Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Music of The Lord of the Rings film series

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that six non-free album covers is too many for this article. Four images were removed, and consensus maintains that the remaining two images are acceptable. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article contains several album covers for the various film soundtracks in the series. Werieth thinks that this usage is not compatible with WP:NFLISTS. I think though that fair use in this case is allowable.

NFLISTS refers to "articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic" and recommends that "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic". There is, however, now common visual aspect for the different album covers, nor is this article a simple list with brief sections that only mention a single topic in passing. The recommended steps in NFLISTS to reduce the usage of non-free media in list articles cannot be applied to the article for the following reasons (referring to the corresponding numbers in NFLITS):

There does not seem to be a collective image by the publisher that shows all relevant covers in a single photograph. If such an image exists it should be used instead though to present a visual identifier at the beginning of the article.
Non-free album covers are commonly used on Wikipedia as a visual identifier without them being the subject of critical commentary in prose. That's even the default rationale for "infobox" usage in {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}: "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the topic of the article."
As said above there is no representative visual identifier for all album covers. Hence we should present all of them.
The images not used anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Although depicting cast members, the images are not meant to identify a specific actor or character but serve to identify the relevant album.
This is probably the only questionable point. Images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be restricted to major elements. IMO this is the case for this article: The album covers are the major visual elements.

To sum it up: Even for list articles, NFLISTS does not completely rule out the use of non-free images, and the article in question is neither a plain list nor a gallery. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On the article talk there's also a reference to OTRS No. 2010070310005654 about copyright concerns that were addressed in July 2010. I can't see any details about it but will ask for clarification at the OTRS notice board. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus rejecting use of multiple nonfree cover image in articles of this sort is solid and has been reaffirmed several times. While I have argued against its strict application in various policy discussions, mostly related to book series, the community has supported that strict application. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that is in between. You clearly could possibly make all the albums individual articles based on notability, but I am completely with the concept that covering all the albums as one comprehensive topic is much more valuable to the reader than doing all 6 separately due to the cohesiveness of the information. There have been discussions without clear results of what can be done in such cases.

But, ignoring that, let's consider the covers. Two of three replicate (for TT and ROTK) replicate the film poster, and thus aren't really necessary (even though we don't have the film posters on this page, the reader can click through to see that, and if the soundtracks were covered on the film pages as done for standalone films, those covers would not be allowed due to near similarity), so I agree those can go. Of the three Complete Recordings versions, they are all mostly text (but the BG art puts it into copyrightable originality) and really only one is needed as an example to show how that was marketed. Thus , I can reasonably see two covers used: the first OST from FOTR, and the cover of the Complete Recordings from FOTR. Note that to help flesh the article, you can grab free imagery of the key people involved like Howard Shore. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Two is far better than the 6 that I removed. We just dont need that many non-free files for this article. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket was unrelated to the images, which leaves us with the task of reducing the number of non-free content in this article. I think we should enact the solution proposed by Masem: one image for the first OST from FOTR, and one cover of the Complete Recordings from FOTR. The rest can in fact be described in the text (referencing the film posters is a good idea). De728631 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with just the limited two here. Werieth (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:MST3K Gunslinger.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Top image already deleted. No consensus on status of other files. Discussion stale for a month. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also:

At the GA review of Gunslinger (1956 film), an article I wrote and nominated, erachima commented that he didn't feel the FUR was sufficient. These images are being used to show the silhouettes of the characters, which is discussed critically in the text, so I feel they are justified. However, there is conflict, so I bring these images here. You decide. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have recently added a shot from MST3K's version of Mr. B Natural (which is also being used there for that short - eg minimizing non-free use) to demonstrate the show's Shadowrama effect. As such, you don't need to show that effect on the articles about the non-MST3K versions of the movies - saying it was on MST3K is sufficient to say without showing the screenshots. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Lana Del Rey - Video Games.ogg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove from Baroque Pop article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use on Baroque pop seems to fail WP:NFCCP#1, as I see no reason that free media couldn't be created that would equally demonstrate the genre.

(The file is also used at Video Games (song); I think that's legitimate. I'm flagging this in case it needs to be removed from Baroque pop only.)

—me_and 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not notified the original uploader, RenamedUser01302013, as they appear to have vanished. —me_and 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. Use is not justified. It is not even clear that this can be said to be typical of the genre.--SabreBD (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the use on Baroque Pop is not appropriate. (But it is completely in NFCC lines on the article about the song). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are more appropriate samples to choose from. There is nothing "baroque pop" about that song.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the article for the song does not even mention baroque pop. A music sample from a song that is commonly described as baroque pop, such as "Yesterday," would work better in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All Together Now (The Farm song)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that only the first cover should remain in article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a: all but one of the images should go. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: the first cover is fine, but even considering some allowance for alternate covers, none of the other three seem to have a wide release that would merit the need for a second cover image. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Night of the Stormrider

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that article only needs one album cover file. The remaining have been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free gallery of cover illustrations. Three of them should go away. Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't see the German issue being that significant in distribution so that should go, and remastered/reissue covers need to have discussion to be included. Keep the one in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The John Gawlik House.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: File Deleted as CSD#F7 by Diannaa. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A 1909 image of a US subject is clearly PD surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Depend if that's a publication date? As regards non-free, I assume the building's still standing in a comparable form? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And we're missing #10c rationales here on both articles it is used on. Unless we have assurances of being out of copyright we need to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeterminate copyright status. Without a publication date, we have to assume that it is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The building still stands, so a freely available image could be created. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Rite-Hite headquarters.jpg

Speedily deleted under CSD#F7. --NtheP (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This isn't a logo it's an interior. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is both listed as a logo by someone other than the uploader and as a photo taken by the uploader. I suggest that we assume that it is unfree and delete it per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated it for F7 speedy deletion; the building exists and a free image could easily be created. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Savarkaringroup.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image is not free in the United States although it is potentially free in the origin country India. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is claimed to have expired in it's origin country, Photo dates from 1944, If as claimed it's a government image, then I don't see why this is 'non-free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos are protected by copyright for 60 years since publication in India (50 years since creation if taken before 1908). Although it was taken in 1944, we have no information about when it was first published. If it was published in 1944, then the copyright has expired in India. If it remained unpublished for at least 20 years, then the copyright hasn't expired in India yet.

USA uses different rules. In USA, the rule is that an Indian photo must have been published before 1941 (unless it satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}). This is explained in the warning in the template. As it was taken in 1944, the photo is unfree in the United States and needs to be treated as an unfree work on Wikipedia.

The image violates WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg

Deleted as F7. --Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree that we need a possibly non-free image for this. The gun is pretty common, found in several Russian museums (here for example) and there are several PD photos of it in volume two of the book by Chinn (US gov't work) of the exemplar tested at Arbedeen. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't see how this meets WP:NFCC#1. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If this is a Russian photo from 1940 or 1941 (when the gun was introduced), it would actually be free as {{PD-URAA}} though. There are some books which have photo credits detailed enough to establish this; I'm going to go through them and investigate that angle (see if this photo shows up in any of them). Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- {{PD-URAA}} requires that the photographer is anonymous or that he died before 1946 (before 1942 if he participated in WWII). The source is not very exact, so it's not possible to establish whether the photo is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free images in Charles Lindbergh

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there were most of the non-free images fail NFCC#8 and to date 4 of those images have been removed. As there has been no further discussion in over a month, especially none relating to specific issues with specific images, I am closing this discussion as stale/no consensus on the remaining images with the notion that this discussion can be brought up again at any time. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

None of the non-free files used in the article comply with the NFCC, particularly number 8: a lack of these images is not shown to be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article. I have been BOLD and removed them, but have been reverted twice and the comments raised at the talk page have not addressed how these reach the criteria. Rather than edit war over this, I would rather a wider community consensus be reached here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

File:WE CAL 1927.jpg - Book cover, used only to illustrate a block quote

File:America First Committee.jpg - Non-free logo, used to illustrate Lindbergh's involvement in the group, no argument why the logo is necessary

File:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.jpg - Book cover, one of two used to illustrate a section on Lindbergh's books and books about Lindbergh, no discussion of cover or image used

File:WE cover.jpg - Book cover, one of two used to illustrate a section on Lindbergh's books and books about Lindbergh, no discussion of cover or image used (this one might approach PD-Simple, but the aircraft [I think] would belie that claim)

