Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 62
 | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
- 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 copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The label has no copyrightable elements, but we need to be assured the photograph is free, which is not clear from the uploading information. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (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.
- 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.
Disputed fair use sami talk 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As the subject is alive, using a non-free image to depict her on her biography is unacceptable. I've removed the image from the article, tagged the article with {{rfu}} and {{orfud}}, and notified the uploader. The uploader is a new contributor who likely doesn't know any better yet. Hopefully this is a learning moment for them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, looking at this editor's contributions on Commons (Commons:User talk:Ans.fahmad), it would appear unlikely they will take the opportunity of the learning moment. Recommend a close eye is kept on the Tanvi Hegde article. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2015 (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.
Consensus is the multiple images fails WP:NFCC and parts of WP:NFC#UUI. There should only be one image and the consensus seems to be that there should only be the volume 1 cover left. No discussion on WP:GNG issues. TLSuda (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (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 article List of Fairy Tail soundtracks is the result of a merger of five separate articles on these soundtrack albums. It currently contains five non-free images, one for each album. Normally list-type articles don't use multiple non-free images. How many non-free images should be used in this article? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- You removed them with the summary stating that "non-free images are not allowed in list type articles".[1] This is wrong and the only thing preventing each one from having their own article is that despite being notable individually, the content to make it worthwhile is simply not done at this point. To say none is acceptable when all are independently notable is an overreach, but I am partial to one or two - but I've not been able to rectify lack of content at the moment and I personally hate messing with music templates to clean up the lists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- First, this is a discography article, so non-free covers for each item is prohibited unless each is significant. We would generally allow for covers to be kept if the individual articles were notable on their own but the merge was done for better coverage as the group (no need to penalize the idea of better presentation). However, I strongly beg the question if any of the articles are notable. Fundamental details and track list do not make for notability. As such, we generally only allow one cover image to be used as an example for the entire list barring any free image availability. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm willing to agree with that, and I expected it as such. Which is why Vol 1. should be the first choice, but generally those that place in the top charts are notable. The issue here is more that its foreign and lacking depth of coverage. It is not as if these images are irreplaceable either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would generally say the first one should be used in such a list. (Note: if you can find a montage of the images created by the publisher/copyright owner, that would qualify as one image - but not one created by yourself or someone else). --MASEM (t) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm willing to agree with that, and I expected it as such. Which is why Vol 1. should be the first choice, but generally those that place in the top charts are notable. The issue here is more that its foreign and lacking depth of coverage. It is not as if these images are irreplaceable either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- First, this is a discography article, so non-free covers for each item is prohibited unless each is significant. We would generally allow for covers to be kept if the individual articles were notable on their own but the merge was done for better coverage as the group (no need to penalize the idea of better presentation). However, I strongly beg the question if any of the articles are notable. Fundamental details and track list do not make for notability. As such, we generally only allow one cover image to be used as an example for the entire list barring any free image availability. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- The images violate WP:NFC#UUI §2 in this article. Does the list article meet WP:GNG in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (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.
The Three Stooges film screenshots
No consensus formed in over 6 months of discussion being opened. Procedural close. Images that fail WP:NFCC can and should be removed from their respective articles. TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2015 (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.
While going through the filmography for The Three Stooges, I noticed that almost every article has a movie poster or title card in the infobox and a screenshot somewhere in the article, like 3 Dumb Clucks, and some article have three non-free images, like Calling All Curs. Normally I would just remove these as I went through the articles, but their filmography consist of over 200 films, so I thought a consensus formed here if they should be removed and if so, a good way to go through the filmography. Aspects (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The only clear allowed image for any of them is the movie poster (per NFCI#1); a screenshot or title card is excessive NFCC unless the images meet NFCC#8 (and judging by the example of Calling All Curs, they don't). --MASEM (t) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (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.
Consensus is the first three images are too simple for copyright. The remaining images are all non-free and are in violation of WP:NFCC, therefore should be removed. TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2015 (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 seems to contain too many unfree logos. Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The first three logos used after the infobox likely qualify for PD-USonly as too simple for copyright. But the other logos past that are definitely non-free and not discussed in any manner, so should be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Masem on this one. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (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.
Too many non-free images fails WP:NFCC. All of the images have since been removed, so this discussion is moot. TLSuda (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (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 too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Given none of the works are individually notable it seems, 2-3 examples would be far, but not as many as present. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 17 November 2014 (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.
- 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 fair use rationales are contradicting:
- "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Deccan Education Society."
- "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Fergusson College."
- "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Institute of Management Development and Research, Pune."
