrait of Freud's first wife who was also the daughter of the famous American born English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein and in my view it is an important visual addition to the article. However I agree with both Toshio and Masem that the inclusion should benefit with additional text. I will add some text over the next few days...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sufficient text now added on the specific to justify use. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - I added a NYTimes discussion of Freud and specifically Girl with White Dog with reference to the Times ...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's actually pretty good (having the painting called out specifically in context via that quote); just note that we just use quotation marks to offset quotes, not italics. (per WP:QUOTE). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod repaired my erroneous italics :)...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What Masem said, well done. If others agree, I will remove the template from the article and close this discussion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You have only discussed the problems related to this image in one of the articles, but there are also problems in other articles. In particular, it violates WP:NFG in a number of articles, and it also violates WP:NFCC#1 in some articles. There seem to be public domain paintings of the same type which could be used instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the use in 20th-century Western painting#Realism, Landscape, Figuration, Still-Life, Cityscape fails WP:NFG. I also see no justification for this use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:1953 Grand Rapids Chicks.jpg

Use in 1953 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season and Grand Rapids Chicks violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Goldenboy toiletfetish.jpg

The use of this file in Golden Boy (manga) appears to be in violation of NFCC#8. No reference to the image is made in the article. The only mention of his fetish is the statement "Recurring gags include Kintaro's fetish for toilets (especially those recently used by beautiful women), ...." at Golden Boy (manga)#Summary, which I believe can also be described without using the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Goodraise 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed. However some fans might claim it to be iconic. Not that it actually is.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources to affirm that that scene is iconic, that may make it an allowance (And having seen the anime, I would agree that if there was any scene that was iconic, that would be it, but again, what we as Misplaced Pages editors say have no weight). --MASEM (t) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:1954 Kalamazoo Lassies.jpg

Use in 1954 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo-italias-got-talent1.jpg

The resolution is too high to qualify as fair use, per NFCC #3b. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can tag oversized images with {{non-free reduce}} which puts it into a maintenance category. It's a fixable problem...but that said, checking the use of the logo elsewhere, the depth of the 3d itself is not important, and if you take the text alone, it would fail threshold of originality, and thus this potentially fails the free replacement test NFCC#1. Someone can make an equivalent SVG of the logo for use. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged and a reduced version supplied, and I deleted the old versions. I'll leave this open for others to resolve the issue of WP:THRESHOLD and therefore replaceability by a free version. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is it does not meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. It would be great if someone could crop the image and make the TV station logo in the lower right go away, too. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Avanu

Regarding the image of a Coke can at the top of this user talk page, would someone neutral please inform the user that represntations of copyrighted items, such as a Coke can, are derviative of the original copyright, and therefore cannot be considered free by WMF policy and NFCC rules, and that non-free images cannot be used on user pages regardless of whether they are photographs or ASCII art. I have removed both from the page, (,), and the user simply restores or replaces them (, , ) warning me not to edit war. I need to step back and allow someone else to explain to the user. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with BMK's logic on this one. It is a derivative work and I'm sure it's trademarked and copyrighted so would fall under NFC. Sædon 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Beyond My Ken, you are absolutely right that you need to "step back". You began this little effort as a way to take up a stick immediately after a disagreement on the AN/I page, and after I politely attempted to talk to you on your Talk page, you ordered me to never post there again, which I again, politely agreed to.

Since then, you seem to have made it your personal mission to remove a thoughtful item placed at the top of my Talk page which served only as a welcoming image to encourage people to chat in a civil fashion. Specifically the coke with the message "Enjoy a refreshing beverage while you're here." immediately below it. This is a similar to the various gestures that many people make through 'Wikilove' and various text and image-based welcomes on their User and Talk pages. It is a neutral use, and a minimal use of the subject and conveys no conflict of interest nor the idea that the Coca-Cola Company endorses me as an editor.

This has been on my page, without incident over a year, since 4 March 2011. The only moment it became a big deal, is when you, without discussion, removed it from my page. You chose only to communicate via edit summaries, and so after that happened twice, I asked you to stop and went back to your page and politely asked you to use my Talk page for a civil discussion of the matter. I would be more inclined to acquiese to your request if it were made politely, rather than in a method that seems to be using policy as a subtle way to poke me. I hesitate to think what your next fault finding mission will be, but I would again respectfully ask that you work not merely within the system, but also with your fellow editors in it.

All that said, I would be perfectly willing to remove the image if it in fact does meet the definition of a non-free image. It is something that I have invited Beyond My Ken to explain and justify his rationale, but he seems to be intent on creating a larger drama from it instead. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Coke logo is ineligible for copyright as it fails the threshold of originality. A soda can's design is also going to be ineligble for copyright (it is utilitarian). Thus, it is completely possible for a free image of a coke can to be made as long as the person making the image puts it into the appropriate free license. As long as Avanu created the ASCII art themselves for the coke can, and not taking from anywhere else, it does not fail NFCC in any way. Is it appropriate as a user page element, that's a different question, but it's not one for NFCC.

(To be clear, while ASCII art is "text" and NFCC is meant to cover media files, I would argue that ASCII art would need to be considered as if it was a media file, and thus if it was a derivative work of a copyrighted piece of art, it would run afoul. That's not the case here.) --MASEM (t) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And to further clarify: The original image that I think Avanu had, this one File:New Coke can.jpg, is non-free, that while the can shape, and the "COKE" logo are uncopyrightable, the two swirls up the sides create copyrightable elements in the overall design of the can, so yes, it would fail NFCC being used on a user page. The ASCII art version does not have the NFCC problem since whatever derivative work is is borrowing from are uncopyrightable elements. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Masem, your opinion is not shared by the Coca-Cola Company, since the can of Coke I just went to the deli and bought is clealrly labelled "(c) 2012 The Coca-Cola Company".

While separate elements of a work of visiual design, such as the "Coca-Cola" logo may or may not be separately copyrightable, others, such as the "swirl" may be, and the assemblage of all the elements into a visual whole is quite clearly copyrightable, and has been copyrighted by Coca-Cola. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we don't do independed evaluations of the legality of the copyright -- when someone claims copyright on something, we act as if it is copyrighted.

Further, while an alumninum soda can is most certainly not copyrightable because of its utilitarian nature, the design on it is another matter altogether, and it is, I believe, I matter of settled copyright law that such designs can be copyrighted.

So, no amount of hedging here is going to make an image of a Coke can anything less than a derviative work of copyrighted material, and, as such, usuable on[REDACTED] only in articles when accompanied by a proper non-free use statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A question to consider is whether Coke would be able to sue me if I put that design on a T-shirt and sold it. I would think so. Sædon 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's ASCII image is not the same as a current can being made. It lacks any other art elements, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. If it did include the swirl, then yes, then a copyright argument can be made. But this is not what Avanu's image is; there is nothing that be copyrighted by the design as used by Avanu. Now, the trademark point, that's an aspect to talk about in regards to whether its appropriate to have trademarked but uncopyrighted images there on WP:UP, but NFCC offers nothing to say: NFCC cares not about trademakrs. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Masem: You're seeing the logo in the can as a logo, per se. I do not know if your argument that the logo, as a logo, is not copyrightable is correct or not, but it's actually irrelevant here, since we;re not dealing with the logo, we're dealing with an image of a Coke can in ASCII. When a visual design is copyrighted, the entire design is copyrighted, and use of any identifiable part of the design is a copyright infringement. In this case, the copyrighted can's design includes the vertical logo, so showing that part of the design is perforce a copyright violation. It's also irrelevant whether the ASCII art representation is of a current can or not, since Coke cans have been copyrighted for many years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at it as an image. It has two elements: a can shape, and the Coke logo. It does not have the other aspects like the swirls that would be copyrightable elements on the can. Two uncopyright elements, put together in a non-artistic manner will still not qualify for copyright. As you say, the entire visual design can be copyrighted, but this does not extend to the individual component elements, and that' sthe case here. Remember, the very simple version of the ASCII art here has never be an actual design of a coke can - it has never been that simply laid out. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you're over-thinking it, frankly. The ASCII-art is clearly a representation of a Coke can, and the designs on Coke cans are copyrighted, therefore the representation is a derivative work and subsquently non-free in Misplaced Pages terms. Further, we rarely go into these kinds of in-depth analyses as to what is and what isn't copyrighted when determining what is free and non-free in regard to Misplaced Pages policy. If something is labelled as copyrighted by the owner, I believe that WMF policy requires us to regard it (and all its parts) as being copyrighted -- and especially so since we're not talking about trying to preserve something for its encyclopedic value to our readers, but simply the desire of a single user to make a flippant remark on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, we do consider if someone improperly claims copyright on something that cannot be copyrighted; if a publisher tried to slap a copyright on an unmodified late 19th century photo that we sure was taken prior to 1923, we'd laugh that copyright off and ignore said claims. We actually do consider numerous elements regarding copyright.

Now, let's take a better example: if I took File:Green soda can 3d.svg (from commons), and File:Coca-Cola logo.svg (in the PD due to age), and put them together without any other embellishments, I'd still have a copyright-free image, that is based on a trademark (read: I wouldn't be able to sell beverage products with that look, and probably any other product, without Coca-cola challenging the trademark). Making that into an ASCII image doesn't alter the free-ness of the image. There is no originality in the image, and thus cannot be copyrighted. It is as soon as I add in the decorative elements like the swirl to match the existing cans does that being to make the overall image copyrighted, and if it starts to approach the true design of a Coke can does it become a copyrighted derivative work. We haven't passed that point yet. The ASCII art is a properly free image. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In regard to Masem's final point, the ASCII art protrays a Coke can not a Coca-Cola logo. Using the former violates copyright. while using the latter is violating Coke's right to protect their registered trademark. Is this something Misplaced Pages needs to allo, simply so a user can say "Have a refreshing drink while you're here"., when a photo of a glass of coke or juice or water would serve exactly the same purpose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another point that's pertinent here is that the clear intent of NFCC #9 is to limit the use of non-free images to the encyclopedia proper, and only then when properly justified by explanations that justify the usage. I'm on record as being in favor of the value to the encyclopedia of bending over backwards to allow non-free images to be used in articles whenever possible, but these arguments carry no weight in regard to user pages, which have no educational or encyclopedic need to use non-free images, since their sole purpose is for communication between editors or to carry personal statements by editors. Were the image in question used in an article, then the questions Masem has brought up would be pertinent in determining whether we should allow the usage or not, but since the image is used on a user page, an entirely different standard applies, per NFCC #9. For user pages, we do not and should not bend over backwards to allow usage; instead the most stringent and narrowest standards of usage should apply, i.e. unless an image is clearly and without debate free of copyright problems, it should not be placed on a user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(computer died) Actually the first image I had File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg was deleted co-incidentally enough, shortly after Beyond My Ken first removed it from my Talk page. (16:51, 22 July 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)))

I can only wonder how Malik noticed this so fast right after BMK removed it from my page, maybe he has a tool for that?

Anyway, I originally put the can there because I wanted to have something pleasing to give people a little bit of encouragement to post things with a good attitude. After BMK first began this quest, I did look though the multimedia search to try and track down a suitable replacement. You'd think we might have more nice images of soda. I personally like Coke, who doesn't? But the only image that seems suitably mouth-watering is possibly File:Raspberryade.jpg, but it just looks too tart, and when I'm thirsty I think I'd prefer sweet over tart, and yes, I know Coke is kind of tart itself, but I had "New Coke", which isn't, plus New Coke is more unique. In other words, it was a decent choice for quirky, friendly, fun, hospitable, etc, and I'm not sure why BMK chose just now to make this an issue, unless it is as I suggest above. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hardly want to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company (link); I think we've see what can happen. -- Avanu (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a picture of an aluminum can. The ASCII art is copyrightable, but is not the Coca-Cola Company's. On the side of it is drawn the Coca-Cola logo (i.e. File:Coca-Cola logo.svg), which is long public domain. How is this copyrighted to anyone but Brian D. Quick? A Coke can is not necessarily copyrighted. The pattern on a certain Coke can may be copyrighted, but I hardly see that this image is infringing on any copyrighted Coke cans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would concur with Prosfilaes. Simple text is often not able to be copyrighted, but in this case, there is no ambiguity as it is clearly in the public domain. No other element exists within the art that appears to infringe copyright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rocket Start (Mario Kart Wii).jpg

In the article HUD (video gaming). The image is replaceable by a free image (NFCC #1), as demonstrated in this revision, and it contains no NFUR for use in HUD (video gaming) (NFCC #10), nor could one be created in good faith. The reason why I'm bringing it here rather than reverting is that this has been the subject of a slow motion edit war ever since I introduced the SuperTuxKart image. See , (initial introduction of STK image); (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Double Dash!); (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Super Circuit); (replaced by me with STK image from before); (replaced with this image in question). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, Koopa Troopa uses this image with no NFUR (NFCC #10). In that article, it also appears to be duplicative of other non-free content (NFCC #3). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Removed from both articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Now File:Double Dash!!.png is back in HUD (video gaming) , and the image still fails NFCC #1 and NFCC #10. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Removed again. Barring a few limited cases, nearly every article on video game features like a HUD can be replaced with a free (open source) version or a representative mockup (like I did on Quick time event). --MASEM (t) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bane Tom Hardy5.jpg

I am nominating this image for review because I believe that it fails the low resolution criteria. An editor believes that it meets the guideline, while my position is that it is double the recommended resolution size. When I try and put in a lower resolution I am reverted. I do not find the image itself in necessity of a higher resolution, because it is only being used to illustrate the basic design of the character Bane from the film The Dark Knight Rises.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for the image to be that large. Understanding how the character looks is sufficently done at half the resolution (eg quarter size). --MASEM (t) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! This image is used in Bane in other media without rationale. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no reason for it to be any larger than the resolution used in the article The Dark Knight Rises. If there needs to be focus on the mask, the image can be cropped, and remain at 300px. Also, it needs to be removed from Bane in other media and Tom Hardy, not just for lacking a rationale for either use but because a valid rationale can not be written. The image has no business being on either article under our policies and guidelines on fair use. Also; Bignole; you should have brought the issue here before the recent reverts. Lock Cole should have done so as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Had I known this place existed I would have. Masem directed me here after I posted a question on WP:FUC. I don't believe that Lock Cole feels that there was any problem, as seen by his responses to me on his talk page when I first initiated a discussion about the image after he started reverting it back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to reduce the resolution further. It's far below the resolution listed in the policy, and it is definitely too small to be useful as an infringement for the copyrighted work. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a question of it being far below anything. That's the inverse of how we should be viewing it. It's how small can we get it to be and still maintain its encyclopedic value. Since it's not used any larger than as the default thumb size in the one article where it belongs, there's no need for the image itself to be any larger. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but that argument doesn't make much sense. The image is used at thumb size because it can be expanded and seen at full detail. Given that the point it illustrates is the "three-dimensional model of actor Tom Hardy's face and skull to design the mask", an overall resolution of 300px wide would be too low to display the mask details. But since it's also used to describe the overall appearance of the character, you can't just crop the mask and leave out the rest. There are several ways to display the mask at high resolution and the body at low-res, but those seem over-complicated with respect to just leaving the image as is. I agree about removing the non-free image from the other articles. Diego (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The point that is being made is that if you look at the lower resolution that was there, the image is still just as visible and still conveys the same illustration for the text that it is being used with. There is no point to expand it beyond the necessary range.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think Diego sums up my feelings on this specific image, but I'd also like to add that I don't see the need for the image to be the same size as the thumbnail. The thumbnail generation is a feature of the MediaWiki software; that it allows you to click through to see the detail not available in the thumbnail view seems to be important enough and encyclopedic enough to me. Not unlike pulling the physical page of an encyclopedia closer (or using a magnifying glass) to discern details not visible by holding it at typical reading distance. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see why we need a larger resolution image to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see why we need a smaller resolution image when this image complies with both policy and guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The only appearance detail that is discussed among the articles on the live-action rendition of the characters is the mask being digitally mapped to the actor's face. This would justify a close up of the actor-in-character head shot to show the mask in detail, but nothing about the entire body. A low-res of the body would be acceptable as a means of how the character is represented in this iteration of this movie (the size that Bignole has posted), but there is no support for any high res anywhere else based on the text. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Which is why, I uploaded the new image that closes in on Bane's face. It was constantly being reverted and that makes no sense. So I reverted it back. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Incorrect. Under the "Cast" section is this quote, which goes to lengths to describe the character physically (but which, IMO, does not convey the menacing nature of the character as well as the image does):