KEEP: These four images (each of which has been illustrating this article for from five to seven years without previous complaint or challenge) are relevant to both the subject of the article and to its text. A more detailed discussion of this issue and why the claims of the OP here are faulty, that they have been addressed, and his unilateral deletions have also been reversed now by two different editors can be found in the Lindbergh talk page here and are incorporated here by reference. Centpacrr (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That two different editors reverted does not mean that the usage is correct, and I note that as of this time stamp there has yet to be any in-depth discussion of how not using the images would be detrimental to a reader's understanding. The onus is on those who wish to use the images (WP:NFCC), so please fulfill your part. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you want to keep the images (and assuming you have the source books) you would be well-off to see if there is a copyright notice on them. If there's none (and for the 1920s books I wouldn't be surprised if there is none) they could be safely uploaded to Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again let me point out that an "onus" that calls on one to meet a faulty, completely subjective "prove a negative" standard of "omission being detrimental to a reader's understanding" is an essentially meaningless exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Then go to WT:NFCC and try to change it. Violating a policy because you think it is "faulty, [and] completely subjective" is not something that reflects favourably on you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove fails NFCC 1,3,8 Werieth (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In an abundance of caution and in a serious attempt to comply with the "letter" of the standard cited I have trimed out all images and related materials (but only those contributed by myself and not others) that can be said to not contribute to readers' understanding until the issue of "too many images" is resolved. Centpacrr (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I undid your large scale deletion. Somewhere between doing nothing and a mass deletion, interested editors can come to some sort of a consensus over what should stay and what should go (regardless of who contributed it). I suppose we could start with the four images noted above and work from there. – JBarta (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the images I had contributed over the years to be consistent with meeting the policy of readers' understanding insisted upon by editors Cisco and Werieth to apparently delete first and seek consensus later. As for these images the only "rationale" I can provide for having contributed them other is that I believe that they are relevant to both the subject of the article and to its text. As this standard has already been rejected by editors Cisco and Werieth, to achieve consistency I removed my image file contributions unless and/or until there is some consensus achieved to restore them. Centpacrr (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reply, to me, indicates that your understanding of non-free content is even worse than I thought. This is quite discouraging, particularly for one who works in images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
A large-scale deletion of every image you added to the article is not a solution... it's a tantrum. A real solution would be to start by addressing the four images above and see if the other editors have a valid complaint. Then you might ask Crisco what images he thinks the article can do without or how they may be re-arranged. Then you see what you can come up with. Then between the two of you a nice compromise is reached and the article is all the better off for it. (I know... what have I been smoking??) – JBarta (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden with non-free content is on the contributor, and I see no argument presented here for inclusion other than "it's been this way for a long time" and "Crisco presents no argument for removal". The first is not a sufficient reason, even if it just concerns the MOS issues signaled by Crisco, and the second is neither here nor there, since the burden is on the contributor, not the remover. In other words, the content should be removed. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you have all missed the point that I am trying to make which is that it seems to me that to apply a patently subjective standard which is not objectively unachievable for the retention/deletion of different classes of image files based only on whether or not they are also subject to the fair use provisions of copyright law and not related to their content seems to me to be nonsensical. The reason I find this illogical is that it implies that free images/illustrations that can just as easily be claimed by anyone to not contribute to or aid a reader's understanding (a standard which is so broad and subjective as to potentially included every image, free or otherwise) are nonetheless acceptable irrespective of their ability to meet an unachievable "prove a negative"-like standard. The problem is that such a standard for inclusion/exclusion of image files is thereby rendered essentially meaningless, and the reason that I deleted my "free" images (all of which I think should be kept along with the four deleted "non-free" images) was to point out the fallacy of this contradictory inconsistent standard approach of the use of image files to illustrate WP content which is unrelated to content.

This is therefore not a "tantrum" but a way of my making and illustrating my point that I find the inconsistent application of a completely subjective "doesn't increase readers' understanding" standard to one class of image files based exclusively on copyright status and not their content and not any other class of images to be fallacious. Others may, of course, may disagree with me but that's my good faith view and I have every right to express and demonstrate it by showing how the consistent application of such a standard to image files (as illustrated by showing what happens when it is applied to my free files as well) is counterproductive to the objectives of the Wikipedia project. That's my point. Centpacrr (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Our goal is to encourage the development of a free content encyclopedia. Thus free images, even if they don't add much to the understanding but are at least relevant to the topic at hand, are fine. Inclusion of non-free, however, is not guided by fair use law (which would likely allow for similar image) but that non-free content should be used exceptionally when the image will significant increase the reader's understanding of the topic and would harm that if the image was absent. Thus, things like covers of books written about the topic (such as many of these images) typically can be dropped since they are interesting but not vital to understand that a book was written about the topic. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What Masem says. To which extent these standards are "subjective"--well, that's already missing the point, which is, rather, that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for reasonable editors of good faith to come to an agreement as to which particular images in a given case do or do not aid to a reader's comprehension. It's called compromise based on argument, or consensus building. We do this all the time here (and, I'm afraid, in the outside world). What's lacking in your somewhat repetitive rebuttals is an argument for including any one of these images; that you don't like the rules on using non-free content is clear, but you'd have to take that up somewhere else--with a legislator, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand that process and do not disagree with it. The problem in this case is that this step was skipped. As for these particular image files, even though they are not currently in the Lindbergh article (the only issue raised by the OP), they are also not orphaned as they are still in use (with full rationales) in other articles that relate specifically to them. Centpacrr (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elia Kazan

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is most of the non-free images can and have been replaced therefore failing NFCC#1. At this time, the article includes zero non-free images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed 6 non-free files from this bio, where there are still a number of free files and that most files failed NFCC#1 or 8. The user is complaining about it and other than WP:ILIKEIT hasn't offered any policy based arguments Werieth (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Elia_Kazan#Non-free_images Werieth (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal was clearly correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the version with images can be evaluated with this diff. Diego (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The images would be a good addition if they were free, as they're contextually relevant to the section the appear on. But they're not free, and the on-stage shots don't provide any particular information other than identification of the people in them, which can be also achieved with images at their respective articles, so they can be removed. I would make an exception with File:Baby Doll shot.jpg; the "strong eroticism created in Baby Doll" is mentioned in the accompanying text as described by the Jeff Young reference, and the image properly illustrates it in a way that is not conveyed by words. That satisfies WP:NFCC#8 (improving understanding), and is an instance of acceptable uses WP:NFCI #5 (discussion of the film) and arguably #9 since the scene it illustrates has been subject of critical commentary. Diego (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. The article is about the director. If that scene is notable it should go in the article about the film. Werieth (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the director. Can't you see that this is totally irrelevant? WP:NFCC#8 applies wherever an image is relevant; it doesn't need that the image appears at an article dedicated to its content. The discussion of the film's direction is included at the director's article, so if it is deemed relevant to the (well-sourced) content and the content has no WP:UNDUE weight then that's no reason to delete it. Diego (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

relevant to doesnt meet NFCC. Not having it must be detrimental to understanding the subject of the article, in this case its not for Kazan. Werieth (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but Elia Kazan directed Baby Doll. :-P Diego (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That still doesnt meet NFCC. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Steven Spielberg, one of the biggest directors, or J. J. Abrams also a major director. Neither has non-free images of what they directed. Werieth (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment but as a counterpoint, there is non-free imagery of a director's works used at Stanley Kubrick but this is tied directly to sourced discussion about the common visual style and elements Kubrick would use. I could possibly argue that some other directors could support the same but only if that visual element is quintessential to the director as described by sources (eg Abrams and lens flares, for one). That said, I'm not seeing that type of visual aspect here - Kazan was about character and roles and not so much the camera work (as I read it), so there's little direct visual elements to play with there, and as such, non-frees from works he directed are not appropriate (since they all have standalone articles). --MASEM (t) 14:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Light show found a free replacement for File:Baby Doll shot.jpg, so the image is not needed. :::::::::(Somewhat offtopic): I'm concerned by one point you're both making: that there's a separate article about the film. Why should it matter at all in a case like this? The use of this image is as an example to illustrate the director's work (whether that work is of visual nature is a separate argument, independent of what I'm asking here). The director's work is discussed at the Elia Kazan article, not at Baby Doll. So why should the existence of that other standalone article for the film be a factor in this decision, when the context that could allow for the image is located at this one? Now if the eroticism produced by Elia's work was discussed at both articles I could understand, but that's not what's going on. Am I missing some relevant insight here? Diego (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable issues are normally discussed in the article about the film (if in fact that method is actually notable). Thus the article on the film should go into depth on the form. If it doesn't that is normally a good indication that the method is not unique and that the image isn't needed. Werieth (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Jonothemusical.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 20 due to discussion only being about usage and not copyright status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poster of Muscial appearance. First picture uploaded in history appears to be user's own work, but then they uploaded this file in it's place that is a poster. Rational was left for the first picture and none is given for this. Only place picture is used is on a page in user's userpage where they store pictures, so fails NF exceptions for use. Caffeyw (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete because of unclear copyright situation. The original upload statement says that the first image was "made by myself. It is a picture of my friend Jono, who gave me permission to use it." Even if Jono handed the photograph to the uploader we don't know the photographer who is the actually only one that can grant permissions. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Denis (song)