Presumably, only one of the descriptions is correct. Therefore, the image presumably violates WP:NFCC#10c (no valid fair use rationale) in two of the articles,[which?] and likely also WP:NFCC#8 in those two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Or at least, the use of the boilerplate non-free logo rationale template is invalid on the second two. But as a logo, yes, its only expected reasonable use is the Deccan ES one; isn't appropriate in the other two articles. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- The colleges owned by the Deccan Education Society use the same logo. See official websites [2], [3]. So it is appropriate for all articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:04, 19 November 2014 (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.
Consensus is the images do not belong on the list article per WP:NFC & WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2015 (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 three non-free sound recordings (File:Anthem of the Republic of Macedonia (Instrumental).ogg, File:Bosnia and Herzegovina anthem.ogg and File:Qaumi Tarana Instrumental.ogg) violate WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is one place where I might make an exception if those are the only 3 non-free audio samples compared to the rest where the rest of the table is nearly filled. Though there are other rows without samples so I would agree removal may make sense. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that a lot of the songs in the list are recent, I would assume that many of the so-called "free" ones are unfree songs which are mistagged as free ones. That is a second problem which needs to be solved, but it is outside the scope of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a likely possibility, though also consider that I'd suspect in some countries there might be PD-nature of the anthem. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have nominated some of the so-called "free" ones for deletion on Commons as they obviously have bogus copyright tags. For example, File:National Anthem of Western Sahara.ogg has a tag saying that the composer, who composed the song 35 years ago, has been dead for at least 70 years. There seems to be a lot of cleanup needed in that article... --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a likely possibility, though also consider that I'd suspect in some countries there might be PD-nature of the anthem. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that a lot of the songs in the list are recent, I would assume that many of the so-called "free" ones are unfree songs which are mistagged as free ones. That is a second problem which needs to be solved, but it is outside the scope of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (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.
- 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 WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in Land art. Also fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Stefan nominated it for deletion because it wasn't appropriate for Land art (no opinion on that issue), its only use. Since an identical image was used at Milton Becerra, I deleted the other image under speedy criterion F1 and closed the discussion as moot, since the image now was used at two articles. This is definitely not forum-shopping on Stefan's part; in closing the discussion, I specifically encouraged an FFD renomination if problems remained, so coming here shouldn't be seen as end-running around the FFD's result. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (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.
No Consensus on article status with reference to non-free images. Procedural close after many moons. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2015 (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 has too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (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.
Image is {{PD-textlogo}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2015 (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 logo a case of {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? --Elegie (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}, but is it the correct logo? The website listed in the infobox uses a different logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It could be that the logo for the show has changed since 2011, when the File:Kim Komando Show logo.png image was uploaded. Right now, there is an image which has a transparent background and which is overlaid over a dark blue shaded background to produce the logo on this page. Perhaps it would be useful for a more up-to-date logo (even if non-free content) to be used in the infobox. --Elegie (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2014 (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.
The Garden of Words
No discussion since December 2014. It seems like action has been taken on the little discussion here. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2015 (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.
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is quite ambiguous and I have struggled with it every time I write about a Japanese anime. I understand that usage should be minimal and contextual significant, but in the past I have had any extra images taken down because supposedly only the manga or theatrical poster were enough. However, other GA and FA anime/manga articles use screenshots and additional cover art much more liberally without anyone removing it. For example, Pokémon and Madlax each use a screenshot to depict a pivotal or mundane scene, while School Rumble uses a video for a similar purpose. Air (visual novel) uses a screenshot to talk about the anime's location and uses extra cover art; while Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. uses multiple cover images. Voices of a Distant Star uses photo/art comparisons to show the basis for the story's setting.
Given these existing examples, I was wondering what people thought of the following ideas for The Garden of Words, an article I am currently developing:
- The use of this image, depicting a pivotal scene in the film as already discussed in the article under "Character design and casting".
- The use of one of these photo/art comparisons. Note: The site these images are posted on appears to be the source and were highly circulated on Tumblr last year. I think the person who posted these took the photos and *may* work for the animation studio... but I'm not sure. Yes, the article I'm working on already has CC-BY-SA photos of places depicted in the film, but the photos on this website (and all over Tumblr) more closely illustrate the production process. Not only that, but I can find other uses for the photos I'm currently using (with new captions).
- Could the covers of either or both the manga and novel be used? To be honest, even I get confused when the sources discuss these two books unless they show the cover.