• And I doubt those are the only examples of discussing the actor and characters complete physical appearance in the article.. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And even then, those details are obvious at the smaller resolution, but to me (at least when compared to The Dark Knight) the facial aspect is more interesting since it somewhat mirrors what they had to do with Two-face; a person gaining weight to get to 198 lbs isn't hard to visualize however. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It was already small enough. This was the original issue. It's well below what the policy and guideline calls for (below even what the text says would require an expanded fair use rationale). I'm not sure why there's a "race to the smallest size possible" (really, a race to the bottom) on non-free images, especially images that already meet the requirements. This is especially troubling given that display resolutions continue to increase, and even portable devices (smartphones, tablets) have super-high resolutions where extremely low res images like this will likely cause problems for readers as we move forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This. The fair use low-resolution requirement has to be balanced with the need to provide a quality encyclopedia. As long as the image use is unlikely to impact the copyright owners' ability to profit from the work, we should strive to get the highest possible resolution that doesn't allow for professional reproduction. There's no need to have blockiness for the sake of it; the current image has enough pixel grain and compression artifacts at the current resolution, that it is enough to qualify for the low-res requirement as is. Diego (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these statements show clarity with our non-free content policy. US Fair Use law is what deals with corporate copyrights; our non-free content policy is about trying to make this a free content work and minimizing the amount of non-free material needed to support it. Everyone else here has shown how the smaller reduced image does the equivalent job within the bounds of the article to show the non-free content, thus meaning we need to use that smaller version. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given various examples of why the larger image is necessary, from the technical (displays on devices used to read Misplaced Pages are only increasing in resolution, not decreasing) to the relevance to the article (I can see details in the higher resolution image that I don't see in the lower resolution image). But using your logic, why don't we shrink it down until we can just make out the shape of a large guy with a mask? It was already within policy/guideline as far as size goes, but I guess we need to be crazy reflexive about downsizing images and make them postage stamp in size... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And we're rejected those reasons. The only text in the article that suggests the need for "higher resolution" is the face mask, meaning that a cropped image at the current resolution would be acceptable. The overall look is readily distinguished to the level of detail provided by the text by the lower resolution, full body shot image. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody would pay for this in the role of promotional art for professional media, so it's safe use with respect to Misplaced Pages:FUC 3b and WP:NFC#UUI 12. Diego (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted vid

My question is about a video on YouTube. I would like to use a part of the video (where the shooting happens) and maybe some screen-shots from it. Does it fit Misplaced Pages policy on non-free content? (I have asked the uploader to modify the license, s/he said YouTube wouldn't allow him/her to do so.) Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• You don't need YouTube's permission to change the license. The original copyright holder can change the license if they so choose, providing such proof to the m:OTRS team. There's instructions on how to approach the copyright holder, and the process to follow at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestion. I tried it before, the uploader doesn't seem to trust or understand the process and has not responded to a similar request, therefore I'm trying to use it as non-free content. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• On what article and for what purpose? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• In this article to show how the incident occurred. I believe the footage to be very important in understand the event, because the government accused protesters of faking injuries and army said they only fired to air while witnesses and journalists said it fired directly on protesters. Also, the same video was spoken about in a number of reliable source including this "Their accounts are apparently corroborated by a YouTube video of the incident". Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tv jeopardy may 25 2005 board.jpg

This looks like it could be replaced by a table or mock-up image of the Jeopardy! game board, whose layout I don't think is eligible for copyright protection. Therefore, this image appears to fail replaceability (WP:NFCC #1). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Also take a look at Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions. There, the image fails WP:NFCC #8, as it is not necessary for reader understanding of the event. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Jeopardy board layout can certainly be mocked by a free image without any copyright infringement in the derivative work. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• And the rationale is a not-permitted group rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• The rationale is flawed in that it claims the use of the image is in compliance with NFCC#1 because "No free equivalent exists that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The purpose of the use of the image in Jeopardy! seems to be the depiction of the game board layout. For that purpose, a free equivalent could reasonably be created, as Masem notes above. For NFCC#1 mere non-existence of a free equivalent is not a determining factor, since NFCC#1 requires the complete impossibility of creating a free equivalent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• No, I don't think that there is a free equivalent, there's no way that just a mockup would give a real sense of what the Jeopardy board looks like. I think it satisfies all NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a 6x6 array of TV monitors. What "real sense" is being missed?? --MASEM (t) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Georgia_State_University_Coat_of_Arms_Logo.png

The image in question is on the Georgia State University article page. My reasons for tagging is that the current image does not meet the free-use. There several logos available for GSU. As I understand it, a fair-use image can and only should be used if all ten of Misplaced Pages:NFC Policy items are met. The one in use, IMO, does not meet the specific of the ten Misplaced Pages:NFC, as numbered below. 1.)No free equivalent. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ..." Reasoning: The image used is from "History of GSU", The current logo of GSU is self-described as representing GSU for free-use on the GSU style guide page. It is available in several formats; block with text, block without text, round for free-use. 8.)Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Reasoning: The presence of this image, versus the free-use does not significantly increase the readers' understand of the topic. The omission of this image, and use of the free-use would not be detrimental to that understanding.

I humbly request that this submission be considered under the criteria of Misplaced Pages:NFC, and that alone as I understand that this is the forum for that consideration. Fomeister (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have rejected Fomeister's arguments in the article's Talk page. In response to these specific points, the response has been that there is no free equivalent of the university's seal as a logo is not a seal. Should others form a different consensus, this will necessitate a larger discussion as that would differ from the current consensus and potentially impact many articles and images.

It may be useful to review the rather extensive discussion of this issue in the article's Talk page, including the responses received after an RfC was opened. And now that I've pointed you in the direction of that discussion and reiterated my position, I'll try to stay out of this discussion so others can offer their opinion without significant interference. ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree substantially with ElKevbo above and with Danielklotz's well-crafted 10-point justification at Talk:Georgia State University#Justification for use of seal per Misplaced Pages policy. To address the issue in my own words: The seal is appropriate under all WP:NFCC criteria. Criteria 1: There is, in fact, no free use logo, as all of the logos on the link provided by Fomeister are copyrightable. (Unless, of course, GSU is interested in releasing their coyright via WP:OTRS, but I bet not.) I believe that he is confused by the Gratis versus libre issue. Criteria 8: There is important contextual significance, as both the seal and logo are necessary for identification in the infobox. (The logo is the contemporary graphic identity, as unis change logos often, while the seal is the long-standing identity).--GrapedApe (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the "newer" (flame symbol) logos are not free (they are copyrightable, passing the threshold of originality), so there's no immediate "free" replacement. The only issue I do see is that the page with the logos does also include the seal image which states "The university seal should not be used as a logo or as a marketing tool." In other words, the seal image should not be used in the infobox, but instead one of the actual logos. It still an allowable non-free image use. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Check that, as I'm not sure the usual standards for college infoboxes - if it is norm to use the seal if one exists, then the seal image is fine. If instead the logo is preferred, then that's the case I discuss above. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The standard practice is to use the university seal at the top of the infobox, and the logo at the bottom of the infobox. I agree care should be taken not to label or present the university seal as a logo, but in my opinion that is not the case here. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The university's internal rule that the seal is not used as a "logo or as a marketing tool" does not apply to Misplaced Pages.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, especially if they provide both, and as VQuakr states, that there is a distinction made in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does the University get to dictate to Misplaced Pages? I think that WMF would be very surprised to hear that.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Commons has decreed that the putatively free logo is not free: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gsulogo.jpg. Hopefully that will end the Criteria 1 "No free equivalent" portion of the argument.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• My request for a free image from GSU was responded to yesterday. They have agreed to make their LOGO free. I then forwarded them the link to wikipedia POLICY. They will make a decision on whether to submit email via email, or list CC-BY-SA 3.0 or Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 on the page containing the logo. I humbly submit to all involved in this, that[REDACTED] is not about winning, but it is first and foremost about using free content. Fomeister (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would say that Misplaced Pages is about creating the best free online encyclopedia, which sometimes requires using non-free content.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Response appreciated GrapeApe, but my arguments to this point, and my references are to the third pillar, emphasis mine. "Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Misplaced Pages. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." I have and continue to strive to find free alternatives. Be it giving rational and common sense of why the seal should not be used, up to and including the request to GSU for free licensing. However some, as noted above that believe that they will include any image they wish, under fair-use without regard to this pillar, NFR, or NFCC. Albeit the intention may be to "make the best 💕", that is not what[REDACTED] is about. And to that extent, that is why these pillars, and POLCY exist. It never has been the goal of[REDACTED] to be the best free online encyclopedia. That being your opinion, I respect it, and sincerely respect your civility, but there is no argument to be found in regards to wikipedia's pillars: "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute."Fomeister (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Then it is clear that you are against any kind of fair use material and are against all policy in WP:NFCC. That explains why you are so adamently against the use of this image which is clearly within the bounds of WP:NFCC. I would encourage you to start a discussion there to change the policy to be more to your liking.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg

Use in 1982 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament fails WP:NFCI#4 as the current use is not for critical commentary, but for identification. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's a unique logo for that year's event, and the logo easily passes the Threshold of Originality, it would be reasonable to have that logo in that location. The use of the banner as a substitute for the logo is probably okay here, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a non-free SVG image of that logo for the same purpose. (Please note: you cannot "fail" any of the NFCI clauses; they are cases where images are typically allowed but not the only cases). --MASEM (t) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with your last sentence. I think the use of the image is not allowed as the banner seems to be Other promotional material, but the image is not used for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While it is an image of a banner, it's the logo on that banner that is being used. Again, someone can vectorize that logo easily from that, and while we're still left with the non-free logo, its still appropriate. Until that SVG is done, the banner's fine as is (there's no free replacement, so removal is unwarranted.) --MASEM (t) 13:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not, as the image is being used for identification and not for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, NFCI is not fully inclusive. NFCI sets out conditions where the use of said image in said fashion will likely not be challenged (assuming all other NFCC is met). Use a type of image in a completely different fashion has to be reviewed for NFCC, but using it in a way not listed doesn't fail it immediately (that's what the Unacceptable Uses list provides); furthermore there's uses that don't fall into any of the NFCI brackets but are fine by NFCC standards. While it is a banner, and not being used for critical commentary, it is being used like a logo to represent the tourney, which is generally accepted to implicitly represent branding and marketing. It is a reasonable use that that not-freely-replacable non-free image were it a logo; just because it happens to be a logo on a banner isn't a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The image is of a banner hanging at a tournament, so I think it falls into Other promotional material. The use is clearly not for critical commentary. Yes, it depicts a logo, but it also is a banner which is promotional material. If it were only the logo, it would be acceptable, but not as long as it is also Other promotional material. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mis-reading NFCI. It does not say that "other promotional material" can only be used if there is critical commentary about it. It is saying, however, that "other promotional material" is likely not going to be rejected under appropriate NFCC terms if there is critical commentary with it; if you don't have critical commentary, then the use of the image will be reviewed and challenged if the rationale for its use is not strong enough. Because this is a banner that is showing a logo from a tourney that pre-dated the Internet and thus what appears to be the only image of that logo in electronic form, using it as a replacement for a simple logo is a completely fair rationale. Yes, this would "fail" the NFCI about "other promotional material", but again, NFCI's clauses are not meant to restrict the images to just those uses, only to identify where their use likely won't be challenged as long as the rest of NFCC requirements are met. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The rationale says "it cannot be replaced, as it is a unique item" and it "will serve to identify the winner of the first NCAA Tournament". How does that demonstrate compliance with NFCC#8, ie. how is the use appropriate under NFCC? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The rational can be fixed to take the focus off identifying the winner (as that's not necessary) and onto the aspect of being the identifying logo of the tourney. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to reduce the focus of the image to the logo itself in an image editing program. Should I include the white letters reading "1982 LOUISIANA TECH" in that version or should it only show the ship logo and the words NCAA82, Norfolk, March 26-28? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to touch the image. If anything, we need someone with SVG abilities to recreate just the logo part of the image to be used on that article. Until that is done, the use of the banner as the logo should be pointed as such on the caption and the rational. "The banner shows the logo of this event." "There is no version of the logo otherwise available, so the banner image showing the logo is being used in lieu of that". --MASEM (t) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a new rationale which is at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NCAA Banner rationale and is intended to replace the current rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:CWS Logo.jpg

Use in 2008 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2009 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2010 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2012 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament and 2012 College World Series violates WP:NFCC#10c. All those uses also seem to violate NFCC#8 and may fail WP:NFCI#2. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the only place where that logo is appropriate is College World Series (which is the event that it described). Without a specialized logo for the individual years, repeating it is inappropriate (being non-free). --MASEM (t) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Toyota-SaveMart 350 race logo.png

Use in 2008 Toyota/Save Mart 350 violates WP:NFCC#10c. All uses except the use in Toyota/Save Mart 350 fail WP:NFCI#2 and thus are likely in violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeating non-free logos for yearly events is inappropriate. Agreed on this. (If each year had a unique logo, that would be different) --MASEM (t) 12:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg

The surcing info is dodgy and highly unlikely to be "own work" of a individual user. In said regard see hthe users uploads Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg#Metadata suggest the user did in fact take the image himself? I found the same image here, but I don't know whether they just took it from Misplaced Pages or vice versa. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, erhaps we can get another opinion on this?Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the file's hosted on commons, we can't do anything about it here. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Metadata creation date & time: 2011-08-13T15:40:08 (unknown time zone)
• Commons upload date & time: 2011-08-13T18:48:33 (GMT)

The timestamps could be given in different time zones, but in either case, the uploader was only given a few hours to copy it from elsewhere. If a file was uploaded almost immediately after taking it, this may be an indication that the file isn't a copyright violation. Also, the uploader has uploaded many other photos which were taken using the same camera model. I think that it is unlikely that the file is a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings

Our use of several images of Andrew Wyeth paintings has been questioned by a representative of the copyrightholder. (OTRS agents can see the request at 2012080810007978 ).

I would like a review of each of these images, to determine whether we are in compliance.

In one case, File:LONGLIMB.jpg, it is my opinion that it is not compliant, as the painting isn't mentioned in the article. I have removed the image from the article, pending the results of this investigation.

Images:

• File:LONGLIMB.jpg appeared in Andrew Wyeth
• File:Christinasworld.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, 20th-century Western painting, Christina's World, Days of Heaven, History of painting, Western painting
• File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
• File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
• File:Latefall.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the copyright holder is the Wyeth estate or the closely related Brandywine River Museum - which do have a reputation for being pretty careful with copyright - which is, of course, their right. If somebody else is complaining, I'd ask why they think they have copyright standing. Our business is to check whether we are meeting our fair use standards. The "low resolution" standard is met for all the paintings. File:Christinasworld.jpg seems appropriate for the article Christina's World, but could easily be replaced in the other articles. Similarly File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg or File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg could be used in The Helga Pictures, but not both. Unless there is at least one freely licensed Andrew Wyeth painting in the world (doubtful - the general copyrightholder could tell you), then any single low-res AW painting could be used in the Andrew Wyeth article (I'd suggest a tempura painting), but multiple paintings aren't needed. Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is the estate. Thanks for your feedback. Obviously, others are welcome to chime in, but I'll provide this feedback to the person contacting us, especially to see if there are any freely licensed images.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg which is in the MoMA collection in NYC and is perhaps Wyeth's best known work; with iconic status is an important addition to all 3 of the painting history articles that it is currently in as well as the Andrew Wyeth article itself. Wyeth occupies an important place in American art of the mid 20th century and it is both respectful and informative to include an image of his remarkable paintings. Christina's World has the recognizability and quality to represent Wyeth well in the History of Painting, and Western Painting which are meaningful and historical painting surveys as well as 20th-century Western painting which focuses on more recent art; in which Wyeth should be represented...Modernist (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg is not needed in Days of Heaven and it doesn't have a fair use resolution there and I've removed it from the article...Modernist (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Christina's World was not discussed (or even mentioned) in either 20th-century Western painting or Western painting, so I've removed it from both. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the text that was omitted, thank you for catching the omission...Modernist (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones about The Helga Pictures. I don't think we can justify having 2 copyrighted images in the article when neither of them are directly discussed. I would favor either removing both or keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg and removing File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg (as the text does at least mention her braids). Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well although I greatly prefer keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg because it is a widely known painting that is associated with the The Helga Pictures, and works well here Helga paintings, much better than the File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, History of painting is far too focussed on particular paintings, because the corresponding general content is just not there. If it were, the article would three times longer; it would be too long and shortened /split off, and some of the fair use images would not remain. Not sure what to do at the present juncture though, as I cannot contribute the content at this time.
• Five non-free images for a single painter is usually excessive; File:Latefall.jpg appears to be undiscussed in the article completely, as is Overflow. THis ought to change if the images are to be retained. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed Overflow and Latefall. Neither were being properly used as fair-use illustrations in the articles. I'm still a bit concerned about our use of Christina's World in 5 different articles, though. It seems to be pushing the boundary of "minimal use". Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those removals, Christina's World is Wyeth's seminal work and he was a major force in American painting; I agree that 5 is the absolute max for that image...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it in Western painting and 20th-century Western painting. The discussion of it in History of painting was a bit gratuitous and didn't really add anything to the section. I've removed it there. At this point, I think I'm satisfied that all the uses are justified. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, apparently we aren't supposed to use non-free images in more than 4 articles, according to Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Overused non-free files. Kaldari (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, good work...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Horwath.PNG

Image is under an all rights reserved copyright, and is for a politician for which numerous substitutes are available. IsUsername (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• That image is at commons, and it does appear that the image was approved by an administrator as being freely licensed at the time of upload. The flickr user may have changed the license after then, but a CC release may not be revoked. Please feel free to DR it at commons if you are still suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Nigeria.jpg

This fails WP:NFCC#10c at multiple places:

• Coats of arms and emblems of Africa
• Sabo Bakin Zuwo
• User talk:Mr Hall of England
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 68
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 70

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#9 at multiple places:

• User talk:Mr Hall of England
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 68
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 70

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#8 at multiple places:

• Coats of arms and emblems of Africa
• Sabo Bakin Zuwo

Finally, this fails WP:NFG in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed from the user-pages. Agree other uses are NFCC#8 vios. (Are we sure all the coats of arms are free?) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to find out if the other images in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa are free or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can click on the images to see what the claimed license is, but that needs to be checked further. None of those fail the threshold of originality, so they either must be PD due to age or due to being a work of the government (like PD-USgov is). These images need to explicitly state that here or on Commons for that to happen. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) to take into account which makes everything more tricky. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We've never really closed the circle on this one. Yes it ought to be the case that many coats of arms are replaceable with a free equivalent, of sorts, but I think we've essentially informally recognised as exception as this would require a new creative work, unlike, say photographs of living people. When people argue against non-free files, I'm not convinced this is really what they have in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:University of Cambridge Crest.svg

This fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles:

• Cambridge University Association Football League
• Colleges of the University of Cambridge

Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Replace all uses with File:Cambridge University Crest.svg, a free alternative. A handful were switched over because of a minor complaint about the lion display; even as a heraldist myself the free version is not incorrect (merely suboptimal) and should nto have been replaced with a non-ftree verison. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the unfree version as replaceable, then. Doesn't Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) basically say that all unfree coats of arms should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Athens 2004 Olympic bid logo.png

This file is used twice in the article Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Per WP:NFCC#10c, non-free files should have a fair use rationale for each use of the image. This means that a file used twice in an article should have two fair use rationales for that article. However, this file only has one fair use rationale. Besides, one of the uses of this image fails WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just spot-checked other articles in the "Bids for the YYYY Olympics" series, and they all suffer the same problem in that they have tables of non-free logos. I am pretty confident that nearly every major contemporary bid for being an Olympic city could be a notable topic on its own, allowing the logos to be used there, but certainly not the table of logos as given now on each of those pages. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Within the topic of Olympic bids, these table lists help readers to compare the different bidding cities. Assuming that, their logos are better located in those tables than in thumbnails outside them. These two distinct forms of content display (table and thumbnail), are basically the same regarding the purpose of use, therefore, in a table or not, it actually does not change anything. The location of the logo is pointless, WP:NFTABLE should not be applicable here. Felipe Menegaz 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The location doesn't change anything, which is exactly why they would also fail WP:NFCC#8 if placed as thumbnails outside the tables. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)But it does. Without any discussion in depth about the image of the logo itself from sources (who drew it, what was the inspiration, etc?) the logos are simply identifying the bid attempt, and fail WP:NFCC#8 (the article is understandable without the images in use). If each bid had its own separate article - again, something I believe could happen with more recent ones - the logo would be appropriate on those articles, but non-free logo use is not appropriate in tables nor when the page is not about the entity the logo represents. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is an article about five entities—Candidate cities—represented by logos, and the descriptions of which logo would be not understandable without the images. Felipe Menegaz 22:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is about the bidding process for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Because the 5 city efforts are reduced to a table, the article is not about those but the overall bidding process. Non-free logos are not appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The bidding process only exists because of the entities that constitute it. That is why the article is called Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics, not 2004 Summer Olympics bid process. Felipe Menegaz 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is not the name of an entity. Thus, the article isn't an article about an entity, but an article about something different. The images would be suitable in the separate articles Greek bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, Italian bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, South African bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, Swedish bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics and Argentinian bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, but they are not suitable in this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is an article about five entities, and I don't see why those entities need a separate article—which would characterize a WP: CFORK—to be represented by their logos. File:Athens 2004 Olympic bid logo.png has been there for more than five years now, representing a defunct entity and does not offer any commercial risk. Same for the other logos. Felipe Menegaz 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is an article about a process and not about an entity. The logos would only be acceptable in those five individual articles. If those individual articles don't exist, then the images will be taken care of by WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is primarily an article about the bids (entities), the bidding process is a consequence. And they are already taken care of by WP:NFCC#7. Felipe Menegaz 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For purposes of using NFCC, that's not how this is. And the point that I'm making is that I think for all these cases, the individual bid attempts by each city are notable themselves. For example, considering the Vancouver bid (I live in the region so it was all the news here) was definitely well covered by news sources, so it is completely reasonable to have an article on Vancouver's bid, giving more space to discuss the facets of it, as well as the other cities involved. The logo would be find on those pages. But per all the reasonings above and consensus for other use of non-free images, just putting the non-free image in a table is not acceptable. We dont allow it for discographies or episode lists even if there are no articles for the individual elements, and we would certainly not allow it here. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

However, there is no extensive news sources for the Olympic bids prior to 2008. It will not be reasonable to have five separate stubs or poorly written articles for the 2004 bids. Nevertheless, this should not make the 2004 logos inapplicable for use in the article "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics". WP:NFTABLE prohibition is usually applied, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Candidate cities table is essential for comparison between the Candidate cities, and the visual identity of the represented campaigns helps the readers to easily identify the bid. It is not an extensive list and does not represent the same entity in several items, like in the cases you've mentioned. It is a totally different situation. Felipe Menegaz 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that there was an awful lot of writing about the Swedish Olympic bid here in Stockholm. It should be very easy to find information in it in Swedish newspapers from that time. What you are saying about no extensive news sources for the pre-2008 bids is obviously not correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No bid before 2008 have extensive news sources as the ones after 2008. The campaigns to host the 2008 Games were made between 1999 and 2001, and since then, internet has played a major role as news source. Olympic bids are mainly covered by news articles, not books, and this type of news articles, prior to the internet era, are very hard to find. As a Swedish and citizen of Stockholm, maybe you can provide some of these sources? Felipe Menegaz 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers have existed for a much longer time than the Internet. All you need to do is to visit a library in the country where the newspapers were published. Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So that's it? I have to travel to Sweden, make a research of old newspapers about the Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid and write a separate, comprehensive article about it in order to maintain the use of File:Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg? Seems reasonable... Felipe Menegaz 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are a free content encyclopedia first and foremost, and only use non-free images wehre they significant help the reader and their omission would be harmful. So putting that in the form that you're trying the justify the use of non-free images is not really a good approach, because non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, not routine.

That said, all you need at the moment is to show that there was some type of coverage of that event. You don't need a fully complete article, just that it likely can be met. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that WP:NFCC doesn't take into account the effort needed to make the images compatible. For example, living people (such as Kim Jong-un) are not allowed to have non-free images since someone can visit the person and take a freely licensed photo of him. Going to a foreign country to take a photo of a random living person may be comparable in terms of effort to going to a library in a foreign country to find information about something. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Felipe Menegaz. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between having the logo on a separate article or in the Bids for YYYY Olympics article. In matter of effect, it is the same thing. Not just would be the images be deleted, but also the articles under WP:CFORK. That's the point. WP:NFCC or WP:LOGOS do not prohibits the display of more than one entity's logo within the same article. In the discussed topic, these logos are relevant to the article, which is about the bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The use of this logos is exceptional, not routine. For the record, I do not support the maintenance of Olympic pictograms such as File:Athletics 2008.png. And I've already explained how these logos and tables help readers... Felipe Menegaz 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a separate article or not is irrelevant. Regardless of whether a separate article exists or not, the images are not suitable in the table in the article Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics. If the removal of the images from that table means that the images become orphaned, then the images should be deleted from Misplaced Pages since non-free images have to be used at least once per WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant? This issue was raised by yourself (The images would be suitable in the separate articles "Greek bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics", "Italian...), and since that is the only way to maintain these logos according to you, this is totally relevant. Saying that the images are not suitable in the table in the articles Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is your interpretation of WP:NFTABLE. I do not agree with that interpretation and that is why I am arguing about that these logos are equally suitable to both articles and also to the discussed tables. Felipe Menegaz 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this discussion over? Felipe Menegaz 21:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:SANDF SCWO Rank.gif

Violates WP:NFCC#9 on these pages:

• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Air Force
• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Army
• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Navy

Violates WP:NFCC#10c on these pages:

• South African Air Force
• South African Army
• South African Navy
• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Air Force
• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Army
• Template:Other Ranks and Insignia of the South African Navy

I've tried fixing the WP:NFCC#9 violations, but it keeps getting reverted. All three templates have various other WP:NFCC#9 violations too. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When you encounter an editor that does that repeatedly, make sure to drop a note on their talk page (I just did). I also note that the last four insigna used in the Air Force template are claimed to be pd ineligible but the eagle part certainly can't be said to be like that, so those are non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok for the first time ever I have found out that non free images cannot be used in templates. So I have removed the images from the relevant templates.

When I uploaded the file there was no option to list all the articles that NFCC#10c seems to require. Can you please point out where you would like this to be listed. I did say in NFCC#8 that this is insignia common throughout our military hence it is on multiple pages Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think our uploader considers multiple uses. You can edit the file page after the fact to create additional rationale templates for each use, which I have done as an example at File:SA Navy AB rank.jpg, namely by changing the article parameters. You should also review the reasoning for use to customize it for each page. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove this marked for deletion template now? Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can, if you have done that for each of the images involved that were marked. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ghana COA.jpg

This fails WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and presumably also WP:NFCC#8 at lots of places. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is ok at Ghana and Coat of Arms of Ghana but nowhere else. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How is the use in Ghana ok? Seems like a clear violation of NFCC#8 to me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Showing what the coat of arms is for Ghana in the article about Ghana is perfectly reasonable. The fact there's a separate article on the coat of arms itself is inconsequential here. It would like showing the flag of the country (I don't know immediately if its NFC or not for Ghana) in both the country article and an article on the history of the flag, even if the flag is never discussed. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see which point at WP:NFCI would allow such a use. I also do not see how a readers understanding is significantly increased by the logos presence, nor how the absence of the logo would be detrimental to readers understanding. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's part of identifying the country in question, sufficiently central to the role of the Ghana article. Like the logo of a company, only that the identify is stronger but is split between flag and coat of arms (or emblem). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There already IS an image to identify the country, namely the flag. The additional use of the coat of arms clearly goes against NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree: the coat of arms seems to be redundant to the flag and the map. Strictly speaking, it's also replaceable, per Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(undent). In my opinion that's not the remit of 3a, which is about comparable images. The coat of arms and flag are separate ideas and are both, separately, important to the identity of the country and both are valuable to the article. Stefan, as I say above, if you want to enforce the COA idea I suggest you draw up a deletion discussion for the thousand(s) of coats of arms used under the NFCC because I don't think its possible to defend a "halfway" position. I would very much like to see the result of a discussion being keep, because such files aren't within the idea currently represented by the wording "replaceable", but a deletion result would be far more logically consistent that applying the principles merely to make as stricter as regards some other criterion, as in this case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"The coat of arms and flag are separate ideas and are both, separately, important to the identity of the country"

Perhaps we are also going to include File:BP Logo.svg in United Kingdom then? I mean 20% of the population work there for a living (see the article) and I think it's fair to assume many of them see the company as important to the identity of the country. Oh and what about including an image of a glass of beer in the infobox in Germany? As Beer in Germany says "Beer is a major part of German culture". -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are unsatisfactory examples, Toshio. They deviate somewhat from the question in hand, which is over the files' NFCC status rather than their position in the infobox. Coats of arms positioning in the infobox is an entirely separate matter, and it one where the current consensus has been in favour of having them. If you want to have them removed from the infobox and put, say, in the government (or equivalent) section that would be an idea worthy of merit, but it doesn't really affect their non-free status.

Just to elaborate on the examples point - if BP were really important they'd get somewhere in the article, but of course that is their international number of employees; their British influence is much, much smaller. Just like the positioning of Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte in the Germany article, something like that could have merit in the article.

To tie that up, a COA would have merit in the article; consensus has it in the infobox instead, where it contributes as much to the reader as anywhere else, as relevant for NFCC purposes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind pointing me to the guideline or the page where a consensus was reached that such a use of a COA is acceptable? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that any discussion was probably lost way back in the old days: coats of arms have been in country infoboxes since 2004; they're mentioned various other contexts - for example, about how big they should be - every so afterwards. Now of course you may well say that no matter how long non-objection is not consensus, which is of course correct. But in this instance there has been the passage of eight years and numerous discussions which could have launched an objection. You're welcome to open an RfC on the subject if you object but that would be a separate matter to this NFCC issue because at current it does appear to reflect some value placed upon them consistent with the aims and limtiations upon NFCC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"But in this instance there has been the passage of eight years and numerous discussions which could have launched an objection. You're welcome to open an RfC on the subject...."

I am not required to launch an RfC or anything. Per WP:NFCCE the users who want to use or retain a file have to demonstrate it complies with policy. Unless we have an active policy or guideline page that was agreed upon by consensus, that there once was a discussion regarding COAs in infoboxes which has since been lost means nothing. The current policy that is supported by consensus is WP:NFCC and there is no point at WP:NFCI that says such a use is acceptable. Thus the use of the file in Ghana violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(undent): you're conflating the two issues here. Infobox country has long included coats of arms, which justifies until consensus has changed, the inclusion of free coats of arms in the infobox. It was overturning that which I suggested an RfC.

In terms of non-free content, this is merely evidence that contrary to your personal view, such coats of arms are valuable to the reader regardless of whether there is a flag, which is different. There are other arguments to be made in that regard, some of which I outlined above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Infobox country has long included coats of arms, which justifies until consensus has changed"

Bullshit, a local consensus in some WikiProject cannot overturn WP:NFCC and there is nothing at Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content criteria exemptions that says country infoboxes are exempt. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make clear again why I am so against this use:

I have yet to see a policy or guideline that represents a community consensus on that the use of COAs in country infoboxes is acceptable.

Per WP:NFCCE I do NOT have to launch an objection to such a use. The burden to prove that the use of a file satisfies the non-free content criteria is on those who want to use the non-free content.

That the COA should not be in the infobox is NOT "my personal view". It easily follows from NFCC#8, which says NFC is only acceptable if its "omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding". The Ghana article can clearly be understood without the COA in the infobox. Nothing at WP:NFCI says that such a use of a COA is acceptable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because there's no affirmative statement of accepted use in an infobox doesn't mean there's no allowance for it. (The lists on NFC are purposely incomplete).

I have tried a similar line of reasoning with removing cover art from infoboxes because of primarily NFCC#8, but the consensus has shown that cover art carries implicit branding and marketing that most believe is necessary to be included.

The COA aspect is not quite the same because certainly it's not branding but its the same idea that it likely carries implicit information about a country; we also know that it is a very limited subset of articles that would have a country COA or its official seal in the infobox (around 200 or so), and certainly not all of them are going to be non-free. So at least here is a case we can manage compared with (I think Hammersoft has the exact number) 100,000s of cover art works that continues to grow. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is it written down that there is a consensus that COAs in country infoboxes are acceptable? I don't understand your statement "Just because there's no affirmative statement of accepted use in an infobox doesn't mean there's no allowance for it.". To quote WP:NFCC#Policy: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages." And further "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." The use of this file in Ghana clearly violates NFCC#8. I would accept it if there were a consensus that such a use is generally regarded as falling into one of the cases in the list of "acceptable use of non-free media on Misplaced Pages" at WP:NFCCEG. I do not see which of the points at WP:NFCI implies that this is the case. Ergo this use has to go. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The lists at NFCI are purposely and necessarily not fully inclusive. There may exist situations where there is common type of accepted use of non-free images across articles that isn't yet documented at NFCI. Case in point: flags of countries/states/Providences/cities, etc. No NFCI says anything about flags, but I bet if you try to remove said flag images from infoboxes, you'd be reverted in an instant. Note that flags tend to be PD by lack of originality or age, but that isn't true for all flags (I believe for example the EU flag is copyrighted). Is the flag image necessary to understand the article? I'd put my vote in for "no", but I would never think of trying to enforce that without gaining consensus first. Seals and COA for countries fall into the same type of identification issue. Yes, they likely don't meet NFCC#8 but good luck trying to remove them without gaining consensus beforehand. It is an implicit consensus that hasn't been documented at NFCI but we know exists even if we that try to enforce NFCC see it as a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the same type of consensus that has determined that making more than 4 edits per minute in any 10 minute period of time constitutes automation, LOL. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, but if that is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, that some group of editors can act on an undocumented consensus, then so be it. I propose a dark future for Misplaced Pages. Newbies have already enough trouble following the many rules we have (including NFCC). I don't see how they are supposed to follow some undocumented consensus that only exists in the mind of a group of editors. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called using common sense. Do you think that we would be a complete encyclopedia if on one of our core topics (a nation of the world) that we would omit its official seal/COA and its flag, just because they are non-free? It's one thing to ask if we need cover art for every copyrighted work out there (they are far from being core articles), but here we're talking articles that every other encyclopedia is likely to have, and omitting an official representative image of the country just because we're trying to be a free content encyclopedia. Again, anywhere else beyond the country and a dedicated COA article like there is for Ghana, the COA image should absolutely positive not be used, but its absence on the country article will make us look stupid. Again, we're not 100% free per VEGAN, and we shouldn't be arguing over probably the most obvious cases where allowance should be given even if we can't answer NFCC#8 in as many words. But again, we're talking very isolated, highly discriminate number of cases here with country articles. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the page where a consensus was reached on what constitutes a complete encyclopedia. In that sense I believe that completion is already achieved by having the COA at Coat of arms of Ghana. Any further reference can be made by linking to that page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I admit that it could be argued that if we link to Coat of Arms of Ghana from Ghana, we could also simply include the whole image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider that in a printed encyclopedia where article length is not necessarily limited, the history of the COA would be part of the article about the country, and thus would only be published once. We, unfortunately due to the efforts to be friendly across a wide range of electronic devices, have to split them, but again, these are the only two articles that have clear and obvious allowance to use the COA.