One image has been removed. --Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of the cover images should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Blondie version is clearly the more notable of the two, so the other image needs to go. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ilik Sundari by Amir Hamzah.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image seems to meet the requirement of WP:NFCC#8 and therefore can be used in the Hamzah article as fair use. Also article was promoted to FA status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am asking for more community input about this image and it's usage in the article Amir Hamzah regarding WP:NFCC #8 about contextual significance. The image has great encyclopedic value - as such its loss would be detrimental to the article itself, and i would be glad to keep it. But i am unsure, it's usage is really fair-use under our stricter Wiki-policies. GermanJoe (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Notified uploader and other interested reviewers in the FA-nomination for Amir Hamzah, where this question came up first. GermanJoe (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cross posting from the FAC (regarding source of image / reason for use):
- I'm prepared to defend the Sundari image's fair use in this article. First, about the image. It appears that Dini, when writing her book, interviewed Amir's daughter. Amir kept a scrapbook / photo album (as mentioned in our article) with his pictures in Java – including photographs of Ilik. These appear to have been first published in Dini's book, as before then they would have been in the album (she does not quote her source though). When Jassin was writing (the closest to the 1970 cutoff date for Indonesian photographs to be PD in the US), Amir's family and friends had not admitted that Ilik was Amir's Javanese lover, and thus a photograph of her would almost certainly not have been published.
- Now, regarding the use of the image in this article: that she posed, willingly, for Amir, while he photographed her, is even more depictive of their relationship than the photographs I've seen of the two together (where they are always part of a crowd). The way she's looking at him, the way she's smiling, it's fairly clear that there's more than just friendship happening. There relationship (how close they were) is a key part of this article. At worst, Ilik could be move down to the inspirations section and we could remove Tagore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just at the cusp, given that it probably possible to write a standalone article on Sundari but because of her notability being tied through Hamzah, it doesn't make sense to do that. And as much as she's mentioned, it would be fair to keep the image to show this facet.
I'll note that it's probably better that for an FAC nom, it is better to tag WT:NFC to draw attention to the FAC than to post here. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, i am also in favor of keeping this specific usage (but just wanted more input from others). In a biography this information is vital for understanding the topic in its entirety. "Understanding" is not only memorizing trivial facts, but also comprehending background and context of a topic. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Al Tilal.jpg

Image is no longer in use and is scheduled for deletion as F5 on 23 October. --Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Al-Oruba (Zabid). Not sure whether the uniform design is copyrightable or whether there might be only trademark issues involved and so it would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ScarfacePacino.jpg

The image is no longer in use and is slated to be deleted on Wednesday 23 October. --Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in Tony Montana. The images presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal from the article be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The use in the article does not constitute critical commentary and there is no direct reference to the image in the text, so it is even unclear what the purpose of the image in that section actually is. The use in Scarface (1983 film) violates NFCC#8 as well, since the article text does not have a single reference to the image and it just sits in the article without any direct connection to it. Again, the images presence does not significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both, unless that particular scene is discussed in detail; it's not in either article and only used as a visual tag for Pacino's award, which is not necessarily to visualize. (Montana has an image already). I think there's #10c issues too, but that's a smaller issue. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ayudha Poojai DVD cover.svg

Image has been replaced and is no longer in use. --Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Tagged for violation of WP:NFCC#3b since March last year, but no one appears to attempt to fix the violation. Per WP:NFCCE, non-free files should be deleted if they don't satisfy WP:NFCC within 48 hours after the tagging. As this was tagged last year, it has been tagged for more than 48 hours. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove tag and keep. The only reason this is presented at 442 x 500 is because it's an SVG and so the scale it's presented at is pretty much arbitrary. In terms of resolution the image is jaggy and blurred at this scale -- a sign that the image is actually rather low resolution, i.e. fully in conformance with what policy requires.

The image should never have been brought here. That it has been is a consequence of someone having inappropriately slapped {{Non-free reduce}} on an SVG on the basis of its (arbitrary) apparent size, rather than on the basis of it containing inappropriate detail. The correct approach should have been to remove the tag and re-educate the user that tagged it, rather than bring it here. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The SVG is being wasted here - the image is basically stored as a jpg within an SVG file - there's nothing to gain benefit of the rastering. Replace with the 444x500 JPG and it should be fine. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete as unused non-free file - I've uploaded this as a jpeg at File:Ayudha Poojai cover.jpg. There is no reason to have a raster image in vector format, it's simply broken as it is now. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:NewTalk 1420 WHK logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is due to minor details, the image is eligible for copyright protection and therefore not Pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about fading red ribbons and fading gray background. Levdr1lp / talk 18:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd treat this one as non-free. The two wavy curves and the color gradients might make this eligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:850 WRMR.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is below the threshold of originality. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about use of heart-shape. Levdr1lp / talk 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think that the US copyright office would not grant protection for this one (compare with Commons:File:Best Western logo.svg), but I am not sure about that slight 3-D effect on 850 WRMR. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:MILLTOWN PRIEST DC 1 copy.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image violates NFCC#8 on Alec Reid and was removed. Conensus is that it is valid fair use and does not violate NFCC#8 or #2 with the newer rationale. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although a rationale for the use in Corporals killings is present, that rationale is not compliant with WP:NFURG. A rationale for Alec Reid is absent. Both uses appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Alec Reid is still alive (presumably, his death is not mentioned) so non-free many not be used there, and a link to the Corporals killings would be suitable for his involvement there, so that image can't be used there (I have gone ahead and removed it). The image is likely okay on Corporals with a better rationale, as the images of the killings are sourced to be well-known, so this would be a fair use. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone ping John who added the original rationale for Corporals killings? I've made a start at adding a non-free use template on there, but he might be able to do better. The photograph is of historical importance, greatly aids the reader's understanding of the subject, and it has been documented no other substitute photograph exists. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: I do not dispute that the use in Corporals killings probably qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, but the use violates NFCC#8 (the article is still understandable if the image is not present). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I disagree that the image "greatly aids the reader's understanding of the subject". Furthermore even without the image, the article is still understandable. Therefore violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That just sounds like "it violates NFCC#8 because I say it does". Without the image to establish context, some might claim words such as "most dramatic and harrowing" would be POV pushing. The article also specifically says (and backed up with a source) that the photograph is an important part of the topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the statement could be reformulated and directly attributed to Taylor in order to avoid the impression that view of the images being the "most dramatic and harrowing" is consensus among journalists. Taylor appears to be an award-winning journalist and the statement is sourced to a book he wrote. Are there differing opinions by other respectable sources? Thinking about the images appropriateness under fair use, I guess we should also be careful about that, as the use doesn't appear to be exactly transformative (it might thus violate WP:NFCC#2). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Ritchie333. These things are always a judgement call, and I have been known to be pretty strict on non-free files. Nevertheless, having reviewed this file which I uploaded in 2008 I still think that it meets our standards. The image is so important to the article that I think it should remain, as it serves our encyclopedic purpose and "greatly aids the reader's understanding of the subject". --John (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@John: I disagree that this image "greatly aids the reader's understanding of the subject". In which way would the article be less comprehensible if the image were not present? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's a judgement call. Given that we have it sourced in the article both that this incident was particularly horrific and that this image was widely used to depict the horror of what happened, I think we can justify the nonfree use of the image. --John (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If the use of this image just had issues with NFCC#8, I would agree. This use however appears to violate NFCC#2, so I think we cannot justify the use of the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that our use of this file at 325 × 238 pixels, file size: 28 KB, interferes with David Cairns's opportunity to make money off this shot, just as I did when I uploaded it five years ago. --John (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the people who wrote WP:NFCC had in mind when they developed NFCC#2. NFCC#2 doesn't say anything about the copyright holder's ability to make money from the work. I interpret the phrase Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media as meaning that the use in Wikipedia should be transformative. In my opinion that is not the case here and this use in Wikipedia might be problematic with regards to qualifying as fair use under United States copyright law and therefore I think the use might probably not satisfy NFCC#2. However that is just that, my personal opinion. If other people have a differing opinion, that's fine. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mots d'Heures