Although I would love to make all of these additions, I'd be happy with just one or two. Please let me know what you guys/gals think. – Maky « talk » 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think ideally, every anime and, if available, manga article would have at least one screenshot shown. This is how it's done for video game articles; a video game GAN won't pass without a screenshot unless, in very rare cases, the nominator is in the process of securing free licenses for images and promises to upload one shortly. Likewise, while I don't know how universal it is, a great many music FAs and GAs have sound samples. Tezero (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Tezero: Thanks for your thoughts. So the first idea I had (from the list) should be okay... What do you think about the 2nd and 3rd ideas? If I can't use those photo/art comparisons, then I may use a screenshot depicting one of the many highly-praised backgrounds or rain shots instead of the pivotal scene. – Maky « talk » 02:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Since only minimal feedback was given, I have added most of the non-free content mentioned above to the article and noted the general lack of feedback on the article's talk page requesting further discussion there. If anyone else has additional input, either reply there or ping me from here. – Maky « talk » 13:06, 2 December 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. 3 images have been deleted. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (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.
Could somebody familiar with WP:NFCCP take a look at this article. It currently uses seven images, three of which are book covers, one which is a movie poster, and one which says it comes from a twitter account. The book covers are File:Cover of the Killing Club.jpg, File:Cover_of_Sparrowhawk.jpg, and File:Hunter's Moon.jpg; the movie poster is File:TheDevilsRock poster2011 2k.jpg; and the twitter account is File:Paul_Finch_Silhouette.png. Almost all of these appear to be taken from websites listed in the articles's references. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (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.
...and a new table in page Sana'a manuscript are exact copies or uploads from an artcile in the journal Der Islam ([4]) (see the copyright notice at the bottom, © 2011–2014 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH). The editor who uploads is a new editor, assuming good faith, I am not sure whether they would be copyright violations.Kiatdd (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (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 article contains too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (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 "Crest" section violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (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 copyrighted in the UK? George Ho (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2014 (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.
No discussion since November. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2015 (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 appears to violate WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (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.
- 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.
Moving from Di-replaceable fair use disputed Ronhjones (Talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- A widely used exemption to WP:NFC#UULP is when it is essentially impossible to snap a photograph. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_20#File:BostonSuspect2.jpg. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (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.
- 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.
Moving from Di-replaceable fair use disputed Ronhjones (Talk) 01:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- A widely used exemption to WP:NFC#UULP is when it is essentially impossible to snap a photograph. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_20#File:BostonSuspect2.jpg. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (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.
While the images may be PD-simple, there is no consensus on that. As non-free images, they do fail WP:NFCC and therefore have to be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (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 too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep the images in question reflect different periods of time in the station's history. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no discussion about those other logos. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added some more. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion that just describes the image is not sufficient - do we have details of the graphic artist? do we have commentary about the older logos, etc? --MASEM (t) 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added some more. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no discussion about those other logos. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Both of the additional images likely qualify for {{PD-simple}}. The one with the earth image might seem to qualify for threshold of originality, but the background image of the planet is readily available via PD sources. It's not a creative element. The rest of it is text. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2014 (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.
- 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 WP:NFC#UUI §17 in University of Otago Faculty of Dentistry. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- First of all it fails WP:NFCC#1. Coats of arms can be freely recreated following the blazon so we don't need to take the original drawing from the university's website. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2014 (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.
No discussion since December 2014. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2015 (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.
Surely highly significant in subject's life, but not significant to see this image to understand the event or its significance to him, and no critical commentary on this visual itself. Fails WP:NFCC#8. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2014 (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.
No discussion since December 2014. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2015 (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 file is on Commons with a free license. I nominated the file for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Special Air Service - Emblem.svg. I startet this review in the hope that we could get a clear answer to the question "Free or not free". MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now deleted on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (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.
Procedural close as the image was deleted by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for unused non-free image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2015 (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.
Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The use of a second non-free cover artwork in Booty (song) does not add any value to the article, does not serve the reader in any significant way, and is completely unnecessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- You have the principle right, but this image appears to be the sleeve of the main release, whereas the other one in the article relates to a remix. It's probably the remix sleeve that should be nominated for deletion. Formerip (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Generally, I would agree, but the song "Booty" is most notable for its music video, which is for the remix version with Iggy Azalea. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter which version is more popular - the cover art for a song that gets by on NFCI#1 for identification is the first release, and not based on popularity. The remix cover is definitely unnecessary here. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Generally, I would agree, but the song "Booty" is most notable for its music video, which is for the remix version with Iggy Azalea. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- If we're talking release, this cover hasn't even seen "release" aside from Lopez posting it on social media (as far as I know, it has not been attached to any retail release of the song). The remix cover is actually present on iTunes. So that fulfills the use rationale of "identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art". –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it is the case that the original song was never released as a single and the remix was, then yes, the remix cover should be used instead since that's how the single was promoted, and I can't easily find the original song as a single anywhere. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(←) Pinging Tomica, Status, and MaranoFan for comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- A very reliable source, Rap-Up, has acknowledged the former as the official single cover It surel was released [5]. MaRAno FAN 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the point. The cover was posted on social media, but it does not appear to be attached to a single release, which contradicts the use rationale. Is there a CD or digital single that uses this artwork? –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (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.