Yes, one could argue that we could simply link the COA article from the country article, but the same arguments can be made for flag images as well. And I really don't think one can argue which is the most important symbol of a country; flags may be more recognizable by some, but in some cases the COA carries more history with it. So flags and COA have to be treated in the same manner. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removing the file from all pages except Ghana and Coat of arms of Ghana. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in all uses: What's the point? You remove it , and it will be added back again. And who cares? This one isn't even in the top ten of most abused non-free files on the project. Hardly worth even mentioning. Plus, it's been added to a template which I'm confident will soon be transcluded to Kwame Nkrumah, Edward Akufo-Addo and many more. Our usage of the COA here is well within fair use law, especially since we've an educational purpose. In practice we abandoned our mission long ago, so any pretense of adhering to some lofty notion of reducing non-free overuse is laughable. Of course, I'm confident making such a statement will be viewed as extremely silly. And just to be clear, no I am not in jest. It's time to get off the damn fence and pull the splinters out of our asses. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolf activity:Sawtooth Natonal Forest

The page Sawtooth National Forest had an unsourced statement about gray wolves. Earlier this morning, I added a source that could help verify but not competely verify, but this seems like it would also help. The first note, note 1, appears to say something challenging its use as a reference. Should I still use It? Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not use non-free content to prove things; that's what references are for. In any case, as a map, this is quite clearly replaceable, as someone could create their own. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that it said that that note you may see about how we need to contact them for distribution prevented distribution as a reference. Sorry if this is the wrong place. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need permission to use a page as a reference. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

File:Superman.jpg

Does not meet NFC Criteria 1 (no free equivalent). There is a free image (File:Fleishersuperman.jpg) available. This alternative image could serve the same encyclopaedic purpose of illustrating the likeness of the character Superman for this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

After posting this NFR - I remembered that there is a discussion on commons that I am involved with that has potential implications for our treatment of the Fleisher superman cartoons as "public domain" works. If these images are found not actually to be in the public domain, then this NFR will have been superfluous as- so I apologise for that. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think I agree that this is not free but is fair use. The fair use rationale says its a cover from a particular issue. if thats the case, it should only be used on an article for that particular issue, or that magazine (superman or action comics, etc). unfortunately, this doesnt seem to be the cover, but the cover art, stripped of the DC logo or the superman logo. that cover art is presumed copyrighted. so I dont think it can illustrate the article on superman. The commons discussion you referred to doesnt seem to have broadened at this point, so I will suggest here and at the article that File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg is also highly appropriate, esp. as it gets the suit color right and has the daily planet featured.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Based on the results of the linked Commons deletion and that the character is still protected under DCs copyright, the Commons Flecher Superman images that contain the character should be removed from Commons. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the Commons image isn't free and should be removed. I vehemently disagree that the current image for Superman should be pulled. It perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. This seems a spurious nom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say the nom is spurious - at the moment there is a supposedly free to use image on Commons - multiple in fact. That those are now up for deletion - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg (the nom there notes the discussion covers, or should cover, the entire cat, not just 1 file) - is important, but does not invalidate putting this forward here. - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• This rather hinges on the Commons discussion, so I'd advise leaving this discussion open until it concludes. If any images containing Superman are determined to be PD the image is replaceable, if they are all found to be still copyrighted, it is not and a nonfree image is acceptable. Since that's the determining factor, we really can't move forward here until that's decided on Commons. Seraphimblade 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Warne-Muralidaran Trophy.jpg

Is this really valid fair use? Can't anyone take his own photo of the trophy instead of using someone else's photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid fair use. The only problem was its resolution. I have uploaded a low resolution version. Sumanch (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that it is valid fair use? Isn't the trophy permanently installed somewhere? The source mentions Australia so I guess that the trophy is in Australia and commons:COM:FOP#Australia suggests that Australian law is similar to British law which applies freedom of panorama indoors. Looks replaceable to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Aussie law can't make it replaceable with a free photo of the trophy; Misplaced Pages's servers are (predominantly) in Florida... OTOH, it's (c)Getty, and that isn't properly noted, oui? Fix! As far as fair use WRT the IP rights connected to the underlying statue, it's a TROPHY - its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use.--Elvey (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how commons:COM:FOP is applied on Wikimedia projects. If freedom of panorama applies in the country of photography, the picture is allowed here as free use. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use means. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, and clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Mosmof (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it matters whether the photo is published under a free license; given that it is a derivative work of the trophy nevertheless, the copyright belongs to the sculpture creator, not the photo, so any possible representation will be derivative from the trophy and thus available only under fair use. But then, I am not a lawyer. Diego (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question whether a free equivalent could be made depends on whether the copyright law of the country where the trophy is located contains a Freedom of panorama provision or not? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the source link of the image the photo was taken in Australia. According to Freedom of panorama#Australia "The copyright in a work ... that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work". Thus the important question is whether the trophy was permanently exhibited at the place where the photo was taken at the time the photo was taken. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would be important to know, whether the trophy is still there. If it is at a place where an image can be taken that would not infringe the copyright in the trophy, then the use of this image fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also it seems the upcoming matches listed at Warne–Muralidaran Trophy#List of Warne–Muralidaran Trophy series might represent future opportunities to take a free image of the trophy. Whether that makes this image a violation of NFCC#1 I am not sure. From the formulation of NFCC#1 it is not apparent to me whether a future upcoming event that represents an opportunity to take a free image of the trophy satisfies the definition of "no free equivalent could be created". The December, 2012/January 2013 match seems to be such a future opportunity. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg

The issue at hand is if the use of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg on Ender's Game (short story) violates NFCC rules.

I believe this image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short story. It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.

Per NFCC it would seem appropriate.

1. No free equivalent.- Y - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Y - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Previous publication.' Passed- Y -Image was published or publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages.
4. Content.- Y - Meets general Misplaced Pages content standards and is encyclopedic.
5. Media-specific policy.- Y - The material meets Misplaced Pages's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Misplaced Pages:Image use policy.
6. One-article minimum.- Y - Is on two pages (or one if not on Ender's Game (short Story).
7. Contextual significance.- Y - I believe it will significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence.
8. Restrictions on location.- Y - It located in an article.
9. Image description page.- Y Image has a description page contains the following

--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely a failure of NFCC#8. The reader gains no context of the story based on the cover of the anthology that the work was published in, particularly when the cover have zero reference to the work at hand. There might be some allowance if the artwork was based on the short story, but that's not even the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The reader "gains" a lot from the image. This image is the "First" publication of a short story that went on to create eleven novels, twelve short stories, and 45 comic issues. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence. To someone who is interested in Ender's Game it is equivalent to saying that an image of the bible isn't "significant" to Jesus Christ since he only appears in the last half.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If Misplaced Pages actually adhered to its NFCC principles, both this image and the second image on the article would be a failure of those principles, and would need to be removed from the article. But, Misplaced Pages doesn't enforce NFCC anymore. So, I fail to see any objection to including this image and/or several other images of publications which included the story. There appear to be at least 10 such publications. Perhaps a gallery of the covers of all the publications that included the story? If we can justify two such images as significantly adding to reader's understanding of the subject (even though both covers fail to mention the story, but those are pedantic details), we can easily justify all ten. We can't let reader's understanding suffer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that it violated NFCC principles, but you fail to cite any NFCC principle it violates. Which one? I went threw each Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteria above and it meets all of them.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And I would not object to taking the other image off, if this one is keeped, since this image is the First publication. The reader doesn't need all 10, but the reader needs at least one.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Be aware, Hammersoft's reply is rather sarcastic. He's poking holes at the logic you offered for the reason to keep it.

In general, per WP:NFCI#1 we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it. As a short story, there is no single published work for it, so to justify the cover, it has to be essential for understanding the article, it cannot rely on the WP:NFCI allowance. As the cover has absolutely nothing to do visually or textually with the short story, it is impossible to assert that it meets WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, for NFCC. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by having the cover, nor is their understanding harmed by omitting the cover image. Ergo, this image is very much inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have said to Hammersoft, I have yet to see any NFCC rule that agrees with what you just said. Where dose it say that "we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it". NFCC says we have to have a reasonable rational. I argue that it is historically significant to the reader. While it may not be an image of the short story directly, it is Historically significant to the history of the entire Ender's series. I argue that the reader's understanding is enhanced just as much as an image of a book cover.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will thank you for pointing out WP:NFCI, that is as close to a justification I have yet gotten, rather then just saying it is against the rules and not explaining why. I still believe it passes WP:NFCI#1, but I will admit, I'm not a 100% sure what it mean, so I will admit that I may be off. If you will explain it better to me, I may see where you coming from.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs)

@ARTEST4ECHO: Please refer to the last bullet point on the bottom of WP:NFCC. It isn't anyone's burden to prove this image doesn't belong. It's your burden to prove the image DOES belong. The simple fact is the cover doesn't mention the short story at all. There's no connection between the cover and the story. I could just as well include on the Coca-Cola article the cover of a TIME magazine because Coca-Cola had an advertisement in that edition. The covers on this article are not visually connected to the subject of the article. A casual fly by reader might even think the top image is there in error as they would be expecting to see something that at least said "Ender" on it. How about we use a picture of the Empire State Building as the primary picture for the Airship article? That doesn't make sense you say? Of course it does! See Empire_State_Building#Dirigible_.28airship.29_terminal. Well, at least as much sense as including a cover that doesn't mention the story in question. If ANYthing were to be included from this first publication, it would have to be the first page in the publication that has the story on it.

All that said, I still think this is pretty moot. We really don't enforce WP:NFCC anymore, and anyone is free to pretty much abuse it as they like. This article only uses two images. That's not enough to even make the report of articles using lots of non-free images. Heck, if we included all ten covers in a gallery as I suggested, it wouldn't even break the top 100. A quick scan of Google images shows they are all available. Since we don't enforce NFCC anymore, why not include them? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg

I'm new to Misplaced Pages images so please excuse me if my terminology below is incorrect. Also, if this section should go somewhere else, please tell me.

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag and its use rationale is not at all clear to me. I'm not advocating its deletion but couldn't someone repair this file page, possibly starting with {{Symbol rationale}} or something else. Or would it be better if it was claimed as a minor, no-original-content modification of the Betsy Ross flag and therefore PD? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be PD. The only difference is inserting "II" in the middle of the blue area, which involves no creative thought. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Toshio on this. Standards of creativity aren't particularly high. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg and two others

I haven't done a lot of work with Non-free images, so apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly.

I added a FUR to three images, but would like a review to determine whether it is acceptable.

The three images:

• File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willliam Newport Goodell With Self Portrait.jpg

1. No free equivalent.- Each item is a one of a kind photograph of an oil painting
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Owner of copyright is proposing this course, so by definition, this is not a problem.
3. a. Minimal usage. This is not the entire collection, but a representative sample, again with permission of copyright holder, so not an infringement. b. Minimal extent of use Low resolution used.
4. Previous publication.' Passed- -Paintings and photograph have been on public display
5. Content.- Meets general Misplaced Pages content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy.- The material meets Misplaced Pages's media-specific policy.
7. One-article minimum. - Is on William Newport Goodell
8. Contextual significance.- The article is about the painter, so examples of his work are critical to the understanding of his work.
9. Restrictions on location.It located in an article and only in an article
10. Image description page.- Images have a description page contains the source, Subject to this discussion, the probable license is {{Non-free 2D art}}. A FUR has been added to each one.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free screenshot of Hill Street Station

File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{multiple image}}

Masem said from WP:MCQ:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

I wonder if this image passes NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, one image is acceptable of a TV episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm reading along the article, which is totally well-written, I see that the pilot has many plots in one episode. The central is the police work, yet police plots come and go, as I'm reading it. This image, as far as I'm concerned, would be from the episode, but the image caption helps me identify both characters from this episode, which could have gone for other articles rather than the episode article. I wonder if this image helps readers overall understand the episode. To me, it doesn't, even with the help of the caption. I see one man holding a phone with frustration and anger, while I see another man with blank expression. True, the caption tells the situation, but that's actual implication. It's nothing compared to title cards or other episode images. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The central element of the plot is a hostage situation and negotiation. This is one that depicts that theme. I don't know what else you need to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing special about that image that can't be described in words (it doesn't even look like a hostage scene), so NFCC#1 may not be met. The only way that the image could be used if the scene is critically commented on by secondary or third-party sources. If neither of these are met, the image is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have captured a screenshot of hostages and robbers. I'm going to upload it if Masem and Tony approve. I might capture more that helps the readers understand the central plot. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I have created File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg as a replacement of other image; moreover, this section's title has changed. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The most talked about scene involves Daniel Travanti's liaisons with Hamel. That might be the best scene for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Motion scenes are different from still images. "Scenes" is a vague word to use. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We're talking "scenes" as parts of a play or dramatic work. If such a scene is discussed in depth in sources, it may be helpful to illustrate it. Right now, there's nothing particularly interesting or novel about the second image (a group of hostages is very easy to describe in words, and while its the central theme of the episode, that doesn't itself make it appropriate to have an image for it.) --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither image is appropiate then? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think either would qualify; the images are not difficult to envision from a text description (two men arguing; a row of bound and gagged hostages in a liquor store) so they would technically fail on NFCC#1. Again, if either of those dramatic scenes - or any other scene in the show - was critically commented on, that may be a better image (for example, as the article is written, they describe the shooting of two officers at the (apparent) end of the episode that was highlighted by critics. There may be smething there.) --MASEM (t) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've captured the moment of gunned-down men. However, I'm reading the article and found out that only two critics mentioned the scene. What about the sex scene between some officer and the female lawyer? Sex scene would count as "romance", which is discussed more than gunned-down. Either sex or gunned-down scene is not suitable for infobox because it is part of a subplot, but I'll remove the infobox image and go for body-paragraph image. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Subplot, plot, it does not matter. All you need is a scene that is critically reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For myself, for an image of an episode to qualify as an infobox picture, it needs to be anything that has been critically commented on by at least a couple of sources, and ideally more than just talking heads or the like. The more technically complex the scene, as well, the better, since that gets difficult to put into text. Two examples that I know are fine: Worlds Apart (Fringe) has a scene that was praised by several critics not only as part of the show's drama, but technically stunning (the same actor talking to a parallel world version of the character (played by himself), with nearly perfectly seamless cuts in how it was presented; it was also happened to be considered a highlight of the show, thus at least assuring that it is some unique measure of the show, but that's a happenstance from all other aspects. The second example is The Doctor's Wife, where we have two elements of interest: the guest actress whose role was commented on, and the specific prop that was part of a contest for kids, also discussed in detail; as well, it also serves as a unique episode identifier by happenstance and not its primary goal.)

Thus, in considering episode infobox, look at what the sources drive you towards. Even if it is a subplot, the fact that a scene got highlighted by critics makes it rather important. Sometimes, these subplots are more memorable than the actual episode. But, if you feel they aren't a good representation/unique identifier for the show, using them in the body is completely fine. To get better ideas I recommend reading the FAC discussions for any WP:FA episode article post-2008/2009 (in which image standards were "heightened" to be more demanding of their need at FAC) to get an idea of when and where and what type of episode screenshots can be used. The only thing that I have found to be true for sure is that the more a specific dramatic scene is discussed by secondary sources, the more likely the image of said scene will not come under fire. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What if I can simultaneously provide two scenes of gunned-down and illicit affair, as I will be doing right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss with this nomination. There is extensive commentary on the hostage situation, the negotiations and the illicit affair. Anyone of them qualifies as a scene for an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "extensive commentary", and what counts as "extensive commentary"? What are qualifications of that kind? As for the infobox image, I can't think of any scene or plot that is truly central other than the hostage one. I've watched the pilot, and suddenly, none of subplots to me qualify as part of infobox, even when they were part of the episode. Recently, I've uploaded a cheek-kissing scene in The Boys in the Bar as part of body rather than infobox because it's not totally central but the ending of the central. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically for TV episodes: review sources that critically comment (read: more than just recapping) a specific scene, or a bit of production information that states how a scene was filmed that would otherwise not be obvious by a viewer (eg: The Doctor's Wife image, it is impossible for the viewer to know that the prop console was designed by a child, but this is explained in sources).