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is three non-free covers does not adhere to NFCC policies and therefore the newer covers should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three non-free covers are used in the article without discussion of the book covers themselves. At least two should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep File:Mots D'Heures Gousses, Rames 1967.jpg but reduce the size to 200 x 301 to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. For the others, unless the article can be expanded citing reliable sources explaining the significance of the artwork, then they cannot be used. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep File:Mots D'Heures Gousses, Rames 2009 UK.jpg, as that is the cover of the 2009 edition according to this Google Books search and remove all other covers per NFCC#3a and 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I went with the 1967 cover is because I felt it had most encyclopedic reference - there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the 2009 reissue. See And Then There Were None for a similar example - two images are used, both the earliest notable examples (original UK issue, original US issue with different title). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, generally we aim to use the first printing or earliest cover when multiple covers exist, unless for some reason a later cover has more potential significance to the article. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The cover image is used solely for identification, so I think we should use the most recent one, unless an earlier one is for some reason especially recognizable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all projects that use cover art (music, books, video games) have generally decided that the earliest cover is the best for the article, in lieu of any other cover being more notable, to avoid the arguments of which one is more recognizable. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's the way things are, then that's fine with me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All else being equal, the earliest cover is going to go out of copyright the soonest. If we can't have free, we should defer to the most likely to become free in the shortest time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Z Rock Cleveland.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is due to minor details, the image is eligible for copyright protection and therefore not Pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about letter "Z". Levdr1lp / talk 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The paint drips from the Z likely push it over TOO. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WNWV logo (low res).png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is due to minor details, the image is eligible for copyright protection and therefore not Pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about background letter "V". Levdr1lp / talk 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The scribbled V likely pushes it past TOO. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WNIR (FM) logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is due to minor details, the image is eligible for copyright protection and therefore not Pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Word balloon has clean edge. Both "The Talk of Akron" and "WNIR 100 FM" font types appear uniform. Levdr1lp / talk 23:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Larger version from station website (slightly different, note 3D effect for call letters and freq.) -- used to show similarity of "A's", "K's", and "O's" in "The Talk of Akron" word balloon Levdr1lp / talk 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The "The Talk.." font looks regular, so I would consider the logo below TOO. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be better to assume that it is unfree per http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf (the second logo on page 1 is copyrighted, the first logo on page 1 isn't). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:CD102.5 logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-ineligible and has been tagged as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo. I'm assuming the shape of Ohio is not eligible for copyright. Small bubble reads "102" across, "FIVE" vertically, followed by a tiny horizontal "FM". Levdr1lp / talk 16:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As it appears to be an exact replia of the state's borders (no attempt to stylize), which are data, then the state image should be PD, and the rest should be okay. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:County Limerick Council.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to delete as it can be replaced. File has been tagged as di-replaceable fair use (CSD#F7) accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replaceable with alternative image, based on same blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Being unfamiliar with the subject of the articles, what image is that? In which way does it differ from this one? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion stale for well over a month, closing as no consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in Pokémon episodes removed from rotation. While I definitely do not dispute that this is a notable scene, I do not see how this still image significantly increases a readers understanding of that section (the flashes cannot be illustrated by a still image anyway). The use in Photosensitive epilepsy seems to violate NFCC#8 as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable here as well as the epilepsy article. Showing the full effect would of course cause the same problems the episode caused with WP readers so we can't do that, but it is fair to with how much discussion there was over that to show one example of where than more than 50% of the screen was a flashing color cycle (implied by the red area) and how that led to the epilepsy factor. It wasn't just one tiny patch, it was basically the whole screen. So it's reasonable to show this in both cases. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to use a screenshot to illustrate that. The fact that the scene included a large patch showing an explosion illustrated with alternating red and blue flashes can be described by text. The part of the image showing the characters seems to be irrelevant for describing that fact. I would support including an animated version, but I do not see how a still image significantly increases a readers undertanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Leela Krishnudu cover.jpg

Deleted under speedy criteria #F7 and F11. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following Deleted under speedy criteria #F7 and F11. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this Deleted under speedy criteria #F7 and F11. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

Tagged as Non-free, but also claimed as GFDL, these can't both be correct. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

GFDL needs OTRS. Non-free needs FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes infobox screenshots

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion solely revolved around deletion, and discussion has been stale for many moon, therefore I have nominated all files for deletion: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_October_27#File:ST-TNG_11001001.jpg_et_all. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These images appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. I've only spot checked some, there might be more. These images are being used at the top of the episode article without critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that a number of these files are being discussed at FFD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I relist them at FFD and close this discussion? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is duplicative of FFD. Close these. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those that I already listed here don't seem to be discussed at FFD, so I guess there is no real duplication. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If these aren't at FFD, and that the use of screencaps through the TNG episode series is of question, then I recommend doing what was done with ST: Voyager images recently, getting the Star Trek project involved to determine which screencaps are unnecessary. They've been open to this pruning before. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete all NFCC is fairly clear and must be applied strictly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:NewCBBlogo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No gradient-text in the casebook. Anyone know any examples? Tending to suggest free anyway, it's not a creative example. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If this image: File:Abbywinters logo.jpg is PD-textlogo (its listed at Commons:COM:TOO), I think this one is equally fine. The Abbywinters logo was nominated for deletion, but kept as PD-textlogo and has a similar gradient. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:South Dublin County Council Crest.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to delete as it can be replaced. File has been tagged as di-replaceable fair use (CSD#F7) accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image is replaceable with an alternative constructed from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For the purpose for which it is being used, a replacement would have to be so similar to it to be a derivative work. A similar one, that wasn't traced, wouldn't be the logo of the South Dublin. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:NFCC#1, as recently demonstrated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The original Sunderland Stn.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted by Mark Arsten for CSD#F5. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The following Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted by Mark Arsten for CSD#F5. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted by Mark Arsten for CSD#F5. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

This is clearly a reproduction of a pre 1923 engraving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete There is no evidence that the engraving was published in 1923. The first revision of the file tells that it comes from a booklet published in 1965. If that was the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in the United Kingdom 70 years after the death of the artist or 50 years after 1965 (whichever is later) and in the United States 95 years after 1965. The image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was using evidence in the image itself, The fashion and style of loco are not mid 20's. I concur that the image is currently lacking 'publication' evidence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Paddy Island 1868.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Without hard evidence on the date of publication, there is not enough information to show that the file would be in the public domain in both Australia and the United States. Closing because discussion has been stale for well over a month. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An 1868 map of Australian origin ,would be public domain in Australia. by at least 1968. This is just a mechanical scan so... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a survey plan something which would normally be "unpublished" (according to the US definition)? It says that this was published in 1992. Was that the first publication? If so, then Commons:COM:HIRTLE tells us that the copyright expires in USA on 1 January 2048... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It still should have been PD-US in 92, even now unpublished works are only covered for 120years maximum. Or is there something else at play? -- Nbound (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to comment on a file's content after the resolution has been reduced. I don't see any evidence of copyright for the original. Perhaps an admin can look at the original image. What evidence is there this isn't PD? The Source indicates it's "owned" by the Queensland Department of Lands, which I would expect would make it PD.
This is essentially a plat map with annotated references to other surveys or documents related to land rights or ownership. "Publication" would seem have occurred (become publicly available to read or copy) when this was filed with and became a part of the records of the Queensland Surveyor General, an Australian land recording agency, apparently in 1868. I believe it became PD at the time of filing.

It's not obvious that the Source date of 1992 has anything to do with publication; I understand it to be documenting the date the original was scanned.
SBaker43 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

120 years from creation only applies if the work wasn't published before 2003. If it was published for the first time between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002, then the copyright expires on 1 January 2048, if that is later than 120 years from creation, per Commons:COM:HIRTLE. Due to a bug in US copyright law, there was no way for an unpublished work to enter the public domain in the United States before 2003.