No discussion since January. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2015 (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 page violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (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.
No discussion since February. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2015 (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 image is purely an illustration at Jessicka. There is no mention of this piece other than a mention at Jessicka#Discography (which may even be referring to an album). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (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.
No discussion since February. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2015 (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 91-frame GIF has serious issues with minimality WP:NFCC#3. I believe a single screenshot would just as well serve the encyclopedic purpose of this image. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:33, 24 February 2015 (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.
No discussion since February. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2015 (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 can't find any specific reference to this image being the actual person who was killed. It's a screen capture from a video that does not seem to be related. It was taken from a BBC News article and the caption reads: "This group of former Taliban fighters pledged allegiance to IS in Pakistan last month." Individual who died was an Afghani who died in Afghanistan, not Pakistan. The BBC makes no claim that that the individual in the video is the Abdul Rauf reported killed. Seems to be used by the BBC because they had no image of Abdul Rauf, just as general reference to ISIS spreading in Afghanistan/Pakistan. — Wikimandia (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (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.
DelcarVanBrochuren.jpg
No discussion since February. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2015 (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.
Four pages of a brochure, one claimed to be free and three claimed to be unfree. All four obviously have the same copyright status. If unfree, all four seem to violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9. I'm not sure if we have the entire brochure, so there might be a copyright notice which isn't visible on the scans. On the other hand, {{PD-US-not renewed}} probably applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (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.
Duplicate seal deleted and the inappropriate use removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2015 (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 two files appear, at least to me, to be exactly the same with the only difference being that one is a jpeg and one is a png. They are being used in separate articles and each has a non-free use rationale, but I'm not really sure why two non-free files are needed when they both essentially convey the same information. Why can't another nfu rationale simply be added to one or the other? Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The two images appear equivalent to me, so yes, only one is needed and the second rationale added to the kept on. However the use of the seal at the School of Business article is inappropriate; the logo of an entity cannot be used for the logo of a sub-entity of that entity per WP:NFC#UUI #17. So the .jpg version can be outright deleted without any other modifications needed. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Masem. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (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.
New fair-use rationale is more complete and covers how it meets WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2015 (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 fail to see how the icon is relevant and essential to the article. � (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Strange sentence. This forum expects you to tell why you think this computer icon is irrelevant to the article. If you indeed fail to see that, then you have no business being here in the first place. Instead, you should check the associated article.
- But I do think this image needs a better use rationale. I'll get to it now.
- Best regard,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unless someone has an argument for keeping this image that doesn't involve unkindness, I (or, presumably, some other administrator) will close it as delete. An icon for a DLL is not a "logo" in the same sense that, say, the Microsoft logo is a part of its corporate branding. There needs to be an argument for how use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8. --B (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (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.
No consensus reached. No discussion since December 2014. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (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 too many logos. Some do not seem to meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me see... I think the following logos clearly qualify for PD-textlogo:
- The only original logo is that of Faxe Kondi Divisionen with the football inside. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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.
No consensus reached. No discussion since December 2014. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2015 (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 seems to contain too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- all the images add to the article. --evrik (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- All of the images pass WP:NFCC. Obviously The Commodores single cover passes as the original version. The Faith No More cover version being a notable cover version deserving of its own section and infobox means at least one of their covers can be in the article. Since they are an American band, the North American cover version is the correct one to be first in the infobox. There is discussion about the differences in the cover versions even using different names for the singles "Easy" and "I'm Easy." Since the European version is significantly different than the North American version, both in image and in title of the song and was widely distributed, this alternate cover passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (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.
- 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 various non-free logos do not meet WP:NFCC#10c or WP:NFLISTS. Some logos which are claimed to be non-free do not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The non-free logos should be removed failing WP:NFCC and the free logos should be removed as merely being decorative per WP:MOSLOGO. In general, I remove these tables that were added to the article this month, since it was written previously in prose, like here [6]. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (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.