As for whether body or infobox, that's totally personable. I think the preference is if you have an image that works (follows NFCC), then it goes to the infobox, even if it is not the defining moment of the show. If you have a choice of images, the more unique one should be used, but if you only have one and its not very unique, it can be used there. You can prefer to have it in the body, but be aware: there is no free allowance for an infobox image for TV episodes like there is for other copyrighted works; this means that if you opt to have an acceptable NFCC image in the body, any infobox image must adhere strongly to NFCC and be just as required per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One question: how unique is the cheek-kissing image in The Boys in the Bar to be an infobox image? If most unique, then maybe infobox? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Cheers watcher (much) but the question to ask is: were one a devote Cheers fan, would that one picture tell you what episode it came from? It sounds like it is, based on the surrounding/supporting text, in which case an infobox is fine. Even if the image is a means of unique identification, it doesn't have to go in the infobox if one feels that the discussion of the scene is too far away (in terms of page layout) from the picture itself; it just often is done more that way. --MASEM (t)

• Can someone use T:MI and layout these four pictures with proposed captions, so I can know what I am considering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There are image links at top of this section. Do you mean layout all images in one area? Well, here's the sandbox revision just for testing. You can then decide, as I do not use the main article or any other page than Sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes either like the sandbox or vertical. It does not matter, but we need to understand the relevance. Please propose the new images with captions. See how I adjusted the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Done more captions. Masem said that any scene must be part of article's critical commentary, not the episode's. The source cannot be just the primary source (ie. episode); instead, secondary or third-party source must make a scene very substantial. To me, the farmost left image is not that substantial, even with captions; that's why I put it under review. Think about the difference between man-made screenshots (image) and motionally moving scenes (video). --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd like to make a case for image 4, but it would be more appealling to me if we could see her. I have not seen this scene lateley, but is there a capture possibility with her good looks visible. Also, I think we need to rework the captions to make the relevance of the images clearer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Based on the current content in the article, what about something like "Attorney Davenport's (Veronica Hamel) sex appeal was part of multiple storylines including an illicit affair with Captain Frank Furillo (Daniel J. Travanti)" as a caption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to point out , but we are not allowed to use NFC on talk pages even for discussions like this. I've left the captions in the source though. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you state your opinion on the best choice from our current menu of possible lead images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, here you go: Sandbox --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rainn Wilson.jpg

This non-free image is too dubious to use because there is a free image in the Casting section: File:RainnwilsonOct07.jpg. I can't find any hint of characterization from this picture other than his usual suit. Moreover, claims of irreplaceability are too flimsy to consider reliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is often allowance - particularly if they are press/media kit images - to use the non-free pictures of characters even if a free image of the actor exists and is substantially similar to the character. The rationale follows from cover art when these come from press kits : this is how the producers/broadcasters want you to envision the characters, so it has implicit branding/marketing associated with it. That becomes less a problem when we're using character images taken from screenshots as now we're putting our own spin on the character. Importantly there is no consistent application here, only that we seem to have less a problem with press kit photos being used in lieu of free photos. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this image specifically. Generally, yes, a non-free photo and a free photo are different from each other, like Batman and Robin. This image.... only substantial things are the suit and the production set. I don't see any much difference between two photos of the same actor, as far as I'm concerned. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am describing the general trends as to qualify why I think this is okay and avoid similar questions. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The image of the Dwight character is used in the Dwight Schrute article; the image of Rainn out of character is not to a real replacement.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:DanChallis.jpg

Use of this non-free film screenshot is too dubious to be fair use. It identifies the actor as one character, but there is no shred of significance that makes this image relevant. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, but in my opinion it seems to fit the requirements listed here. The quality is reduced, it is being used in the article to illustrate the section on "Casting" next to a paragraph that is talking about the actor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the use here does not satisfy NFCI#5 since I do not see how that use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In that sense, the use of the image in that article is likely in violation of NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fernando Primo de Rivera.PNG

Non-free use rationale may be improper according to the licensing template which states the image is PD. If the licensing template is improper, then the use of the file in 1897 in the Philippines is a violation of NFCC#10b, NFCC#10c and possibly NFCC#8, since I do not see, why the images presence in 1897 in the Philippines is necessary for the readers understanding of the topic. 1897 in the Philippines already contains a wikilink to Fernando Primo de Rivera, 1st Marquis of Estella, where the image is present. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If the image is in public domain, it is not non-free content and thus it can't be in violation of NFCC criteria. What is incorrect here is the unneeded rationale that describes it as a logo (which is not), not the licensing as public domain. Fixed it by removing the rationale. Diego (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, a PD image can't violate the NFC criteria, that's what I meant. "Improper" perhaps was a poor choice of a word. I am not sure, whether the image is PD or not. As far as I know, the duration of the copyright protection depends on when the author of the image died. Also, it's not entirely clear to me the copyright law of which country applies (US, Philippine, Spanish?). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Established that this image is out of copyright in the Philippines and that it is out of copyright in the United States. Eligible for Commons. --George Ho (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Stanfield Wells.jpg

The use of the image in 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image caption at 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team#Letter winners states the photo was taken in 1910. Given that according to File:Copyright term.svg (see also ) the duration of copyright protection would be 64 years, it seems to be PD (assuming US copyright law applies). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:LewisAsTheTyro.jpg

Use of the file in 1921 in art violates NFCC#10c. In my opinion the use also violates NFCC#8, since the image simply floats along a listing of works from that particular year. The image is already present in Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, where it seems to be discussed. If the image must be mentioned in 1921 in art#Works, the reader should be referred to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s which could be accomplished via a wikilink. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The image was apparently created in 1921. If it was published in 1921 or 1922, then it is in the public domain in the United States. On the other hand, if it was not published in 1921 or 1922, then it is copyrighted in the United States due to the URAA. The painting is called "Mr Wyndham Lewis as a Tyro" and according to Wyndham Lewis#The 1920s, "After the war, Lewis resumed his career as a painter, with a major exhibition, Tyros and Portraits, at the Leicester Galleries in 1921." Since the word "tyro" appears in both the name of the painting and the name of the exhibition, it is likely that the painting was exhibited on that exhibition. Just exhibiting the painting is not enough (I believe), but maybe it appeared in some exhibition catalogue at that time? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually just exhibiting the painting can be enough, I think this should be PD...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a Canadian-born artist lived in London, so it is still copyrighted in UK until 2028, 70 years after life of the artist. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not relevant except on Commons; we can simply tag an image with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} here. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:The Persistence of Memory.jpg

The use of this file in 1931 in art violates WP:NFCC#10c. Also fails WP:NFC#UUI#6. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the use of this file in 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dali is his most important work and an icon of Surrealism; it is needed particularly at 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting. It no longer violates WP:NFG.

Paintings by Roy Lichtenstein

File:Roy Lichtenstein Drowning Girl.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Drowning Girl

File:Roy Lichtenstein Whaam.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Whaam!

File:Bedroom at Arles.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Bedroom at Arles Withdrawn

These images are used in Roy Lichtenstein and other articles whose subjects are not mainly images themselves. I wonder whether rationales are valid and whether commentaries are sufficient enough to justify use of these images. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lichtenstein is an important 20th century artist and it is imperative to have the few images used in the biographical article, to educate readers as to what those visual artworks look like...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is completely reasonable to use a few (a few) NFC images for an artist as representatives of their work, as long as the specific examples are called out as demonstrating why they are examples (the work the artist is most noted for? etc.) This is no different than providing a few samples of music for a musician/band as representing their work. How many is allowed, its hard to say, however. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is use of Bedroom at Arles in Lichtenstein article appropiate and sufficient? --George Ho (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not; Bedroom at Arles does not fully represent Lichtenstein's career - leaving out his most famous pieces that relate to Pop Art. I agree with User:Masem however; we've tried to limit the imagery there to 3 important paintings demonstrating his pioneering work in both pop art and appropriation, and we have included 1 industrial commission done late in his career...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Lichtenstein's work actually. At is Lichtenstein's; In is van Gogh's. By the way, I'm withdrawing review on one image. --George Ho (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The use of Bedroom could be a bit stronger, but the text does describe how he applied his style to famous artists, with that being one example against the Van Gogh, so edging on allowance there is fine. (Drowning Girl + Wham, no question that they are well-discussed). Again, we don't use numbers, but 4 non-frees on an artist of this many works and of this fame seems completely reasonable. And no, I'm not saying "4 images" is a number test to apply elsewhere. It just "feels" right given the point of NFCC in balance with whom the artist is. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that Lichtenstein article is already reviewed and resolved, and that Arles image has passed NFCC, let's discuss other images that are used in non-Lichtenstein articles, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:HarryBrowne-LP.JPG

Use in 1996 Libertarian National Convention and 2000 Libertarian National Convention violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Always add {{non-free review}} before you put any image under review. I've done that for you. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to remember that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

File:BD tri-service badge.png

Uses in Jahangir Alam Chowdhury and Muhammad Shahid Sarwar violate NFCC#8, as the use is purely decorative there. The current rationale for Bangladesh Armed Forces as written perhaps could be improved to explicitly state how that badge is related to the topic of the article. Current rationale is a group rationale, while NFCC#10c requires a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This file has several additional issues: The file description says the image is a self created work by the uploader. If that were true, it would be in violation of WP:IUP#User-created images. I don't think that is true anyway, as the file appears to be a derivative work using three (probably) non-free logos. The file is also violating NFCC 10a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Toshio, perhaps you could ask someone in the subject area? It would be very useful to clear up if this is an official badge or logo or a fabricated creation. If the latter, it has no future; if the former the FUR needs some tweaks but would probably stand overall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that I will come across as the uncooperative ass here, but it is really not my duty to do this. Looking at , and makes it appearing very likely that this badge is a derivative work using three logos. Either the part "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" at WP:NFCCE means something or it doesn't. If it doesn't the policy should be changed to reflect that. Apart from that, I do not want to give them my E-Mail address. Someone should do this under a Wikimedia Foundation E-Mail address. Is there someone at the Foundation responsible for something like that? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ford 400 race logo.png

Uses in 2003 Ford 400, 2008 Ford 400, 2009 Ford 400 and Ford EcoBoost 400 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Isaf worldsailing logo.PNG

Uses in 2003 ISAF Sailing World Championships and 2014 ISAF Sailing World Championships violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:WAPDAfootballclub.png

Use in WAPDA F.C. violates NFCC#10c (rationale points to WAPDA FC, but the file is used on WAPDA F.C.). Use in 2004 Pakistan Premier League is purely decorative and violates NFCC#8 and 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Sweetbox 13 Chapters RS.jpg

Use in 13 Chapters violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:MichaelKelsoFinale.jpg

This image looks too inadequate or dubious. It merely identifies Ashton Kutcher as Michael Kelso (or Kelso (That '70s Show)). And I don't think any image of him in the show can help matters, especially the promo image. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was a media kit promo image, we'd generally allow it (there's aspects of branding and image in that), but as just a screenshot to show a character that looks exactly like the actor in question? Not needed at all. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Persepolis Teheran Logo(2012).png

Uses in Persepolis FSC, 1999–2000 Azadegan League, Persepolis F.C. Reserves and Academy and Persepolis FSC violate WP:NFCC#10c. Use in 1999–2000 Azadegan League is decorative and violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rationale for Persepolis FSC has been added. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:MizzouPrimaryAthleticMark.png

Uses in 2000 Missouri Tigers football team, 2001 Missouri Tigers football team, 2002 Missouri Tigers football team, 2003 Missouri Tigers football team, 2004 Missouri Tigers football team, 2005 Missouri Tigers football team, 2006 Missouri Tigers football team, 2007 Missouri Tigers football team, 2006 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2007 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2012 Missouri Tigers baseball team, 2012–13 Missouri Tigers men's basketball team, Missouri Tigers baseball, Missouri Tigers men's basketball, Missouri Tigers softball and Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry violate WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I question the validity of the rationale provided for the use of this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry. The rationale states the purpose of the use of the file in that article is "to illustrate the primary mark currently used by Missouri Tigers football. This is the primary logo of all Missouri Tiger athletics.". Why does that mark have to be illustrated by this file in Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's standard to include the logos of both teams in the rivalry infobox on rivalry articles. See, e.g. Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, Civil War (college football game), Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, Auburn–Georgia football rivalry, Carolina–Duke rivalry, Army–Navy Game. Mizzou415 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be standard, but such a use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. I am aware of WP:NFCI 2, but I believe the identification in the rivalry article can be accomplished via a wikilink to the team article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that a link to the team article serves the same purpose but regardless, as this identical usage is presently on dozens if not hundreds of articles, the use of a single image is not an appropriate forum for such a broad discussion. Mizzou415 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• When this has come up in the past, suitable text logos were found for most schools. Is there not a similar option for Missouri? (ESkog) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is - I'd recommend File:Missouri Tigers M script.gif from Commons be used on most of the articles listed above, with the likely exception of the main article about the athletics teams at Missouri Tigers. (ESkog) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't actually a University of Missouri logo per http://identity.missouri.edu/logos-design/index.php Mizzou415 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That MU "unified" logo in the above linked page, however, is a perfectly fine free (fails Threshold of originality) alternative. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Use in the rivalry articles is an obvious NFCC violation. It clearly fails NFCC#8. It makes no sense to claim that the reader's understanding of the article is materially impaired by the absence of the logo. The logos are simply unnecessary in articles about subjects associated with the teams. Mickey Mantle is fully comprehensible without a Yankees logo; Phil Simms without a Giants logo; Matt Lauer without a Today show logo, and each and every one of the horde of Playboy Playmates without the rabbit head. Under the nonfree content policy, use of such logos should be limited to articles where the central subject is represented by the logo. Perhaps that may cover de facto subarticles like the individual season articles, although that's a bit of a stretch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Pac-10-Uniform-SU-2002-2007.png

Use in 2005 Stanford Cardinal football team violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This uniform seems uncopyrightable to me. The color-scheme might be trademarked, but I don't think this specific bicolor scheme is eligible for copyright protection. The image seems to be a user created image and should be re released by the creator/uploader under a free license. Otherwise use of the image violates WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

Uses in 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid, 2006 Lebanon War, 9K115-2 Metis-M, 9K52 Luna-M, 9M133 Kornet, Battle of Wadi Saluki, Battle of Zabadani, Houthis, List of Shi'a Muslims flags, List of political parties in Lebanon, List of wars involving Iran, Operation Changing Direction 11, Operation Scorched Earth, Shia insurgency in Yemen, South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), Syrian uprising (2011–present), War of the Camps and Wars involving Israel violate NFCC#10c. All those uses also violate NFCC#8, as they are decorative, except the use in List of Shi'a Muslims flags, where WP:NFLISTS#4 and 6 might apply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah? Guess what? I removed all of the abusive uses many times. But, people keep putting them back in. You see, if you don't put that 23px rendition of the flag featuring yellow with a green smudge into the infobox of South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000), people are going to be completely confused and incapable of understanding that Hezbollah was involved in the conflict. So, yeah, we can have this discussion here about whether or not it is appropriate or not, but down the road someone will come along and put them all back in again. I.e., it's a waste of time, just as is the rest of NFCC enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Then lets add all those pages to Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content criteria exemptions. Or better yet, lets file a request at Botreq to add all pages in main namespace to that category. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, like me, the voice of despair. The reality is that playing the game of whack-a-mole to wipe out the violations is unending and fruitless. The violations will keep coming back. So, yes, one alternative is to allow this sort of use. Of course, if we try to get policy modified to do just that, it gets rejected. Isn't this fun? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe you could try asking at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list? If the image is added to that list, it can only be used in articles specifically added to that list by an administrator. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That would never fly, as it isn't scalable to the entire project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Bot_to_target_icon_usage_of_non-free_images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags are inherently public domain for display purposes, atlases and guidebooks publish national flags at will. There is no reason why use of any flag on any page should be restricted so long as it represents the organization that uses it.108.5.245.216 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think flags are "inherently public domain". A flag is essentially a work of art and as thus the creator of that work would normally hold the copyright for it (except perhaps, if the flag were not creative enough and thus inelligible for copyright, but that has nothing to do with it being a flag). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Toshio. Just because a flag can be publicly displayed doesn't make it public domain. There are plenty of flags that are not free license. 108.5.245.216, you should read Gratis versus libre. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag is the property of an organization that has given up its rights by commiting unsanctioned acts of war and terrorism. Even assuming that they were a legitimate nation or respectable organization, their flag and logo being prominently displayed makes it publically available for commentary, review and representation (not public domain, but a blanket fair-use). That they are a declared enemy of everything that Misplaced Pages stands for (free speech in particular) makes me wonder why you're defending them. Krysee (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not so much protecting *them* as protecting any reusers of WP's content from being a problem later by tagging the image as non-free since there's no clear "free" nature to the image. The claim that because the organization has committed unsanctioned acts of war is bogus; it is still copyrighted to the organization. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a bogus claim. I'm not a copyright lawyer (although I am a lawyer), but I believe there are several reasons why the flag of Hezbollah is not protected under copyright law.

1. The design is seen in different variations and used by people who associate themselves with a particular political ideology, not just the people who run Hezbollah. The design is also used by the Revolutionary Guards. Its purpose, then, is to be used as an ideological symbol, like a peace sign, and is therefore not copyrightable.

2. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. US courts would never enforce copyright on behalf of Hezbollah on the image. If there are no legal consequences for using the flag, then an exception to the normal copyright law is carved out.

3. An "organization" cannot hold copyright; a person can. The individual designer (or designers) of the flag might be able to claim to hold copyright, or Hezbollah if it was a corporation (which it is not as far as I know) could hold copyright, but Hezbollah as a shadowy criminal "organization" cannot hold copyright.

4. Nobody has come forward to say that the flag or its symbolism belongs to them. Not Hezbollah, not an individual designer. The authorship of the design has been lost to the sands of time. If there's no potential copyright holder then there's no potential copyright.

Lexicon (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

3. An organization is also a person, albeit an artificial one. I am fairly certain artificial persons are also capable of holding the copyright in a work.

4. I don't think we (the English Misplaced Pages community) regard a work as free as long as no one claims ownership of the copyright in that work. I think we assume a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did make reference to artificial persons re corporations. An organization which is not incorporated, however, is not a person. Is Hezbollah incorporated? I'm pretty sure it's not. As such, the copyright would have to be held by the individual creator or creators of the work. As for assuming copyright, yes, that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright in the unfettered use of the motif in other militant organizations (the Revolutionary Guards). But add the two together and I'd say you have a strong case that it was never copyrightable, or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright (as against, for instance, the Revolutionary Guards). Finally, even if it is copyrighted, the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot.

I would argue that as Hezbollah itself is not an entity subject to law (it is not a corporation, nor is it a state), the copyright for the flag, if it is copyrightable, would by necessity HAVE to be held by its individual creator or creators. As the creator is likely unascertainable in law, and as the motif was obviously "donated" to use in a political cause, the flag was released into, and remains in, the public domain. Lexicon (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"...that would be true if we didn't also have evidence that it *isn't* copyrighted or capable of copyright..."

What evidence that the flag isn't copyrighted or capable of being copyrighted are you referring to?

"...or if it was copyrightable that right was lost by the failure of the creator to claim ownership in any way or protect their copyright..."

Again, where is the evidence for this claim?

"...the fact that the state of US law will fail to enforce that copyright renders the fact of the copyright moot..."