The section for "Never published, Never registered works" at Commons:COM:HIRTLE should only be used if the work never has been published. If it has been published at any point, then you should find the correct situation in the "published" section instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

45th Launch Support Squadron#List of LCSS Launches

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the three SpaceX patches are not in the public domain as they were created by SpaceX and therefore copyright is owned by SpaceX. All other files are PD-USGov. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are numerous logos. They are all tagged with {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force}}, except for File:SpaceX Dragon COTS Demo 1 logo.png, File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png and File:CRS SpX-1 emblem.png, which I suspect might also be PD, so those three may need retagging. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that all of these are US government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, any SpaceX patches, even if the launch was under a government contract, are strictly in-house efforts. They would not be part of said contract...as with all launch/mission patches, they are a method of teambuilding. They are also far too complex in design to qualify for a PD-textlogo license. However, they are currently used under fair use in their mission specific articles, so the images themselves probably should not be deleted. They should, however, be removed from the 45th Launch Support Squadron article as an example of unjustified fair use. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the image copyright discussion, as I just don't know enough about the law in that area to have a supportable position. However, I thought I should make it known here that I have in the past carried on a email conversation with an individual from the SpaceX communications/media dept. about use of some of their stuff on Wikipedia. If someone wants to frame a question for the company about the SpaceX image in question, I'll be happy to try to get it to the fellow I interacted with last time at SpaceX and see what can be done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

They aren't. They were created by SpaceX and therefore are copyrighted. The spaceflight logos that are listed as being in the public domain were created by NASA.--Craigboy (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Stbold.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Without known image creation date, we are unable to know the public domain status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An 1871 image may be out of copyright and thus freely licenseable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it is from 1871? The source ([1]) doesn't list any year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If the hospital's magazine article is true, they opened a new 60 bed hospital in 1888, so it must be between 1871 and 1888, I believe that takes it out of copyright. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aimee Semple McPherson

Non-Admin Closure: All images listed in this review have been found to be copyright LA Times all prior to 1935 and the LA Times did not start renewing copyright until after 1958 and therefore images are all PD-US-not renewed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I really don't see justification for all 9 non-free files for an article about one person Werieth (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of the 9 , only three seem to be justifible: File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg (the arrival at the train station), File:ASM-reading_blackmailNote1.jpg, and File:ASM-cutting cake.jpg. All the others are duplicative of those non-frees and the existing frees. Mind you, copyright checks on these may be worthwhile due to age and possible lack of appropriate copyright notice for the time, but if they are all non-free, then the rest do not help the article per NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg was published on June 26, 1926. The image has a listed Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Between 1923 and 1977 if this was not re-registered for copyright it would be in the public domain. As it stands it appears to have a license to restrictive for use on Wikipedia without being used within the NFC criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all sourced to the UCLA Digital Library and a fall within the same license and dating between 1923 and 1977 and could well be public domain, but appear to have a non-commercial CC license.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming all 9 non-frees fall under this, we can still justify 3 of them as given, but we can't justify all 9. But if they can be put to a free license, that changes everything. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what was already discussed about the possibility of these being already in the public domain (in Sutton’s book I have perused some photos there published with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation are also claimed by yet another agency in their Bettmann collection which may indicate public domain, at the very least no clear ownership); if these are the files in question, inclusion for article justification are as follows: In general they they illustrate the wide range of diverse events and situations and life phases mentioned in the article about the subject and thus should not violate NFCC#3a (Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.)

1 --File:ASM-AngelusTemple Plaque 1923 02.jpg illustrates the ecumenical intent of the Angelus Temple. 1923, may be in public domain, appears in Sutton's 2007 book with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation, I have applied for permission nevertheless.

2--File:ASM-AngelusTemple Sermon 1923 01.jpg typical of what the subject did throughout her life This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

3--File:ASM 14hourService 1.jpg 1941 the all night services held during the war years illustrating the commitment she and her parishioners had to prayer and worship (much more so than the 1 hour on Sunday morning of many other churches). This file has CC license as per its originating websitelinked from the photo page.

4--File:ASM Semple Crawford1935.jpg to show that she was quite close to Rheba Crawford and McPherson's daughter Roberta, who figured significantly in her early to mid 1930's ministry but were later ousted from the Angelus Temple in emotive high profile media lawsuits, yet they later returned to mourn at her grave. Rheba Crawford is not elsewhere in other photos. This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

5--File:ASM convalescing in DouglasAZHospital Corbis.jpg 1926 includes Prosecutor Asa Keyes and assistant Joseph Ryan who figured prominently in the kidnapping grand jury inquiry mentioned in the kidnapping section; and not seen in other photos in the article. Also includes daughter Roberta Star Semple and Mother Mildred Kennedy and son Rolf McPherson, prominent persons in McPerson’s life the latter two not seen in other photos in the article. Also the picture depicts McPherson immediately after her emergence from the Mexican desert. Bettman Collection. May be in the public domain or at least no clear ownership, a related picture appears in Sutton's 2007 book.

If these justifications are needed to be included in the appropriate place on their respective pages, I shall place them there immediately.

From what I gather, images from the BETTMANN Archives / CORBIS are free to use anyway on Wikipedia as per:

http://www.corbis.com/BettMann100/ImageDonation/PDF/Corbis_Guidelines.pdf

Bettmann Collection which has has been opened for use by non profit entities Only images from the Bettmann Archive will be donated. Images must be available through the Corbis website http://pro.corbis.com)

From the talk page [[2]]

"Their images which are from the US Govt are in the public domain, as are all photos from pre-1923. They have also granted free use to non-profit organizations for some historic photos [Bettmann] (so Wikipedia)" Kwenchin (talk)"

Thanks. SteamWiki (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"granted free use to non-profit" does not meet our free use license requirements. We need the license to be free for all uses, redistribution, and modification by any entity in the world. So we still have the non-free image. If we can clear any of these as in the PD, that's great, but most of what you argue above is inappropriate - we don't need photos just to illustrate events particularly with the number of free and more relevant pictures of the woman already in the article. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll work at clearing it for PD, and put the CC notice (cc-by-3.0) on the others that have it which amounts to free anyway. At this time I do not see any renewal notices in my searches which at this time are preliminary. Additionally, there is a picture of the gospel car taken in 1919 from a book Einstein's (Sister Aimee) I could use (no copyright notice) and also see the same file elsewhere on the Foursquare.org website therefore I gather that is OK to use as well if add the PD tag? ThanksSteamWiki (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't tag these images as CC-BY-3.0, that has to be a license that is specifically added by the copyright owner of the image. (If they are given that way, that's fine thne). The "free for non-profit" is not a free license for our purposes, and has to be tagged with the appropriate copyright license tag. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ruppelt Ramey Samford 1952-07-29.jpg

Consensus is that the image qualified for speddy deletion F6 and F4. Deleted -- Diannaa (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image is of a military press conference, thusly it may well be an official photo, and thus subject to PD-USGov terms, not the 'fair-use' ones currently used. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion for no source. It says where it was taken but not where the photo was obtained. Might be {{PD-USGov}}, but might also have been taken by a newspaper photographer or anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this website the image is from United Press International. NtheP (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds as if it violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Giovan M Salati.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: There is not enough readily available information to show when the original painting was made nor when the original publication of the painting/image was and therefore it is impossible to prove its current copyright status. Due to the stale discussion for over a month, closing this as no consensus, since nothing was actually decided/proven. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If it was first published in 1989 as claimed, then it must be a recent painting. If it isn't a contemporary painting, then doesn't this mean that the painting isn't better than anything that any Wikipedia contributor could make? Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it known whether any other images of him exist? If not, then how could an image be made that would not be a derivative work of this one? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's almost certainly an original 19th-century work, and there is no reason to assume the book publication in 1989 was the original publication. Near 100% certain this is actually PD, although it is of course annoying that the uploader didn't copy the source attribution of the original painting that must be given in the book if it's of any value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Non-Admin Closure: Closing as stale due to no consensus and no critical discussion in many moons. No opposition to immediately opening a new discussion with more input. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I cant see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Two are photos with very reasonable justifications, old lineups, including one showing a since-deceased member. All the rest are brief song clips. Only with the latter group might one reasonably question the need for so many, though I don't see it as excessive given that song clips are obviously irreplaceable and are as short as a free iTunes preview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sound clip on band pages should only be used when talking about their distinctive song, since otherwise for truly notable songs it would be reasonable that a sound clip there in discussion about the song itself. But clips about the band should be chosen with a lot more careful regard. Without even looking, though, I'm sure at 2-3 sound clips can be fully justified in the case of RHCP due to their odd style, and to highlight that in light of their major hits (eg "Give It Away", "Californication"). Note that it is not a matter of fair use (outside of the specific limitations we put on length to avoid problems), but minimizing non-free usage. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been stale since July. Should we perhaps close it? I personally don't see any particular issue with the sound clips in question, I agree with TDA's comment. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Alerta.jpg