Images violate WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC. All removed except those discussed below. TLSuda (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2015 (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 appear to be too many non-free images, see WP:NFLISTS. Some of the images also violate WP:NFCC#3b and/or WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would keep three images, the animated version used in the first infobox, the toy in gun mode in the toy section that has significant discussion about it and the film version used in the prose section since it is from the first film. Aspects (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (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.
No Consensus on the status of the image. Until we have a consensus/understanding, it is better to treat it as non-free. TLSuda (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2015 (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 free or unfree? A variant of the image appears under the same name on Commons. c:COM:CRTMEX is complex due to various term extensions, so I'm not sure if the image is free in Mexico or not. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Based on the commons image, the person that make the portrait (made in 1906) would have had to been alive past 1953 for the work to be under MX copyright. This is a very unlikely situation (though possible), otherwise it is in the PD. As there's no apparent name attached to the portrait that I can find, so I think the commons version is PD. I would argue that the version above, which is a coloration of that portrait might have some novel aspects and thus would definitely be a copyrighted image; the commons portrait does a sufficiently equivalent job of capturing the image, so this version here is unnecessary as replacable fair use. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- c:COM:CRTMEX also mentions copyright formalities in the early 20th century. We don't have any source for the 1906 date, but the picture shows a person who died in 1909, so it doesn't sound unlikely. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (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.
- 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 this indeed is from 1896, as suggested on the image, then it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely should be tagged free, and moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 20 December 2014 (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.
Image is just above the threshold of originality and therefore fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2015 (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-logo}}? If not, it violates WP:NFCC#8 as a former logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The waves at the bottom are just creative enough to put this into question. I'd treat as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (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.
- 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.
{{PD-logo}}? RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it's text only. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (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.
- 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 too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably one alt cover is normally okay, but I see nothing special about the cover distinctions to require the two alts - it's just a photo of the same singer in different outfits/poses. Keep only the main cover. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (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.
- 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.
Probably a PD-textlogo (the modifications to the "x" in "express" probably are insufficiently creative to merit a copyright). If not, violates WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- PD Text in the US most likely, but not necessarily worldwide. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is PD-textlogo in the US which is also the country of origin. So I say we should transfer this to Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (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.
- 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 too many non-free logos. The city logos should not be here. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Logos are unnecessary since the main applications have articles that the logo is appropriate on. The two logos from cities that applies but did not get selected as finalists, they are not necessary to understand this article. (however, if one were to create pages about their bids, that would be reasonable targets) --MASEM (t) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (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.
Image fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, in all articles except in Arriva. Remove from articles. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Arriva. Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Although I get where Stefan's coming from - Arriva have used the logo for each and every division (It'd be nice if it was an individual logo for each division but sadly it's not), It's no different from FirstGroup really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The difference between Arriva and First is that First's logo is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} whereas Arriva's logo is not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is the blue curl even original enough for copyright? De728631 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely, yes. It is more complex than the second logo on page 1 of this document, which the United States Copyright Office declared was copyrightable. This means that the logo at least is unfree in the United States (the only country which Wikipedia cares about). It may also be unfree in the source country, but I'm not sure what the source country is. Arriva belongs to a German company but exclusively operates outside Germany. The main office is apparently in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stefan2 you may remember the outcome of the Transdev logo that you also questioned and commented out on every article [7] (keep)... I'm not sure how this is any different... JaJaWa |talk 03:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_September_13#File:Transdev_logo.svg){kind=link}
- 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.
Power Girl
All non-free images except main header image fail WP:NFCC and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2015 (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.
Someone please review this article, Power Girl. I'm wondering if eight non-free images is too much. --evrik (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed yes. Without any critical commentary about the actual non-free images, they fail WP:NFCC so shold be removed and deleted if then orphaned. ww2censor (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- One image for identification of a notable fictional character, even if the image is not discussed, is reasonable (along the lines of cover images and their rationale for inclusion on a notable work), but agreed that other images need critical commentary to be included. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 24 December 2014 (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.
Images seem to be PD in Norway. @Masem: could you update the images with appropriate tags? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure the usage for this picture is more than decorative. File:Bamse_(St._Bernard).jpg is already at Bamse (St. Bernard) (and a much better image of the dog itself) so it's not needed to illustrate the dog. The only illustration done is that the dog was given a bath. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- If this is a work created in Norway, then it is PD due to Norway's PD law and would be okay to include (50 years past creation of non-"works of art", and the dog lived only until 1944) Same would be true of the current image. So these should be PD images and at Commons, and both can be included. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 30 December 2014 (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.