I am not aware of a consensus at the English Misplaced Pages that has determined we can use (supposedly) copyrighted works under the assumption that law might not be enforced. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely with Toshio on this. If the creator were not a member of Hezbollah, this would definitely be in copyright pending close analysis (but this isn't what's being argued here). Currently, works of Hezbollah enjoy (or do not enjoy a negative) right as far as I can see in the US. The US as a country has before declared works to be in the public domain, such as those from Afghanistan and other countries with whom the US does not have a copyright treaty. The copyright status of Nazi works is unclear, i.e. despite all Nazi actions, even they appear to attract copyright protection. In light of no evidence that the Hezbollah organisation has been singled out, this should remain fair use. (When was it designed, by the way?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG

Use in Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon violates WP:NFCC#8 and 10c. Use is purely decorative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the file should also be removed from 2006 Lebanon War. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Aarons499 logo.gif

Uses in 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So, this image which is used in those articles violates some rule. But why not 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, then? The image's page has the same "Non-free media information and use rationale" for them also... 82.141.66.248 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time I tagged the file, it only had rationales for Aaron's 499, 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, but lacked rationales for 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499. NFCC#10c requires that the file has a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationales for all uses have been added. Still the uses in the yearly articles seem to violate NFCC#8. Can I have some more opinions? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a more general discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Uncceptable image uses. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:CBI logo.jpg

Use in 2008 College Basketball Invitational, 2009 College Basketball Invitational, 2010 College Basketball Invitational and 2011 College Basketball Invitational violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ogden Nash

Hoping that this is the right way to do it; I've never come here before.

I'm concerned about the amount of non-free text in this article. We currently have part or all of nine Nash poems here; if Nash were a painter, we wouldn't tolerate complete or partial displays of nine different paintings. Of course we should quote something, just as an image of No. 5, 1948 is appropriate in the Jackson Pollock article, but I'm concerned that we use too much nonfree content for the Nash article. No complaints about the image of Nash, which as the only image in the article plainly isn't a case of excessive use of nonfree material. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Text unfortunately has been determined to be outside NFCC's bound, but we still have to content with the text meeting normal fair use allowances that would be required by CC-BY-SA. One or two snippets, as you suggest, would be reasonable, but the amount present is far too much in talking about the poet. It definitely does need to be trimmed down. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When/where was that determined? If that be the case, we really need to update WP:NFCC, which spends time discussing quotations of non-free text before paying any attention to images, recordings, or other non-textual media. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the guideline WP:NFC as opposed to WP:NFCC which is the policy on non-free media. This is the discussion I believe that led to including some statement about text at NFC, the point is that with text, we don't require the rigors of a non-free rational and licensing, and therefore outside NFCC's scope, but it is still a "non-free" issue.

You also may want to point to WP:QUOTE where this is more directly discussed from a text standpoint. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean NFCC, which says "Articles and other Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.". Moonriddengirl's note about the page not mentioning textual content is no longer the case. At any rate, is there any other page (other than the article's talk page, of course) for discussing the appropriateness or lack thereof of nonfree textual content? I'd be happy to take this there if it exist. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I asked Moonriddengirl to chime in here (describing it as a "minor (and friendly) disagreement"), since what she wrote is part of the issue. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it still comes down to the fact that when we generally talk NFCC, its about media files, as required by the Foundation. I think that line there is simply to acknowledge that text is handled differently. But as to where else to discuss, I'm not really sure; it's not like its an outright copyvio problem, so this would be the next best place. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were telling me "wrong forum" without pointing me elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Just thought you were looking to get support to getting rid of the excessive copy. But yes, this is probably the best page for discussing excessive text. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:CliffhangersDebut.jpg

This image is used in List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Cliff Hangers. However, I don't think this image helps readers understand. Rather the image has not been commented in this article. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecesary. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Plinkoseason37.jpg

This image is used in List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Plinko. I'm not sure if this image is needed, but the board is mentioned very little, unless I missed something. Maybe the rules are simple to explain, but execution is different? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an image where we could get a free, simplified rendition of the Plinko board (that itself is not copyrighted) if it needs to be explained. The non-free is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, this use fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But there are no replicas of this board. It is a sculpture made for Plinko players only. How can we have access to taking a picture of the Plinko board? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If a picture is necessary, it is easy to demonstrate with a user-made, non-photograph, computer drawn layout of the board; its not a "sculpture" in that it has a utility value to it, though the specific decorations on it would be a problem; hence a computer-drawn recreation of the board would be sufficient to show the pin layouts. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one could make a schematic representation of the board that would serve the same purpose (or could do it even better, maybe). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rachel green.jpg

This image is under review. It lacks rationale, and the image is not appropiate for The One Where Estelle Dies. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate in the episode article. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why on Earth not? We do it all the time? Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager), What Is... Cliff Clavin?, Here Comes My Girl (Cougar Town). I updated the rationale to reflect the article where it is used. Problem solved, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Even when rationale is added, the issues are not yet resolved. As for the Cliff Clavin part, I used the still image of Cliff's losing all winnings to help readers identify the episode and to illustrate what is already in the critical commentary. Other images I must put under review. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd no idea you had any connection to that episode. I just randomly picked. It's common practice to use a screenshot from an episode on the article about that episode. I see no reason to not include this image on the episode article, and given that it is such common practice... --Hammersoft (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, you've a long road in front of you. Looking at List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, a vast majority of the episodes have a screenshot I think. Oh, and that's just one TV series. One. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlike cover art which there is consensus to include as long as the work is notable, there's nothing equivalent for episodes, particularly when it is talking heads, like this image. There's nothing that can't be explained by free media or text. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cougar town 109 thanksgiving.jpg

This image is not part of article's critical commentary. It may identify the episode, but it may fail WP:NFCC criteria. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in the previous section. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Easily described by text, and a scene of no note in sources. Delete. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you nominate it for deletion? --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've simply removed it, a bot will tag it orphaned, and it will be deleted in 7 days unless restored. If it restored, then FFD would be the next step. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • And I've restored it. Per my comments in the next section, there should be a centralized discussion regarding screenshots not specifically mentioned in the article. Please don't misinterpret my action; I'm not trying to be obstructionist here. But, given the enormous amount of discussion that erupts over NFCC enforcement, not having a centralized discussion to refer to as supporting proof of the need of removal is bad. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • We already have advice, from the TV project itself, from WP:MOSTV : "For episode articles, a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode - that is, the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary - and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood. There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode." There is no need for central discussion when this has been long-standing, its just a matter of cleaning up under it. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • (please take as humor) Is there where I'm supposed to say you're being heavy handed? As would be said back to me if I tried it, WP:MOSTV isn't policy. Further, common practice is that there is an allowance for an image per episode where the episode has its own article. It's all over the place (ex: Category:Monk episodes, Category:South Park (season 9) episodes. So, we have a case where reality and guideline don't agree. You claim reality is wrong, but if I fix it I'm being heavy handed and if you do it you're...what? An angel? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I understand the humor, but it's important to separate OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic from what actually is established. Unless there has been some significant review of the articles, we can't just if the image use is appropriate, being aware that newer editors tend to follow the patterns of established articles without referring to guidelines ("Oh that episode article has an image, must be okay here..."). Given that I've gotten one positive response at the TV project to clean up the various series of inappropriate screenshots for infoboxes, it is definitely true that the practice is not for automatic allowance for images and they must follow NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
              • I think you are wrong. First, Wikiprojects don't set policy. Second, the common practice is as I described. It's not a question of otherstuffexists. It's a question of what is routinely done. Episodic screenshots exist in probably thousands of articles across the project. Whether it is wrong or right is really beside the point at this point; it's not a clear violation of WP:NFCC, and there's no question this sort of use is very common. What are you going to do when these sorts of uses are routinely reverted? Is that when you become heavy handed, point to a wikiproject and a manual of style and declare them to be wrong? Or, as you seem to have previously suggested in related matters, we have to bring each of these cases here or to FfD? Hmm? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                • First, WP:TV's guideline on episode article images falls right in line with NFCC; my point is that the fact the project acknowledges there is no immediately allowance for episode screenshots shows that the project as a whole is aware of this. Secondly, that's why I posted just earlier the message to help with clearing of unnecessary screenshots from TV episode articles. Either that will prompt them into action (meaning they will help fix images added by newer editors that are simply mimicking how other episode articles are presented), or will spawn discussion that should affirm the consensus or set up a new one. If the TV project has no objection to this remove, then there's no point in spending the time to FFD such images since there's agreement for those affected. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • I don't really care what the project thinks, since (as I noted) projects don't set policy. You seem to imply an assumption that it is only newer editors are adding episodic images. Evidence? The TV project aren't the only ones affected. Every reader of every episode article is affected, not just the few hundred listed as in the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • This use clearly fails WP:NFCI#5. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File:ST-VOY Time and Again.jpg

This image is too dubious, and the article still lacks enough balance. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in section two above. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Easily described by text, and not a scene of note in the article. Delete. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you're going to do that, then all episode shots from this series should be grouped together in an AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, not necessarily. Not that I've looked at that, but there may be cases within the series where there's critical reception of the scene (mind you, my knowledge of Voyager says, "very unlikely" given the general lack of any critical reception for the individual episodes). A mass FFD would be disruptive, but I'm sure there's an appropriate venue somewhere (WP:TV maybe) to get input. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• In cases where the images are not mentioned in particular, not doing a group FFD is itself disruptive. Doing it piecemeal causes an enormous amount of work, rather than the whole issue being discussed in a reasonable fashion in one coherent place. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Festival of Britain.JPG

No clear rationale. Rationale contained within the summary template at File:Festival of Britain.JPG#Summary could be improved by providing a link to the article for which fair use is claimed. Rationales for Abram Games and Festival Star are absent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this not be covered by the HMSO Open Government License? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proof that this work has been published under that license? If it has, then from what I read here I think use on Misplaced Pages would be compatible with that license. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at {{non-free Crown copyright}}. If recently, a government work from UK is still copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if it has been released under HMSO OGL it has practically the same status as if released under something like CC-BY-3.0. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it was published in 1951 I would assume Crown copyright has expired, unless you know better. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50 years, so it seems copyright has indeed expired. Thus the file should be tagged accordingly. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be tagged with {{PD-because}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate tag than {{PD-UK}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one: Template:PD-BritishGov. Must be conjunctioned with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged the file as PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Expired British Crown Copyrights are free worldwide (see e-mail link in the template), so {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should not be used. Besides, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files are not free in the United States and are frequently deleted as unfree files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly: Cornell chart. If still copyrighted in UK in 1996, the work is still copyrighted in the United States, unless it was published without notice within 30 days after first overseas publication. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, see the e-mail link in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Venetia phair.jpg

I don't really think that the photo is needed in the article Pluto, but that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. If you want to see the photo of her, you can go to the article dedicated specifically to her instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Copyright Act of 1909 applies to the photo, it seems to be in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was taken at the age of 11 and Venetia Burney was born in 1918, so it can't have been published before 1923 at least. Without more information, it could go either way, all depending on whether it has been published and whether formalities were followed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the maximum duration of copyright would be 56 years, if it was published before 1956 (which I can't confirm right now) then it is in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one could ask. This seems to suggest the copyright holder might be Galaxy Picture Library and they have contact details here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm? The United States copyright term is one of publication+0 years, publication+28 years, publication+95 years, life+70 years and creation+120 years. Where do you find the statement about 56 years? --Stefan2 (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If our article Copyright Act of 1909 is correct, that act would apply to works published between 1909 and 1976. Duration of protection would be 28 years with the possibility of renewal for another 28 years once. Assuming copyright was renewed once, that would be 2 x 28 = 56 years. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that figure of 1956 above from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, the law was changed. As far as I can see, the Copyright Act of 1909 states that the maximum copyright term is publication+56 years. This meant that works under the Copyright Act of 1831 were copyrighted for at most 56 years instead of the original 42 years, unless the copyright already had expired. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the total term from 56 years to 75 years, unless the copyright already had expired, which affected works under both the Copyright Act of 1831 and the Copyright Act of 1909. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act finally extended the total term from 75 years to 95 years, affecting works under the Copyright Act of 1909, but works published before 1923 had already entered the public domain since the earlier shorter term already had expired. See chart to the right (which assumes that works were renewed and published with a notice). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think without knowing when exactly the photo was published, it is impossible to determine whether it is in the public domain or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The photo blatantly does not belong on the Pluto article. Further, I seriously doubt the article Venetia Burney should exist at all. She is 'famous' for exactly one thing; suggesting the name for Pluto. That's it. Nothing else. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but is a different issue that should be resolved at AfD. Who wants to be BOLD and make the nomination? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've prodded it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• And it's immediately unprodded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, another error with the image: it currently fails WP:NFCC#10c. Specifically, it says that you should have "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". However, the two articles currently share the same FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• We had a discussion at WT:NFC about group rationales before, with the conclusion that they are inappropriate. Doesn't really matter. People do them anyway, and the use of them is common. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec ×2) {{Non-free historic image}}, which generates the instructions on the page, says "A rationale must be provided for every article any non-free image is used in, ...", nothing about "separate". It would help users if the template said "A separate rationale..." or whatever if that is what is required. Please can one of you update it? The shared rationale section can easily be split into two specific rationales, so that in itself is not a ground for removal, rather a quality issue to be corrected. --Mirokado (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• That current rationale is blatantly inadequate in its current form. Lacks nearly all necessary components. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur, and to Mirokado; separating these Siamese twin rationales doesn't fix anything. Per Toshio, the rationale is woefully inadequate, and it doesn't even belong in the Pluto article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the rationales does not fix any other problems. In case what I said above was not clear: (1) the instructions in the template need to be improved; (2) the shared rationale in itself can be fixed rather easily if necessary so let's concentrate on substantial issues. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:FURG does say "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." So I have started to do that. Even if we remove the file from Pluto, the separate rationales mean that we can concentrate on improving them (or not) individually. I've started by adding separate, completed, template rationales corresponding to the original editor's information. Since I've not done this before, constructive criticism would be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the picture is not necessary in Pluto. --Mirokado (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No further comments for a month, so I have removed the image from Pluto and updated the rationale accordingly. I also updated some of the rationale text and I hope this is now satisfactory. --Mirokado (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg

Use in Art of the United Kingdom seems inappropriate. I question the third point of the rationale File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg#Fair use for Art of the United Kingdom, which seems dubious and inadequate to me. I do not see where this specific portrait is discussed in the article. The only thing in the article that seems to have any connection to the image seems to be the statement "The "London School" of figurative painters including Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, Frank Auerbach, Leon Kossoff, and Michael Andrews have received widespread international recognition". No direct reference is made to the image in that article. Thus I question whether the use of that image in that article satisfies NFCC#8. It appears to me it doesn't. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again Lucien Freud is an integral and crucial figure in the Art of the United Kingdom and it is important that his work be visually included in the article; probably needs more text...Modernist (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCI#7 says a non-free image of a painting can be used "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." In which way does the current use of this image in Art of the United Kingdom constitute critical commentary? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Toshio's right in that this is just being example of a named artist's work just to have an image there, but no reasoning behind the image. We're obviously going to have images like that on the artist's page and possibly on the artwork's own page if it exists, but there needs to be much stronger reason to include it as an example on a summary article like "Art of the UK". --MASEM (t) 12:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• We have a proscribed and limited reservoir of Freud's imagery. Lucien Freud (1922-2011), is or rather was along with Hockney and a very few others the most important living British artist and amongst the most significant figure painters of the 20th century. The image that we have to use is a portrait of Freud's first wife who was also the daughter of the famous American born English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein and in my view it is an important visual addition to the article. However I agree with both Toshio and Masem that the inclusion should benefit with additional text. I will add some text over the next few days...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sufficient text now added on the specific to justify use. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - I added a NYTimes discussion of Freud and specifically Girl with White Dog with reference to the Times ...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's actually pretty good (having the painting called out specifically in context via that quote); just note that we just use quotation marks to offset quotes, not italics. (per WP:QUOTE). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod repaired my erroneous italics :)...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What Masem said, well done. If others agree, I will remove the template from the article and close this discussion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You have only discussed the problems related to this image in one of the articles, but there are also problems in other articles. In particular, it violates WP:NFG in a number of articles, and it also violates WP:NFCC#1 in some articles. There seem to be public domain paintings of the same type which could be used instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the use in 20th-century Western painting#Realism, Landscape, Figuration, Still-Life, Cityscape fails WP:NFG. I also see no justification for this use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:1953 Grand Rapids Chicks.jpg

Use in 1953 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season and Grand Rapids Chicks violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Goldenboy toiletfetish.jpg

The use of this file in Golden Boy (manga) appears to be in violation of NFCC#8. No reference to the image is made in the article. The only mention of his fetish is the statement "Recurring gags include Kintaro's fetish for toilets (especially those recently used by beautiful women), ...." at Golden Boy (manga)#Summary, which I believe can also be described without using the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Goodraise 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed. However some fans might claim it to be iconic. Not that it actually is.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources to affirm that that scene is iconic, that may make it an allowance (And having seen the anime, I would agree that if there was any scene that was iconic, that would be it, but again, what we as Misplaced Pages editors say have no weight). --MASEM (t) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:1954 Kalamazoo Lassies.jpg

Use in 1954 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo-italias-got-talent1.jpg

The resolution is too high to qualify as fair use, per NFCC #3b. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can tag oversized images with {{non-free reduce}} which puts it into a maintenance category. It's a fixable problem...but that said, checking the use of the logo elsewhere, the depth of the 3d itself is not important, and if you take the text alone, it would fail threshold of originality, and thus this potentially fails the free replacement test NFCC#1. Someone can make an equivalent SVG of the logo for use. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged and a reduced version supplied, and I deleted the old versions. I'll leave this open for others to resolve the issue of WP:THRESHOLD and therefore replaceability by a free version. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is it does not meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. It would be great if someone could crop the image and make the TV station logo in the lower right go away, too. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Avanu

Regarding the image of a Coke can at the top of this user talk page, would someone neutral please inform the user that represntations of copyrighted items, such as a Coke can, are derviative of the original copyright, and therefore cannot be considered free by WMF policy and NFCC rules, and that non-free images cannot be used on user pages regardless of whether they are photographs or ASCII art. I have removed both from the page, (,), and the user simply restores or replaces them (, , ) warning me not to edit war. I need to step back and allow someone else to explain to the user. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with BMK's logic on this one. It is a derivative work and I'm sure it's trademarked and copyrighted so would fall under NFC. Sædon 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Beyond My Ken, you are absolutely right that you need to "step back". You began this little effort as a way to take up a stick immediately after a disagreement on the AN/I page, and after I politely attempted to talk to you on your Talk page, you ordered me to never post there again, which I again, politely agreed to.