Deleted for F6 (inadequate rationale) and F5 (no longer in use in any articles). --Diannaa (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following Deleted for F6 (inadequate rationale) and F5 (no longer in use in any articles). --Diannaa (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this Deleted for F6 (inadequate rationale) and F5 (no longer in use in any articles). --Diannaa (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

WP:NFCCP #8, the poster doesn't add much to the article. An equivalent free image could be reasonably found. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the above assessment. It illustrates the Cuban perspective warning about the US and has great contextual significance. How do you suppose a free version could reasonably be found of original art? Seriously? Original art from a historic, notable period in time. Having said all that, it doesn't have a valid rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the case that we use non-free if a free image can't be found - the question is if we don't affect the reader's understanding of the topic if the image was not present, and in this case, for two reasons, it does fail this. First, the image is not discussed at all in text, but that's probably because on Military history of Cuba, the image really doesn't apply - it's more appropriate to the Bay of Pigs invasion. I'm not saying it meets NFCC#8 there, only that it has a better chance, in discussing the Cuban reaction to the US threat of invasion. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Masem just stated accept I do disagree that the image doesn't apply to Military history of Cuba. It has the contextual significance for both articles mentioned...but it does require critical commentary. Now...that could be easily fixed by adding the commentary...but it would have to be properly referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:RAK Records label.JPG

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image should be removed from both articles due to WP:NFCC#10c & WP:NFCC#8. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in I Love Rock 'n' Roll and WP:NFCC#8 in Rak Records. Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Although dated 1975, the image has a clear copyright notice. We generally use just the logo on record label articles, as seen in Stiff Records, Track Records and Island Records. The best exception to this is File:The famous Charisma label.jpg on Charisma Records, but only then because the album artwork and its construction was significant enough to be documented in reliable sources (example), plus it recycled existing PD artwork by Sir John Tenniel anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promo magazine ads for TV episodes

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that all listed images should be replaced because we have title cards for each series and therefore the images fail NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the light of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 4#Pilot (The Cosby Show), should the above promo ads be used for pages of television episodes? Most of them I uploaded. Also, they serve as very old advertisements. --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless the ads themselves were subject for discussion, they are simply decorative for the article and not appropriate for us to include. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What about ads of television specials and of made-for-television movies, like Blondes vs. Brunettes and A Place to Call Home? --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see them being okay if they are the only readily available means of an identification image (short of grabbing the title card from the work but the age of some of these suggest that this is near impossible due to lack of home media). But we'd prefer the title card if that can be had. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, ads okay for made-for-television specials, like The Star Wars Holiday Special. However, only acceptable infobox/header image for TV episode is a screenshot? Not an ad or anything else? --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Preferred would be the title card for any TV show, but given that some of these specials aired before home recording was done and there's no existing media option for them, the ad makes a fair replacement for the identifying image. If you can get a title card, then the ad image should NOT be used unless itself is the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean, obtaining a title card from an illegally-distributed copy of an unavailable program, especially from Youtube? --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If the only sources to get the title card is from illegal sources, no, we can't use that. But the same goes for the print ads as well. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Print ads should not be used for currently unavailable 1980s made-for-TV movies and specials, where home recording became available at the time? --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're making too completicated. If you can legally get a title card of a made-for-TV movie, that should be used as the identifying image. If this is just not available (and this could be due to legal issues) then a print ad would be a reasonable substitute, but even then, that print ad needs to come from a legal source, and if that leaves no available image, then we leave it with no image. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As for TV episode, besides a screenshot that is mainly of critical commentary, what else is an acceptable image? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no readily accepted image for identification of a TV episode (not a made-for-TV movie) (unlike other cover art allowances listed out in NFCI#1). An identification image can be used if the scene is the subject of critical discussion and under some other tight conditions, but this is not an automatic allowance. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, does that discussion apply to all other non-screenshot images, like the promo ad? --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: only one is an acceptable identifying image if the scene is the subject of critical commentary. The title card, the promo ad, and any other won't help at all? --George Ho (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Again: if it were a television series, NFCI#1 allows for the title card to be the identifying image for the television series on the series' article. This would assume to apply to made-for-TV films. But for individual episodes of a television series, we do not have anything like NFCI#1 that allows for an identifying image. A scene that is the subject of sourced commentary may be used if such commentary exists, but other factors also come into play (a scene of just talking heads isn't likely going to pass NFCC#8). By default, we do not include identification imagery for television episodes but allow it if it can be justified. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, which of the ads pass WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In the 5 cases above, we have legit title cards for the series, so the print ads make no sense to include (we have a primary means of identification) and fail NFCC, unless there is further discussion specifically of the print ads for that show (which I don't think there is). --MASEM (t) 12:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If these promo ads ran in newspapers or magazines without a copyright notice from the television network or production company before March 1989 they are public domain no notice. In the United States, advertisements published in collective works (magazines and newspapers) are not covered by the copyright notice for the entire collective work. Copyright rules by subject matter on Commons The full size images could be moved to the Commons.-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There could potentially be front-matter in the fine print of the magazines that allude to copyright to explain that ads are copyrights belong to respective holders, but that would be a simple check akin to seeing the front and backside of a promo photo to assume no marks exists. Agree if this is the case for this time frame, the works would have fallen into the PD. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

... Not exactly. There is a drawing or are multiple drawings and photos in one, which were derived into a part of advertisement. Back of each photo or drawing by NBC contains "For editorial use relative to NBC-TV[...] only. All other rights reserved." Even though ad doesn't contain notice, originals that were derived may still be copyrighted. See List of films in the public domain in the United States. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, those made by Paramount are still copyrighted, and ones made in 1983 are still copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If NBC used its copyrighted publicity photo in a magazine advertisement without a copyright notice before March 1989, the ad would be public domain. They could have reclaimed copyright on ads after 1977 by registering within 5 years. The copyright law was very strict about copyright notices. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More than one images in specific albums and singles