WP:NFCC issues resolved. No consensus on status of SVG copyright situation. TLSuda (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (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 violates WP:NFCC#9 on File:2000 Stanley Cup Finals logo.png and WP:NFCC#10c on 2000 Stanley Cup Finals. It seems that either the PNG or the SVG should be deleted and that the remaining file only should be used on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source for the logo is from a site that users recreate logos in SVG format, as opposed to directly from official media (in this case, the NHL). The logo must be replaced with a low-res PNG version, unless an SVG directly from the NHL can be provided. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Having followed the SVG's source (both as it is today and two days after the given accessdate), I only see a GIF. As for the NFCC-9 infraction, I think it was envisaged that the SVG would replace the PNG, not co-exist with it. Perhaps @User:Trlkly can shed some light on the subject? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the SVG replaces the GIF, and I could have sworn I edited the original page. There is no rule saying we have to get the SVG from an official source, and most of the SVGs we have aren't from official sources. We decided a long time ago to convert rasters to SVG if possible, as long as they maintain the quality of the original, are not unnecessarily detailed, and are rendered at a low resolution. We are not supposed to use autotrace on logos because it can reduce the quality, but I used no tracing (automated or otherwise) in the making of this SVG.
- Having followed the SVG's source (both as it is today and two days after the given accessdate), I only see a GIF. As for the NFCC-9 infraction, I think it was envisaged that the SVG would replace the PNG, not co-exist with it. Perhaps @User:Trlkly can shed some light on the subject? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I found an official version of different year (2001) already on wiki and used that to create 2000 and 2002 (by moving the pre-existing numbers), as per the tag that asked for an SVG replacement. Both the SVG I used and the raster should be referenced on the page, as I would have copied the source from the 2001 upload along with that of the GIF used for reference (on exactly where to place the altered graphic). I've been doing this sort of WikiGnome work for years, and I must have just forgotten to mark the GIF for deletion this time. I'm surprised it wasn't automatically flagged since the GIF was unused.
- Also, please do not rely on the automated notification system to get my attention. I respond best to requests on my talk page, which always send me an email. This allows me in on all fair use deletion requests, since you are supposed to contact the uploader (and Twinkle does it automatically.) As busy as I've been with my grandpa's funeral, I might not have gotten on WP for a while. — trlkly 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The rule may not be formalized, but in past discussions and considering non-free if we have no assurance that the SVG originated directly from the ownership of the entity it represents, it's a huge copyright problem as you have both the copyright of the original logo and the copyright of the SVG (which may or may not be a true copyright but the case law is not clear on this). To avoid that, we do not allow non-free SVGs unless we can verify that it (the actual vector work) are the original work of the entity that holds their copyright. If this can't be verified, the SVG must be deleted and replaced with a low-resolution PNG or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Also, please do not rely on the automated notification system to get my attention. I respond best to requests on my talk page, which always send me an email. This allows me in on all fair use deletion requests, since you are supposed to contact the uploader (and Twinkle does it automatically.) As busy as I've been with my grandpa's funeral, I might not have gotten on WP for a while. — trlkly 16:08, 14 February 2015 (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.
- 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 violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page and WP:NFCC#10c on another page. Is the file copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- PD-US but not across the globe. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (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.
South Park infobox images
First, this situation is a bit messy. There are pieces of discussion at WP:FFD, pieces here, and even pieces at WP:DRV. From reading all of the discussions put together, I see no argument for keeping the images. As they are all non-free. it is up to those who wish to keep the images to show how they meet WP:NFCC (in this case specifically #8. Although bulk nominations are often complex and may should be broken down or have other alternatives, there was every option, in this case, for discussion to be had on individual images (at FFD) or the whole group (here or even at DRV). At this time, I do not see a consensus to keep the images, but there is a general belief that these files should not be kept. Therefore they should be deleted as non-free files that do not meet WP:NFCC. If there are individual images within this bunch that are realized to not need deletion, please come talk to me directly on my talk page so we can handle it more simply. I'll be happy to restore any of the images, as long as they meet all points of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Updated: 17:30, 11 May 2015 (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.