Since then, you seem to have made it your personal mission to remove a thoughtful item placed at the top of my Talk page which served only as a welcoming image to encourage people to chat in a civil fashion. Specifically the coke with the message "Enjoy a refreshing beverage while you're here." immediately below it. This is a similar to the various gestures that many people make through 'Wikilove' and various text and image-based welcomes on their User and Talk pages. It is a neutral use, and a minimal use of the subject and conveys no conflict of interest nor the idea that the Coca-Cola Company endorses me as an editor.

This has been on my page, without incident over a year, since 4 March 2011. The only moment it became a big deal, is when you, without discussion, removed it from my page. You chose only to communicate via edit summaries, and so after that happened twice, I asked you to stop and went back to your page and politely asked you to use my Talk page for a civil discussion of the matter. I would be more inclined to acquiese to your request if it were made politely, rather than in a method that seems to be using policy as a subtle way to poke me. I hesitate to think what your next fault finding mission will be, but I would again respectfully ask that you work not merely within the system, but also with your fellow editors in it.

All that said, I would be perfectly willing to remove the image if it in fact does meet the definition of a non-free image. It is something that I have invited Beyond My Ken to explain and justify his rationale, but he seems to be intent on creating a larger drama from it instead. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Coke logo is ineligible for copyright as it fails the threshold of originality. A soda can's design is also going to be ineligble for copyright (it is utilitarian). Thus, it is completely possible for a free image of a coke can to be made as long as the person making the image puts it into the appropriate free license. As long as Avanu created the ASCII art themselves for the coke can, and not taking from anywhere else, it does not fail NFCC in any way. Is it appropriate as a user page element, that's a different question, but it's not one for NFCC.

(To be clear, while ASCII art is "text" and NFCC is meant to cover media files, I would argue that ASCII art would need to be considered as if it was a media file, and thus if it was a derivative work of a copyrighted piece of art, it would run afoul. That's not the case here.) --MASEM (t) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And to further clarify: The original image that I think Avanu had, this one File:New Coke can.jpg, is non-free, that while the can shape, and the "COKE" logo are uncopyrightable, the two swirls up the sides create copyrightable elements in the overall design of the can, so yes, it would fail NFCC being used on a user page. The ASCII art version does not have the NFCC problem since whatever derivative work is is borrowing from are uncopyrightable elements. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Masem, your opinion is not shared by the Coca-Cola Company, since the can of Coke I just went to the deli and bought is clealrly labelled "(c) 2012 The Coca-Cola Company".

While separate elements of a work of visiual design, such as the "Coca-Cola" logo may or may not be separately copyrightable, others, such as the "swirl" may be, and the assemblage of all the elements into a visual whole is quite clearly copyrightable, and has been copyrighted by Coca-Cola. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we don't do independed evaluations of the legality of the copyright -- when someone claims copyright on something, we act as if it is copyrighted.

Further, while an alumninum soda can is most certainly not copyrightable because of its utilitarian nature, the design on it is another matter altogether, and it is, I believe, I matter of settled copyright law that such designs can be copyrighted.

So, no amount of hedging here is going to make an image of a Coke can anything less than a derviative work of copyrighted material, and, as such, usuable on[REDACTED] only in articles when accompanied by a proper non-free use statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A question to consider is whether Coke would be able to sue me if I put that design on a T-shirt and sold it. I would think so. Sædon 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's ASCII image is not the same as a current can being made. It lacks any other art elements, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. If it did include the swirl, then yes, then a copyright argument can be made. But this is not what Avanu's image is; there is nothing that be copyrighted by the design as used by Avanu. Now, the trademark point, that's an aspect to talk about in regards to whether its appropriate to have trademarked but uncopyrighted images there on WP:UP, but NFCC offers nothing to say: NFCC cares not about trademakrs. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Masem: You're seeing the logo in the can as a logo, per se. I do not know if your argument that the logo, as a logo, is not copyrightable is correct or not, but it's actually irrelevant here, since we;re not dealing with the logo, we're dealing with an image of a Coke can in ASCII. When a visual design is copyrighted, the entire design is copyrighted, and use of any identifiable part of the design is a copyright infringement. In this case, the copyrighted can's design includes the vertical logo, so showing that part of the design is perforce a copyright violation. It's also irrelevant whether the ASCII art representation is of a current can or not, since Coke cans have been copyrighted for many years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at it as an image. It has two elements: a can shape, and the Coke logo. It does not have the other aspects like the swirls that would be copyrightable elements on the can. Two uncopyright elements, put together in a non-artistic manner will still not qualify for copyright. As you say, the entire visual design can be copyrighted, but this does not extend to the individual component elements, and that' sthe case here. Remember, the very simple version of the ASCII art here has never be an actual design of a coke can - it has never been that simply laid out. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you're over-thinking it, frankly. The ASCII-art is clearly a representation of a Coke can, and the designs on Coke cans are copyrighted, therefore the representation is a derivative work and subsquently non-free in Misplaced Pages terms. Further, we rarely go into these kinds of in-depth analyses as to what is and what isn't copyrighted when determining what is free and non-free in regard to Misplaced Pages policy. If something is labelled as copyrighted by the owner, I believe that WMF policy requires us to regard it (and all its parts) as being copyrighted -- and especially so since we're not talking about trying to preserve something for its encyclopedic value to our readers, but simply the desire of a single user to make a flippant remark on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, we do consider if someone improperly claims copyright on something that cannot be copyrighted; if a publisher tried to slap a copyright on an unmodified late 19th century photo that we sure was taken prior to 1923, we'd laugh that copyright off and ignore said claims. We actually do consider numerous elements regarding copyright.

Now, let's take a better example: if I took File:Green soda can 3d.svg (from commons), and File:Coca-Cola logo.svg (in the PD due to age), and put them together without any other embellishments, I'd still have a copyright-free image, that is based on a trademark (read: I wouldn't be able to sell beverage products with that look, and probably any other product, without Coca-cola challenging the trademark). Making that into an ASCII image doesn't alter the free-ness of the image. There is no originality in the image, and thus cannot be copyrighted. It is as soon as I add in the decorative elements like the swirl to match the existing cans does that being to make the overall image copyrighted, and if it starts to approach the true design of a Coke can does it become a copyrighted derivative work. We haven't passed that point yet. The ASCII art is a properly free image. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In regard to Masem's final point, the ASCII art protrays a Coke can not a Coca-Cola logo. Using the former violates copyright. while using the latter is violating Coke's right to protect their registered trademark. Is this something Misplaced Pages needs to allo, simply so a user can say "Have a refreshing drink while you're here"., when a photo of a glass of coke or juice or water would serve exactly the same purpose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another point that's pertinent here is that the clear intent of NFCC #9 is to limit the use of non-free images to the encyclopedia proper, and only then when properly justified by explanations that justify the usage. I'm on record as being in favor of the value to the encyclopedia of bending over backwards to allow non-free images to be used in articles whenever possible, but these arguments carry no weight in regard to user pages, which have no educational or encyclopedic need to use non-free images, since their sole purpose is for communication between editors or to carry personal statements by editors. Were the image in question used in an article, then the questions Masem has brought up would be pertinent in determining whether we should allow the usage or not, but since the image is used on a user page, an entirely different standard applies, per NFCC #9. For user pages, we do not and should not bend over backwards to allow usage; instead the most stringent and narrowest standards of usage should apply, i.e. unless an image is clearly and without debate free of copyright problems, it should not be placed on a user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(computer died) Actually the first image I had File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg was deleted co-incidentally enough, shortly after Beyond My Ken first removed it from my Talk page. (16:51, 22 July 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)))

I can only wonder how Malik noticed this so fast right after BMK removed it from my page, maybe he has a tool for that?

Anyway, I originally put the can there because I wanted to have something pleasing to give people a little bit of encouragement to post things with a good attitude. After BMK first began this quest, I did look though the multimedia search to try and track down a suitable replacement. You'd think we might have more nice images of soda. I personally like Coke, who doesn't? But the only image that seems suitably mouth-watering is possibly File:Raspberryade.jpg, but it just looks too tart, and when I'm thirsty I think I'd prefer sweet over tart, and yes, I know Coke is kind of tart itself, but I had "New Coke", which isn't, plus New Coke is more unique. In other words, it was a decent choice for quirky, friendly, fun, hospitable, etc, and I'm not sure why BMK chose just now to make this an issue, unless it is as I suggest above. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hardly want to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company (link); I think we've see what can happen. -- Avanu (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a picture of an aluminum can. The ASCII art is copyrightable, but is not the Coca-Cola Company's. On the side of it is drawn the Coca-Cola logo (i.e. File:Coca-Cola logo.svg), which is long public domain. How is this copyrighted to anyone but Brian D. Quick? A Coke can is not necessarily copyrighted. The pattern on a certain Coke can may be copyrighted, but I hardly see that this image is infringing on any copyrighted Coke cans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would concur with Prosfilaes. Simple text is often not able to be copyrighted, but in this case, there is no ambiguity as it is clearly in the public domain. No other element exists within the art that appears to infringe copyright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rocket Start (Mario Kart Wii).jpg

In the article HUD (video gaming). The image is replaceable by a free image (NFCC #1), as demonstrated in this revision, and it contains no NFUR for use in HUD (video gaming) (NFCC #10), nor could one be created in good faith. The reason why I'm bringing it here rather than reverting is that this has been the subject of a slow motion edit war ever since I introduced the SuperTuxKart image. See , (initial introduction of STK image); (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Double Dash!); (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Super Circuit); (replaced by me with STK image from before); (replaced with this image in question). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, Koopa Troopa uses this image with no NFUR (NFCC #10). In that article, it also appears to be duplicative of other non-free content (NFCC #3). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Removed from both articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Now File:Double Dash!!.png is back in HUD (video gaming) , and the image still fails NFCC #1 and NFCC #10. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Removed again. Barring a few limited cases, nearly every article on video game features like a HUD can be replaced with a free (open source) version or a representative mockup (like I did on Quick time event). --MASEM (t) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bane Tom Hardy5.jpg

I am nominating this image for review because I believe that it fails the low resolution criteria. An editor believes that it meets the guideline, while my position is that it is double the recommended resolution size. When I try and put in a lower resolution I am reverted. I do not find the image itself in necessity of a higher resolution, because it is only being used to illustrate the basic design of the character Bane from the film The Dark Knight Rises.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for the image to be that large. Understanding how the character looks is sufficently done at half the resolution (eg quarter size). --MASEM (t) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! This image is used in Bane in other media without rationale. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no reason for it to be any larger than the resolution used in the article The Dark Knight Rises. If there needs to be focus on the mask, the image can be cropped, and remain at 300px. Also, it needs to be removed from Bane in other media and Tom Hardy, not just for lacking a rationale for either use but because a valid rationale can not be written. The image has no business being on either article under our policies and guidelines on fair use. Also; Bignole; you should have brought the issue here before the recent reverts. Lock Cole should have done so as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Had I known this place existed I would have. Masem directed me here after I posted a question on WP:FUC. I don't believe that Lock Cole feels that there was any problem, as seen by his responses to me on his talk page when I first initiated a discussion about the image after he started reverting it back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to reduce the resolution further. It's far below the resolution listed in the policy, and it is definitely too small to be useful as an infringement for the copyrighted work. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a question of it being far below anything. That's the inverse of how we should be viewing it. It's how small can we get it to be and still maintain its encyclopedic value. Since it's not used any larger than as the default thumb size in the one article where it belongs, there's no need for the image itself to be any larger. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but that argument doesn't make much sense. The image is used at thumb size because it can be expanded and seen at full detail. Given that the point it illustrates is the "three-dimensional model of actor Tom Hardy's face and skull to design the mask", an overall resolution of 300px wide would be too low to display the mask details. But since it's also used to describe the overall appearance of the character, you can't just crop the mask and leave out the rest. There are several ways to display the mask at high resolution and the body at low-res, but those seem over-complicated with respect to just leaving the image as is. I agree about removing the non-free image from the other articles. Diego (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The point that is being made is that if you look at the lower resolution that was there, the image is still just as visible and still conveys the same illustration for the text that it is being used with. There is no point to expand it beyond the necessary range.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think Diego sums up my feelings on this specific image, but I'd also like to add that I don't see the need for the image to be the same size as the thumbnail. The thumbnail generation is a feature of the MediaWiki software; that it allows you to click through to see the detail not available in the thumbnail view seems to be important enough and encyclopedic enough to me. Not unlike pulling the physical page of an encyclopedia closer (or using a magnifying glass) to discern details not visible by holding it at typical reading distance. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see why we need a larger resolution image to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see why we need a smaller resolution image when this image complies with both policy and guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The only appearance detail that is discussed among the articles on the live-action rendition of the characters is the mask being digitally mapped to the actor's face. This would justify a close up of the actor-in-character head shot to show the mask in detail, but nothing about the entire body. A low-res of the body would be acceptable as a means of how the character is represented in this iteration of this movie (the size that Bignole has posted), but there is no support for any high res anywhere else based on the text. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Which is why, I uploaded the new image that closes in on Bane's face. It was constantly being reverted and that makes no sense. So I reverted it back. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Incorrect. Under the "Cast" section is this quote, which goes to lengths to describe the character physically (but which, IMO, does not convey the menacing nature of the character as well as the image does):

• And I doubt those are the only examples of discussing the actor and characters complete physical appearance in the article.. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And even then, those details are obvious at the smaller resolution, but to me (at least when compared to The Dark Knight) the facial aspect is more interesting since it somewhat mirrors what they had to do with Two-face; a person gaining weight to get to 198 lbs isn't hard to visualize however. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It was already small enough. This was the original issue. It's well below what the policy and guideline calls for (below even what the text says would require an expanded fair use rationale). I'm not sure why there's a "race to the smallest size possible" (really, a race to the bottom) on non-free images, especially images that already meet the requirements. This is especially troubling given that display resolutions continue to increase, and even portable devices (smartphones, tablets) have super-high resolutions where extremely low res images like this will likely cause problems for readers as we move forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This. The fair use low-resolution requirement has to be balanced with the need to provide a quality encyclopedia. As long as the image use is unlikely to impact the copyright owners' ability to profit from the work, we should strive to get the highest possible resolution that doesn't allow for professional reproduction. There's no need to have blockiness for the sake of it; the current image has enough pixel grain and compression artifacts at the current resolution, that it is enough to qualify for the low-res requirement as is. Diego (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these statements show clarity with our non-free content policy. US Fair Use law is what deals with corporate copyrights; our non-free content policy is about trying to make this a free content work and minimizing the amount of non-free material needed to support it. Everyone else here has shown how the smaller reduced image does the equivalent job within the bounds of the article to show the non-free content, thus meaning we need to use that smaller version. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given various examples of why the larger image is necessary, from the technical (displays on devices used to read Misplaced Pages are only increasing in resolution, not decreasing) to the relevance to the article (I can see details in the higher resolution image that I don't see in the lower resolution image). But using your logic, why don't we shrink it down until we can just make out the shape of a large guy with a mask? It was already within policy/guideline as far as size goes, but I guess we need to be crazy reflexive about downsizing images and make them postage stamp in size... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And we're rejected those reasons. The only text in the article that suggests the need for "higher resolution" is the face mask, meaning that a cropped image at the current resolution would be acceptable. The overall look is readily distinguished to the level of detail provided by the text by the lower resolution, full body shot image. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody would pay for this in the role of promotional art for professional media, so it's safe use with respect to Misplaced Pages:FUC 3b and WP:NFC#UUI 12. Diego (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted vid

My question is about a video on YouTube. I would like to use a part of the video (where the shooting happens) and maybe some screen-shots from it. Does it fit Misplaced Pages policy on non-free content? (I have asked the uploader to modify the license, s/he said YouTube wouldn't allow him/her to do so.) Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• You don't need YouTube's permission to change the license. The original copyright holder can change the license if they so choose, providing such proof to the m:OTRS team. There's instructions on how to approach the copyright holder, and the process to follow at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestion. I tried it before, the uploader doesn't seem to trust or understand the process and has not responded to a similar request, therefore I'm trying to use it as non-free content. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• On what article and for what purpose? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• In this article to show how the incident occurred. I believe the footage to be very important in understand the event, because the government accused protesters of faking injuries and army said they only fired to air while witnesses and journalists said it fired directly on protesters. Also, the same video was spoken about in a number of reliable source including this "Their accounts are apparently corroborated by a YouTube video of the incident". Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tv jeopardy may 25 2005 board.jpg

This looks like it could be replaced by a table or mock-up image of the Jeopardy! game board, whose layout I don't think is eligible for copyright protection. Therefore, this image appears to fail replaceability (WP:NFCC #1). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Also take a look at Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions. There, the image fails WP:NFCC #8, as it is not necessary for reader understanding of the event. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Jeopardy board layout can certainly be mocked by a free image without any copyright infringement in the derivative work. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• And the rationale is a not-permitted group rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• The rationale is flawed in that it claims the use of the image is in compliance with NFCC#1 because "No free equivalent exists that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The purpose of the use of the image in Jeopardy! seems to be the depiction of the game board layout. For that purpose, a free equivalent could reasonably be created, as Masem notes above. For NFCC#1 mere non-existence of a free equivalent is not a determining factor, since NFCC#1 requires the complete impossibility of creating a free equivalent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• No, I don't think that there is a free equivalent, there's no way that just a mockup would give a real sense of what the Jeopardy board looks like. I think it satisfies all NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a 6x6 array of TV monitors. What "real sense" is being missed?? --MASEM (t) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Georgia_State_University_Coat_of_Arms_Logo.png

The image in question is on the Georgia State University article page. My reasons for tagging is that the current image does not meet the free-use. There several logos available for GSU. As I understand it, a fair-use image can and only should be used if all ten of Misplaced Pages:NFC Policy items are met. The one in use, IMO, does not meet the specific of the ten Misplaced Pages:NFC, as numbered below. 1.)No free equivalent. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ..." Reasoning: The image used is from "History of GSU", The current logo of GSU is self-described as representing GSU for free-use on the GSU style guide page. It is available in several formats; block with text, block without text, round for free-use. 8.)Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Reasoning: The presence of this image, versus the free-use does not significantly increase the readers' understand of the topic. The omission of this image, and use of the free-use would not be detrimental to that understanding.