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is only one non-free cover is allowed and the more widely recognizable cover should stay. Separate consensus for Touch (Sarah McLachlan album) is that the two versions are substantially different enough and have wide recognizability to stay. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since using two or more images is discouraged, I must ask: should one or two be kept? If one, which one? --George Ho (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Barring unusual circumstances (since in the case of two very popular covers the one-image-only rule of thumb doesn't hold IMO) the more popular should be kept, not the "Canadian vinyl cover" for example. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- So using widely recognizable covers are okay? And eliminate lesser known covers, especially in order to stick to "one-image-only" rule? --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  - There isn't a "one-image-only" rule. That's hugely overstating it. The guidance at Template:Infobox album, which has been walked past WT:NFC on a number of different occasions, say:
    different album covers ... can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included.
    Those are the questions you should be asking. Jheald (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Sadly, that instruction is nowhere found outside the template documentation; neither in policy nor guideline. I can't use that instruction. As for specific images, which ones? --George Ho (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar situation is held in Talk:Madonna (album)/Archive 1#Madonna: The First Album image. According to discussion, using essentially similar details of images is discouraged. --George Ho (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: It was pretty common early in McLachlan's career for US and Canadian covers to be substantially different. I support Jheald's citing of the policy: if the covers are substantially different, I see no issue with including both, especially if they were released in different areas, or if a reissue occurred using a different cover. The second image should be clearly noted as such. I do not agree with basing inclusion criteria (as suggested by Grandiose) based on what is "most popular" as that requires violation of WP:NPOV in order to make that judgement call and would also go against the thousands of other album and book images posted under "illustrate first edition". If there was a first edition of "Surfacing" that sold a few dozen copies via mail order or fan club and it had a different cover than what was put out later, assuming the album contents are the same, then you go with that exclusive cover as the main as its first edition and then include illos of the reissue below. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, but for the The Party's Over (Talk Talk album) it's hard to make a case that the two editions are somehow on equal footing, esp. since the album (like all other Talk Talk albums) did nothing whatsoever in Canada, at least in terms of sales. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, but I'm speaking specifically of the McLachlan album, especially as the two versions of Touch - the "black" version and the "sepia" versions - are substantially different albums, to the point where McLachlan fans consider them to be separate and distinct albums. So even without the policy supporting it, having the two releases illustrated is perfectly acceptable because the article is about two different albums with the same title, for all intents and purposes. I'd like to request at this point that Touch in fact be removed from this discussion as I do feel the rationale for nominating these articles should not apply to Touch due to the circumstances surrounding it, although a possible alternative would be to split the article into two separate articles, one for the 1988 version of Touch and one for the 1989 version. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    - Unless one release is notable independently from the other, we can't. Perhaps you should read the essay WP:inherent notability? --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:TheAvengers60s.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove from article and delete the non-free image because it can be replaced by a simple text logo from the TV series. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image of a calendar cover has been the main image for the TV series article The Avengers (TV series) for nearly 5 years, yet since then there have been numerous changes to image policy. Surely the use of a copyrighted calendar cover in this context (even if the calendar is, by its very nature, now out of print) would violate the policy. I could see the desire to keep it as it illustrates most of the main characters, but still. Should it be there? None of the other images on the article show all the characters, but perhaps the key might be to create a mosaic image similar to that used for Doctor (Doctor Who) (although it's not really a single image in that case), since the calendar cover doesn't show Ian Hendry or the characters from The New Avengers anyway. Or maybe there's a promotional image available somewhere? Or maybe just the use of the show's title card (as for example the lead image for Doctor Who)? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep There has been no change to the Fair Use rationale in that time. The image was acceptable then and and is acceptable now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, the requirements for images can change by our non-free policy, so there's no grandfathering considerations here. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete' Per previous discussion on TV series logos for infoboxes, we can replace this with a free image of just the text logo of the show which would be PD-textlogo free. The article has imagery of the cast, so it doesn't need to repeated in the infobox, and while there is the New Avengers aspect, that show has its own page and so it doesn't make sense to do the Doctor Who montage approach (where the whole run,from the 60s to today, is considered one single show). --MASEM (t) 20:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:COLLAGE MAIN.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Rough Consensus is to delete. Move discussion to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_October_27#File:COLLAGE_MAIN.jpg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This appears to be user-created montage image of 9 screenshots from the movie Final Destination 3 (individually taken from the franchise's wikia pages). This is equal to 9 non-free images, and thus far too many. One may be reasonable on the film's page to show the connection between the photos and the character(s) death (the central theme of the film), but the montage cannot be used as a cast image as per the current use and on List of Final Destination characters. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This amounts to a gallery of images and is thus unacceptable per WP:NFC. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Around the World (La La La La La)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove remix cover. No consensus on other files. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a: all but one of the cover images should be removed. Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove one image: I'd only remove the yellow remix cover which is not substantially different from the original ATC cover with the red curtain. The other two covers by Magic Melody and Marquez are too different to be associated with the original release, so their inclusion in the article is justified. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the other editions are notable products on their own. Compare with MOS:FILM#Soundtrack which tells that you can't insert covers of soundtracks in film articles. These covers are really the same thing: non-notable dependent products. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  - MOS:FILM#Soundtrack says that due to album covers of films and their soundtracks are in some occasions the same (Scarface (1983 film) and Scarface (soundtrack)) it has no sense to repeat the same image in the same article. Also, WP:Films is independent to WP:Music. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WHOF logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:96.5 WKDD.png

Non-Admin Closure: New uploaded image (File:965 WKDD Station Logo.png) with transparent background is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about background. Levdr1lp / talk 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:96.5 Kiss-FM Cleveland old logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: No consensus on whether the lighting effects on the sphere passes the threshold of originality. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 18:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the colour effect in the circle. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, that's a sphere with an attempt at proper single point source lighting effects on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:104.9 WAKS.png

Non-Admin Closure: No consensus on whether the reflection effects on the sphere passes the threshold of originality. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo? Unsure about curved lettering. Levdr1lp / talk 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure as well. The reflection effect on the sphere and the curved appearance of the letters could make this eligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Mkwars3.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image minimally needs a fair use rationale. Rationale has been added. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is present below the templated rationale for Man-Kzin Wars is not a WP:NFURG compliant rationale for Kzin. Therefore the use in Kzin violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not well familiar with that area of fiction, if this is the "best" "official" representation of the Kzin, then the cover could be used, but the rationale has to be added to explain its use is to demonstrate what the species generally look like (as "official" by Niven). But we need that rationale. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Christian Party of Austria logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is PD-textlogo in the United States, but unknown copyright in Austria. Therefore, image is listed as PD-ineligible-USonly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Considered as 'free' by commons, What's TOO in Austria? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's free on commons, it's free on here. There may be issues in its use in Austria, but for our purposes we consider it free if it meets US' TOO, and up to reusers to make sure it is okay to use elsewhere. Austria is a civil law country, meaning the bar for TOO is comparable to the US. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The threshold of originality of Austria is described at Commons:COM:TOO#Austria. I don't think that the Commons uploader is the copyright holder to the image as currently claimed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He could have created the image in a vector program based on the actual logo, as to have a clean version. He'd be the "author" but not the "copyright holder" (if there is copyright on the image). --MASEM (t) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought an SVG is essentially a text file and that this SVG code would normally be copyrighted by the creator of that SVG file (unless he or she explicitly releases the SVG source under a free license). As such, my understanding was that the author of the SVG file normally holds the copyright in the SVG source code, though not necessarily in the actual visual image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If I made an slavish reprodcution of a copyrighted 2D work, that would be a derivative work of the copyrighted work, and further, because of the slavish reproduction, would not be considered to have a new copyright. If I did the same for a uncopyrightable work (which are what PD-textlogo fall into), there's no original copyright that I am making a derivative from, and if the final work remains as uncopyrightable as the original, then there's really no copyright on it. But it does help to say "hey, here's the person that made the image, and this is where they got the image from." In terms of SVG, most SVG creators aren't directly interacting with the XML behind it, but just the end result of the SVG graphic converter engine. If we assume it is like computer code, the code and the end result fall within the same copyright, so if I generated an SVG file of an uncopyrightable logo, there is no copyright on the code itself, and thus my work as an XML/SVG file is uncopyrightable as well. Thus, for tracking this on WP and commons, we identify the author that made the SVG, but recognize the author likely has no copyright claims on this work, whether free or not. (Though as noted elsewhere, we do not allow non-free SVG that is created by a WP user, only if this is something directly from the copyright holder, as SVGs are otherwise not low resolution files.) --MASEM (t) 22:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This file isn't in SVG format, so for this file, it is irrelevant whether SVG files are copyrightable or not.

An SVG file is essentially computer software which generates an image of a logo, similar to a font. According to Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. such computer programs can be protected by copyright even if they are in binary format. There is obviously some threshold of originality for computer software, but Commons:COM:TOO doesn't discuss this issue and I can't find any other information on how to determine how complex an SVG file needs to be to be a copyrighted computer program.

SVG files additionally have the feature that SVG is a text format. The source code can therefore be copyrighted as literature. However, this is presumably mainly the case if you edit the source code in a text editor. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Tenth Doctor b.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: one of the two listed imaged were deleted due to consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This file and File:Tenth Doctor.jpg are both of the tenth doctor (played by David Tenant). Both images are used on the Tenth Doctor article which seems like a violation of WP:NFCC#3a. This image in particular is also used on the History of Doctor Who article. I don't have a preference on which stays, but a simple difference in suit color does not justify having both. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

One of them is appropriate per identifying the character and some text that talks about the suit's inspiration but not both (there's no separate commentary on the two different looks.)