All of the following fails WP:NFCC#8: they are not used for educational purposes but for decoration. I've looked through every article and a few use screencaps for discussion of how the episode was made and technical details that fall under fair use. Most of them are just superfluous. Note that many of these were listed at WP:FFD but it was recommended that I bring them here instead. If anyone thinks that an image is fulfilling a fair use purpose, please single it out below. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Per WP:TVIMAGE, episode infobox images must be of a scene that is the subject of critical discussion of the show. As such, these should all be deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- (Note that I see a few cases with secondary uses like the Guitar Hero one, but that still applies to stripping the image from episode article while other uses are valid). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong forum These need to be discussed individually in separate sections as the outcome depends on individual aspects of the respective articles. Also, as the only outcomes are "keep" and "delete", this should be at FFD, not here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- FFD pushed the discussion to here even when they were open individually. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then the matter should be taken to WP:DRV instead. This is the wrong forum; these images belong in individual sections at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I posted at WP:DRV. Lots of redtape on this one, eh. Not very efficient. --Gaff (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then the matter should be taken to WP:DRV instead. This is the wrong forum; these images belong in individual sections at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- FFD pushed the discussion to here even when they were open individually. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I posted these at FFD and was told to take them here. This is ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- As noted above, this was posted by me at WP:DRV (here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review.23South_Park_infobox_images_.28closed.29). Rough consensus as I see it, piecing together now three separate discussions, is that posting these in bulk for deletion in bulk is not just going to work. Some reviewers have found files that should not be deleted based on the criteria provided. They each need to be evaluated separately. I cannot imagine that any admin is going to be willing to delete these as a bulk order, so propose this discussion be closed. --Gaff (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems plain to me that the issue isn't about the merits of keeping or deleting individual messages, but the interpretation of NFCC, and there's a bigger, more general discussion better served at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Mosmof (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- No need for such a discussion – the situation is crystal-clear. There has been (or was) a long-standing practice shared between editors in a certain muddy corner of Wikipedia, of uploading screenshot images for TV shows as a matter of routine, without individual thought and with boilerplate rationales, in the mistaken belief that there was a wholesale allowance of one such picture per article. And there has been a stable, actionable and crystal-clear consensus among all knowledgeable editors for many years that this practice is wrong. This consensus has been demonstrated in hundreds and hundreds of prior decisions, on FFD, on NFCR, in speedy-deletion processes and elsewhere. No need to rehash it in a policy discussion again: what we have here is not a policy disagreement, but merely a backlog in enforcement. The long-standing consensus is that these should be brought to FFD in moderately-sized batches, or be tagged for speedy as lacking rationales if the FURs if the cases are obvious and the FURs are blatantly void of content. Koavf's batch from last month may have been a bit bigger than manageable, so just re-nominate them in somewhat smaller batches now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- For details, see Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Archive 6#Non-free images of a specific television episode.
- The batch size usually depends on how much time someone has to nominate files for deletion. If someone has a lot of time to nominate files for deletion on a particular date, this results on a big batch on that date, whereas there might not be a single file nominated on other dates. I don't think that it is possible to change how much time specific users are able to spend on Wikipedia on a specific day. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2015 (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.
Image retained, left at main article removed from discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (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 do not agree that this image is not replaceable. This is/was a very popular band and there should be free images available, although it might take some work to get a release through OTRS. Gaff (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- As the original band broke up in 1988, it is not reasonable to expect a free image of a otherwise defunct group. There might exist free images or ones that could be licensed free, but we have no expectations on that factor. As such this image is acceptable. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Afree image can easily be obtained by simply requesting that somebody donate it. This band was epic. Led Zeppelin broke up a long time ago and we have free images of them. Asking around for donations is how I get images of mammals for my Good Articles. There are images out that that can readily be obtained if somebody gets off their arse and does the leg work of asking. Why is it okay to steal or borrow without permission? --Gaff (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- NFC's determination of freeness does not have any expectations of third parties. Yes, the band was likely well-photographed during their run, but we cannot guarentee that any of the people that hold these images are WPian editors. We have zero expectations that these people will be willing to release their photos as free images. We should try, of course, but the chance is not 100%, as it would be for a currently active band where a WPian can go and get a free pic. And we do allow this under US Fair Use law. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Afree image can easily be obtained by simply requesting that somebody donate it. This band was epic. Led Zeppelin broke up a long time ago and we have free images of them. Asking around for donations is how I get images of mammals for my Good Articles. There are images out that that can readily be obtained if somebody gets off their arse and does the leg work of asking. Why is it okay to steal or borrow without permission? --Gaff (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (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.
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. TLSuda (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2015 (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 page contains too many unfree logos. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (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.
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 lots of free media of Oprah Winfrey: this image is not adding much educational to the article on her. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 8 March 2015 (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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:18, 8 March 2015 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No discussion in 2 months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (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 WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
Review passed (congrats) and images look to be in order. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2015 (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 need the whole article images reviewing as part of its GA nomination. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:Jerry-Robinson-Joker-Sketch-Card.jpg
- File:Comic Book - The Joker (1940).jpg
- File:Comic Book - Batman 251 Cover (1973).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Four non-frees (including the infobox) in an article on one of the most notable comic book characters with a long history , and used in the manners (concept art, first appearance, and a modern representation of the character) is completely fine within NFC, particularly as the article details that there's a shift of art between the 3 major Ages on how the Joker was presented (goofy clown to maniac, to rather horrific villain). --MASEM (t) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (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.