I humbly request that this submission be considered under the criteria of Misplaced Pages:NFC, and that alone as I understand that this is the forum for that consideration. Fomeister (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have rejected Fomeister's arguments in the article's Talk page. In response to these specific points, the response has been that there is no free equivalent of the university's seal as a logo is not a seal. Should others form a different consensus, this will necessitate a larger discussion as that would differ from the current consensus and potentially impact many articles and images.

It may be useful to review the rather extensive discussion of this issue in the article's Talk page, including the responses received after an RfC was opened. And now that I've pointed you in the direction of that discussion and reiterated my position, I'll try to stay out of this discussion so others can offer their opinion without significant interference. ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree substantially with ElKevbo above and with Danielklotz's well-crafted 10-point justification at Talk:Georgia State University#Justification for use of seal per Misplaced Pages policy. To address the issue in my own words: The seal is appropriate under all WP:NFCC criteria. Criteria 1: There is, in fact, no free use logo, as all of the logos on the link provided by Fomeister are copyrightable. (Unless, of course, GSU is interested in releasing their coyright via WP:OTRS, but I bet not.) I believe that he is confused by the Gratis versus libre issue. Criteria 8: There is important contextual significance, as both the seal and logo are necessary for identification in the infobox. (The logo is the contemporary graphic identity, as unis change logos often, while the seal is the long-standing identity).--GrapedApe (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the "newer" (flame symbol) logos are not free (they are copyrightable, passing the threshold of originality), so there's no immediate "free" replacement. The only issue I do see is that the page with the logos does also include the seal image which states "The university seal should not be used as a logo or as a marketing tool." In other words, the seal image should not be used in the infobox, but instead one of the actual logos. It still an allowable non-free image use. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Check that, as I'm not sure the usual standards for college infoboxes - if it is norm to use the seal if one exists, then the seal image is fine. If instead the logo is preferred, then that's the case I discuss above. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The standard practice is to use the university seal at the top of the infobox, and the logo at the bottom of the infobox. I agree care should be taken not to label or present the university seal as a logo, but in my opinion that is not the case here. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The university's internal rule that the seal is not used as a "logo or as a marketing tool" does not apply to Misplaced Pages.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, especially if they provide both, and as VQuakr states, that there is a distinction made in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does the University get to dictate to Misplaced Pages? I think that WMF would be very surprised to hear that.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Commons has decreed that the putatively free logo is not free: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gsulogo.jpg. Hopefully that will end the Criteria 1 "No free equivalent" portion of the argument.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• My request for a free image from GSU was responded to yesterday. They have agreed to make their LOGO free. I then forwarded them the link to wikipedia POLICY. They will make a decision on whether to submit email via email, or list CC-BY-SA 3.0 or Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 on the page containing the logo. I humbly submit to all involved in this, that[REDACTED] is not about winning, but it is first and foremost about using free content. Fomeister (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would say that Misplaced Pages is about creating the best free online encyclopedia, which sometimes requires using non-free content.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Response appreciated GrapeApe, but my arguments to this point, and my references are to the third pillar, emphasis mine. "Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Misplaced Pages. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." I have and continue to strive to find free alternatives. Be it giving rational and common sense of why the seal should not be used, up to and including the request to GSU for free licensing. However some, as noted above that believe that they will include any image they wish, under fair-use without regard to this pillar, NFR, or NFCC. Albeit the intention may be to "make the best 💕", that is not what[REDACTED] is about. And to that extent, that is why these pillars, and POLCY exist. It never has been the goal of[REDACTED] to be the best free online encyclopedia. That being your opinion, I respect it, and sincerely respect your civility, but there is no argument to be found in regards to wikipedia's pillars: "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute."Fomeister (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Then it is clear that you are against any kind of fair use material and are against all policy in WP:NFCC. That explains why you are so adamently against the use of this image which is clearly within the bounds of WP:NFCC. I would encourage you to start a discussion there to change the policy to be more to your liking.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg

Use in 1982 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament fails WP:NFCI#4 as the current use is not for critical commentary, but for identification. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's a unique logo for that year's event, and the logo easily passes the Threshold of Originality, it would be reasonable to have that logo in that location. The use of the banner as a substitute for the logo is probably okay here, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a non-free SVG image of that logo for the same purpose. (Please note: you cannot "fail" any of the NFCI clauses; they are cases where images are typically allowed but not the only cases). --MASEM (t) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with your last sentence. I think the use of the image is not allowed as the banner seems to be Other promotional material, but the image is not used for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While it is an image of a banner, it's the logo on that banner that is being used. Again, someone can vectorize that logo easily from that, and while we're still left with the non-free logo, its still appropriate. Until that SVG is done, the banner's fine as is (there's no free replacement, so removal is unwarranted.) --MASEM (t) 13:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not, as the image is being used for identification and not for critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, NFCI is not fully inclusive. NFCI sets out conditions where the use of said image in said fashion will likely not be challenged (assuming all other NFCC is met). Use a type of image in a completely different fashion has to be reviewed for NFCC, but using it in a way not listed doesn't fail it immediately (that's what the Unacceptable Uses list provides); furthermore there's uses that don't fall into any of the NFCI brackets but are fine by NFCC standards. While it is a banner, and not being used for critical commentary, it is being used like a logo to represent the tourney, which is generally accepted to implicitly represent branding and marketing. It is a reasonable use that that not-freely-replacable non-free image were it a logo; just because it happens to be a logo on a banner isn't a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The image is of a banner hanging at a tournament, so I think it falls into Other promotional material. The use is clearly not for critical commentary. Yes, it depicts a logo, but it also is a banner which is promotional material. If it were only the logo, it would be acceptable, but not as long as it is also Other promotional material. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mis-reading NFCI. It does not say that "other promotional material" can only be used if there is critical commentary about it. It is saying, however, that "other promotional material" is likely not going to be rejected under appropriate NFCC terms if there is critical commentary with it; if you don't have critical commentary, then the use of the image will be reviewed and challenged if the rationale for its use is not strong enough. Because this is a banner that is showing a logo from a tourney that pre-dated the Internet and thus what appears to be the only image of that logo in electronic form, using it as a replacement for a simple logo is a completely fair rationale. Yes, this would "fail" the NFCI about "other promotional material", but again, NFCI's clauses are not meant to restrict the images to just those uses, only to identify where their use likely won't be challenged as long as the rest of NFCC requirements are met. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The rationale says "it cannot be replaced, as it is a unique item" and it "will serve to identify the winner of the first NCAA Tournament". How does that demonstrate compliance with NFCC#8, ie. how is the use appropriate under NFCC? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The rational can be fixed to take the focus off identifying the winner (as that's not necessary) and onto the aspect of being the identifying logo of the tourney. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to reduce the focus of the image to the logo itself in an image editing program. Should I include the white letters reading "1982 LOUISIANA TECH" in that version or should it only show the ship logo and the words NCAA82, Norfolk, March 26-28? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to touch the image. If anything, we need someone with SVG abilities to recreate just the logo part of the image to be used on that article. Until that is done, the use of the banner as the logo should be pointed as such on the caption and the rational. "The banner shows the logo of this event." "There is no version of the logo otherwise available, so the banner image showing the logo is being used in lieu of that". --MASEM (t) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a new rationale which is at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NCAA Banner rationale and is intended to replace the current rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:CWS Logo.jpg

Use in 2008 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2009 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2010 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2012 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament and 2012 College World Series violates WP:NFCC#10c. All those uses also seem to violate NFCC#8 and may fail WP:NFCI#2. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the only place where that logo is appropriate is College World Series (which is the event that it described). Without a specialized logo for the individual years, repeating it is inappropriate (being non-free). --MASEM (t) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Toyota-SaveMart 350 race logo.png

Use in 2008 Toyota/Save Mart 350 violates WP:NFCC#10c. All uses except the use in Toyota/Save Mart 350 fail WP:NFCI#2 and thus are likely in violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeating non-free logos for yearly events is inappropriate. Agreed on this. (If each year had a unique logo, that would be different) --MASEM (t) 12:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg

The surcing info is dodgy and highly unlikely to be "own work" of a individual user. In said regard see hthe users uploads Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't File:Danielle Rodrigues Lins.jpg#Metadata suggest the user did in fact take the image himself? I found the same image here, but I don't know whether they just took it from Misplaced Pages or vice versa. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, erhaps we can get another opinion on this?Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the file's hosted on commons, we can't do anything about it here. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Metadata creation date & time: 2011-08-13T15:40:08 (unknown time zone)
• Commons upload date & time: 2011-08-13T18:48:33 (GMT)

The timestamps could be given in different time zones, but in either case, the uploader was only given a few hours to copy it from elsewhere. If a file was uploaded almost immediately after taking it, this may be an indication that the file isn't a copyright violation. Also, the uploader has uploaded many other photos which were taken using the same camera model. I think that it is unlikely that the file is a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings

Our use of several images of Andrew Wyeth paintings has been questioned by a representative of the copyrightholder. (OTRS agents can see the request at 2012080810007978 ).

I would like a review of each of these images, to determine whether we are in compliance.

In one case, File:LONGLIMB.jpg, it is my opinion that it is not compliant, as the painting isn't mentioned in the article. I have removed the image from the article, pending the results of this investigation.

Images:

• File:LONGLIMB.jpg appeared in Andrew Wyeth
• File:Christinasworld.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, 20th-century Western painting, Christina's World, Days of Heaven, History of painting, Western painting
• File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
• File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
• File:Latefall.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the copyright holder is the Wyeth estate or the closely related Brandywine River Museum - which do have a reputation for being pretty careful with copyright - which is, of course, their right. If somebody else is complaining, I'd ask why they think they have copyright standing. Our business is to check whether we are meeting our fair use standards. The "low resolution" standard is met for all the paintings. File:Christinasworld.jpg seems appropriate for the article Christina's World, but could easily be replaced in the other articles. Similarly File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg or File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg could be used in The Helga Pictures, but not both. Unless there is at least one freely licensed Andrew Wyeth painting in the world (doubtful - the general copyrightholder could tell you), then any single low-res AW painting could be used in the Andrew Wyeth article (I'd suggest a tempura painting), but multiple paintings aren't needed. Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is the estate. Thanks for your feedback. Obviously, others are welcome to chime in, but I'll provide this feedback to the person contacting us, especially to see if there are any freely licensed images.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg which is in the MoMA collection in NYC and is perhaps Wyeth's best known work; with iconic status is an important addition to all 3 of the painting history articles that it is currently in as well as the Andrew Wyeth article itself. Wyeth occupies an important place in American art of the mid 20th century and it is both respectful and informative to include an image of his remarkable paintings. Christina's World has the recognizability and quality to represent Wyeth well in the History of Painting, and Western Painting which are meaningful and historical painting surveys as well as 20th-century Western painting which focuses on more recent art; in which Wyeth should be represented...Modernist (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg is not needed in Days of Heaven and it doesn't have a fair use resolution there and I've removed it from the article...Modernist (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Christina's World was not discussed (or even mentioned) in either 20th-century Western painting or Western painting, so I've removed it from both. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the text that was omitted, thank you for catching the omission...Modernist (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones about The Helga Pictures. I don't think we can justify having 2 copyrighted images in the article when neither of them are directly discussed. I would favor either removing both or keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg and removing File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg (as the text does at least mention her braids). Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well although I greatly prefer keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg because it is a widely known painting that is associated with the The Helga Pictures, and works well here Helga paintings, much better than the File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, History of painting is far too focussed on particular paintings, because the corresponding general content is just not there. If it were, the article would three times longer; it would be too long and shortened /split off, and some of the fair use images would not remain. Not sure what to do at the present juncture though, as I cannot contribute the content at this time.
• Five non-free images for a single painter is usually excessive; File:Latefall.jpg appears to be undiscussed in the article completely, as is Overflow. THis ought to change if the images are to be retained. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed Overflow and Latefall. Neither were being properly used as fair-use illustrations in the articles. I'm still a bit concerned about our use of Christina's World in 5 different articles, though. It seems to be pushing the boundary of "minimal use". Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those removals, Christina's World is Wyeth's seminal work and he was a major force in American painting; I agree that 5 is the absolute max for that image...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it in Western painting and 20th-century Western painting. The discussion of it in History of painting was a bit gratuitous and didn't really add anything to the section. I've removed it there. At this point, I think I'm satisfied that all the uses are justified. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, apparently we aren't supposed to use non-free images in more than 4 articles, according to Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Overused non-free files. Kaldari (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, good work...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Horwath.PNG

Image is under an all rights reserved copyright, and is for a politician for which numerous substitutes are available. IsUsername (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• That image is at commons, and it does appear that the image was approved by an administrator as being freely licensed at the time of upload. The flickr user may have changed the license after then, but a CC release may not be revoked. Please feel free to DR it at commons if you are still suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Nigeria.jpg

This fails WP:NFCC#10c at multiple places:

• Coats of arms and emblems of Africa
• Sabo Bakin Zuwo
• User talk:Mr Hall of England
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 68
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 70

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#9 at multiple places:

• User talk:Mr Hall of England
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 68
• User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 70

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#8 at multiple places:

• Coats of arms and emblems of Africa
• Sabo Bakin Zuwo

Finally, this fails WP:NFG in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed from the user-pages. Agree other uses are NFCC#8 vios. (Are we sure all the coats of arms are free?) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to find out if the other images in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa are free or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can click on the images to see what the claimed license is, but that needs to be checked further. None of those fail the threshold of originality, so they either must be PD due to age or due to being a work of the government (like PD-USgov is). These images need to explicitly state that here or on Commons for that to happen. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) to take into account which makes everything more tricky. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We've never really closed the circle on this one. Yes it ought to be the case that many coats of arms are replaceable with a free equivalent, of sorts, but I think we've essentially informally recognised as exception as this would require a new creative work, unlike, say photographs of living people. When people argue against non-free files, I'm not convinced this is really what they have in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:University of Cambridge Crest.svg

This fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles:

• Cambridge University Association Football League
• Colleges of the University of Cambridge

Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Replace all uses with File:Cambridge University Crest.svg, a free alternative. A handful were switched over because of a minor complaint about the lion display; even as a heraldist myself the free version is not incorrect (merely suboptimal) and should nto have been replaced with a non-ftree verison. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the unfree version as replaceable, then. Doesn't Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) basically say that all unfree coats of arms should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Athens 2004 Olympic bid logo.png

This file is used twice in the article Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Per WP:NFCC#10c, non-free files should have a fair use rationale for each use of the image. This means that a file used twice in an article should have two fair use rationales for that article. However, this file only has one fair use rationale. Besides, one of the uses of this image fails WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just spot-checked other articles in the "Bids for the YYYY Olympics" series, and they all suffer the same problem in that they have tables of non-free logos. I am pretty confident that nearly every major contemporary bid for being an Olympic city could be a notable topic on its own, allowing the logos to be used there, but certainly not the table of logos as given now on each of those pages. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Within the topic of Olympic bids, these table lists help readers to compare the different bidding cities. Assuming that, their logos are better located in those tables than in thumbnails outside them. These two distinct forms of content display (table and thumbnail), are basically the same regarding the purpose of use, therefore, in a table or not, it actually does not change anything. The location of the logo is pointless, WP:NFTABLE should not be applicable here. Felipe Menegaz 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The location doesn't change anything, which is exactly why they would also fail WP:NFCC#8 if placed as thumbnails outside the tables. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)But it does. Without any discussion in depth about the image of the logo itself from sources (who drew it, what was the inspiration, etc?) the logos are simply identifying the bid attempt, and fail WP:NFCC#8 (the article is understandable without the images in use). If each bid had its own separate article - again, something I believe could happen with more recent ones - the logo would be appropriate on those articles, but non-free logo use is not appropriate in tables nor when the page is not about the entity the logo represents. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is an article about five entities—Candidate cities—represented by logos, and the descriptions of which logo would be not understandable without the images. Felipe Menegaz 22:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is about the bidding process for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Because the 5 city efforts are reduced to a table, the article is not about those but the overall bidding process. Non-free logos are not appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The bidding process only exists because of the entities that constitute it. That is why the article is called Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics, not 2004 Summer Olympics bid process. Felipe Menegaz 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)