I'll also note that the reuse of the doctor images on History of Doctor Who is a problem - we already have an article on the Doctor character where all those are likely used again in the montage, plus the separate articles on each iteration, and in terms of the history of the show, they don't help. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Desert Gold.jpg

All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

It says that this is a poster for a film from 1919. If the poster is from the same time (which seems likely), then it satisfies {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Image is sourced to "the Internet", which is inadequate sourcing. I have asked the uploader to go through his recent 56 uploads and add proper sources. Without verifiable source information, the images should be nominated for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it needs a proper template explaining the copyright status with sufficient evidence. Also I believe it should be scaled down to fit with NFCC#2 unless it turns out it is PD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC #10A calls for detailed sourcing and copyright information. But presently they all qualify for speedy deletion as F4 for lack of source information, whether they're PD or fair use. It's a great collection and it would be a shame to lose these images, so I will give the uploader some time to add the required information before nominating them for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Man from Snowy River poster.jpg

All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

If the poster is as old as the film, then it satisfies {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Image is sourced to "the Internet", which is inadequate sourcing. I have asked the uploader to go through his recent 56 uploads and add proper sources. Without verifiable source information, the images should be nominated for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the rationale is invalid with that as a source, but you don't have to delete the image that, by all accounts is actually from 1920. Reprints may have occurred but the fact that the movie came out in 1920 is enough evidence to not delete, but attempt rescue. try researching and helping not just push the delete button cause the rationale can always be fixed. Let's try that here, shall we.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The posters are almost certainly as old as the films, but I would prefer to have a source. I hope that the uploader can fill in more information... --Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Very much agree. I have also left a message to the uploader, began my own search and put out a request to my off Wiki film buff friends. With no source, eventually it would have to go.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Betrayer.jpg

All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

If this poster is as old as the film, then it satisfies {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Image is sourced to "the Internet", which is inadequate sourcing. I have asked the uploader to go through his recent 56 uploads and add proper sources. Without verifiable source information, the images should be nominated for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:While the Billy Boils.jpg

All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this All images are now sourced and correctly templated. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

If the poster is as old as the film, then it satisfies {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Image is sourced to "the Internet", which is inadequate sourcing. I have asked the uploader to go through his recent 56 uploads and add proper sources. Without verifiable source information, the images should be nominated for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Music of the Perfect Dark series

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is more than one image in the article is excessive. One of the images was removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image has more than one album cover. Is the use excessive? George Ho (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes; the first one's probably okay for a single identifying image, but the second can clearly go as it is effectively the same artwork as the game cover for Perfect Dark Zero. (Mind you, I have a question why this was split off like this) --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same game and the same soundtrack. But I guess I can remove one and close this? --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I recognize they aren't the same game, but it's weird to call this a "series" when there's only 2 entries in it. I can see that the game articles are just a bit on the large size to include the individual soundtracks, but if that were the case, neither would have justification to use the album art (with the game art being very similar). With them on this page, its effectively a discography, so I'd consider one image for identification of the series, and this would at least make the 1st game's soundtrack the more appropriate choice as its art is close but slightly different from the game cover (while the PDZ one is exactly the same outside of aspect ratio + placement). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

One image removed. George Ho (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:CSCT Logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-CAGov per County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SCT Logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-CAGov per County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WRIF logo (low res).png

re-templated as PD-textlogo. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 17:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voids, Echoes And Whispers

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion is not needed for this, as it has been reported as a possible copyright violation: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#:Voids.2C_Echoes_And_Whispers and will be dealt with better through that method. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The excerpt from the All That Jazz website seems awfully long for fair use. It amounts to 15 of the 37 full lines of prose in that review. I wondered what others might think. (This is aside from my feeling that it's an overemphasis, for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, on the praise received by the album.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely a problem. I will tag the content as copyvio even though it is sourced (though it can be paraphrased and select quotes used for it). --MASEM (t) 03:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Seal of Fairfax County, Virginia.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is SVG is PD-EdictGov and original seal is PD-US-no-notice due to being published in 1968. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings, all! I think that this file (uploaded under a fair use rationale) might actually be in the public domain. However, I'd like a second opinion on this before any transfer or move to the Wikimedia Commons is made. My reasoning for coming to such a conclusion is that it was found on a governmental edict (in this case, a brochure of some sort), that had no copyright notices or disclaimers attached to it. Also, a search of the U.S. Copyright Office's records shows no copyright listing for the seal itself. In these cases, I think this file reasonably meets "PD-EdictGov", "PD-US-no notice", and maybe "PD-US-1989", but again, I would like a second thought. Thank you for your time! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are two issues here: whether the SVG file is copyrighted computer software and whether the underlying artwork is copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think that the SVG is covered under "PD-EdictGov" (as it was found on an official document with no copyright disclaimers), whereas the underlying artwork itself is covered under "PD-US-no notice" and maybe "PD-US-1989", depending on when it was made (probably 1960s or 1970s, judging by heraldry). Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Miljøpartiet De Grønne logo 2013.png

Non-Admin Closure: Deleted as CSD#F8 by Magog the Ogre. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Graceland TV Series Logo.png

Deleted as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is simple text Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly PD-texlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Dremel Logo, "Big On Detail", August 2013.jpg

Deleted as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a simple text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

El Sereno, Los Angeles

Non-Admin Closure: Wrong Forum. Article with copyright violations should be tagged with "Copyvio" template. The information was taken directly from this website which is Copyright © 2011-2013 El Sereno Historical Society. If the society would like to release their text, they can either change the license on their website or look into Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Edits were reverted correctly under Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The information below is copied from my talk page. Sincerely , GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

El Sereno, Los Angeles

Hello GeorgeLouis,

I saw your edits of El Sereno, Los Angeles, stating that "Much of what has been added since then appears to be a WP:Copyright violation."

Actually, Mr. George Casen contacted me, sent me color versions of his work and stated that I was free to use his research/findings without needing his consent. He stated that he did his research for the community El Sereno. I am the founder of the El Sereno Historical Society and this is why I think the WP: Copyright violation DOES NOT APPLY.

Mr. Casen's work is a reference article at the Los Angeles City Library, El Sereno Branch, which I gave a color copy of Mr. Casen's work so that the Library Branch could update their over-copied black and white copy.

In other words, I'm sure I did not break any Copyright. I'm not sure what exactly led you to believe I was violating a Copyright, but I understand your caution.

I would like to know what I need to present to prove that this is not a copyright violation? I didn't want to undo your edit until I had the chance to explain my use of the material and allow you the chance to respond as well.

I hope this can be resolved and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time.

El Sereno (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amy Heckerling

Images were removed on 21 October. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article includes a bunch of film posters. Are they really necessary? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As an examples of her directorial work, heck no. We don't need to see posters to understand that she directed the film. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removals. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Melissa Juratowitch, Australia's Next Top Model photoshoot, August 2013.jpg

deleted as F7. Non-free image of a living person -- Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails NFCC#1, #2, (both filled in with "n.a.") and #8 (this image has no contextual significance - it's merely a photo for the infobox). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagged F7. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football team

Clear violation removed Werieth (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File usage violates WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Simpsons S25.jpg

Photo has been reduced per suggestion by Masem. --Blurred Lines 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anybody else think this file is too big? I, for one, think it could be made much smaller. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A 420 x 420 dimensional image is not a higher resolution photo, or as you call it, "too big", so this review makes no sense once so ever. Blurred Lines 00:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks like an icon from itunes music store -- eg effectively an album cover. We typically use albums at no larger than 300x300, and as there's no loss of understanding what the image looks like at this lower resolution, it can definitely be reduced to 300x300. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not an "album" cover, this is the season cover art of The Simpsons' 25th season. The image is fine as it is, as the image was uploaded in October 6th, then updated yestersay. Obviously, Taylor Trescott took the perfect timing to mess with the image by putting a unnecessary template on the photo after the update. There is no rule stating that a photo should be at least 300 x 300, it's just a opinion that Masem just made. The only rule here is that if the image has a higher resolution, which means that if the image has random links to different dimensional sizes of the photo, should be reduced. Blurred Lines 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Masem isnt making anything up. WP:NFCC#3b requires as low a resolution as possible, without compromising the purpose. Werieth (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Proclaiming that I only tagged this to mess with the image is absurd. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

300x300 is a completely reasonable size for square-ish aspect ratio cover art (read: most albums) and as the current "cover" (yes, not a technical cover but being used for infobox identification consistent with NFCI#1); given there's no tiny details due to Groenig's art style, you're not losing a single detail. So it does need to be resized. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Stade Montois Football.gif

Deleted as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This logo is treated as free by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:OZONIA company logo 2012.png

Deleted as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Unlikely to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Edith Soterius von Sachsenheim (1999 poster).jpg

{{archive top}} Uploaded under a free license at Commons, with an OTRS confirmation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Tampa Snow.jpg

Nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this image replaceable? Snow is rare in Florida, but there are other images of snow in Florida. George Ho (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

About as clear a definition of replaceable as you can get. Werieth (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.