In this specific case due to the nature of the subject and the availability of material, it would be nearly impossible to find any photograph, none-the-less a freely licensed one. When such a situation arises, being that the non-free image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC, it would be acceptable to include such image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (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.
@GorillaWarfare: and I are working on vaginal evisceration, which is an extraordinarily rare condition (thank goodness) with less than 100 case reports. There is no free image that we can find anywhere on the internet to illustrate this condition; would it be a candidate for a fair use image? Given the fact that there have been fewer than 100 cases since 1900, it could be very very difficult, if not impossible, to create a free alternative. Neither of us is a copyright expert, so we thought we'd ask here. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, very reasonable case that a free image is likely not readily possible (and without reading beyond the title, likely not one where it would be easy to find a willing subject that would allow for such). --MASEM (t) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Given that it is a surgical emergency the likelihood of there being photography in the first place is very limited. Further complicating it is the lack of cases; less than 1 per year. I find it extremely unlikely we'll ever receive a free licensed image suitable for the article. That said, we should make effort to gain release of a non-free image under a free license. I support a non-free image until such time as a free license image is obtained. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2015 (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.
Image determined to be non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (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 listed as unfree, but aren't District of Columbia employees employees of the United States federal government, meaning that {{PD-USGov}} applies? Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting question, one for which I did not know the answer. I did some digging and found this at Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#Government_outside_of_states: "Works of the governments of the District of Columbia "as now constituted" ... are "not considered U.S. Government works". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2015 (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.
Image removed from three articles, tagged as replaceable fair use and orphaned. Uploader has been notified, but has been absent the project for many years --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (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 suspect this non-free image is replaceable as it contains scientific data which is probably readily obtainable. The image itself may actually be a free image as the work of a state university, but I'm not sure where California stands on that. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- The copyright status is unclear. But, a casual review indicates there may be copyrights sustaining on the work. Have a look at the licensing of File:CSUF Seal.svg. A review of the OTRS ticket might prove illuminating, but it appears at first pass that Cal State Fullerton seems to think they have rights to the seal, and authority to dictate under what license it may be used. That would be impossible if the university's seal were public domain by way of California law. See also File:California State University, Fresno (seal).png, which we are using under NFCC. Same with the seals for Bakersfield, Chico, and L.A. So, barring presentation of proof of this image, indeed any image of laboratory work from a state operated college/university of California, being free we have to assume the image is not free. Given that, it is of course replaceable. This yeast isn't extinct, they aren't known to be reclusive, and the yeast as a species isn't incarcerated for life (tongue in cheek references to usual exclusions). Therefore, a free image can be obtained. The source page, indeed the entire subsite it refers to (http://petruccilibrary.csufresno.edu), appears to be offline. The origin of this image is unclear; it exists elsewhere on the web. Even if we could clarify California's stance on such images in favor of PD, it is doubtful we can properly keep this image given the sourcing appears to be dead. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Agree that a free replacement image is fully within capabilities to get (by far not a rare yeast, and the magnification is not crazy high and something achievable with standard school-grade equipment. It would be different if it were, say, atomic force microscopy, which requires $$$ to take. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (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.
Image removed from article, tagged as orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (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.
Rationale is bogus. Sitting in a chair besides some other people doesn't "showcase" anyone's "though-leadership". Having spoken at a conference can easily be supported by reliable sources without resorting to copyrighted photos for evidence. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- A non-free picture of talking-heads of living persons nearly always fails NFC. Arguably, if it was a unique meeting of these three people that were notable, that might a reason to keep, but that's far far from the case here. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also do not feel image satisfies all 10 of the WP:NFCCP. WP:NFCC#8 can be tricky because determining whether a particluar non-free image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" can be pretty subjective and opinions are likely to vary greatly from editor to editor. In this case, however, the reader's understanding of who Brad Mattson is or his accomplishments as a public speaker are not, in my opinion, significantly increased at all by a photo showing Mattson sitting together with two other people at a conference and discussing something. The source link is for the audio story "2014-10-12 Creating Climate Wealth". Perhaps it could be argued that the image would significantly increases the reader's understanding of a Wikipedia article on that particular discussion, but I do not see how the same could be argued regarding the individual participants in that discussion.
- Finally, another concern I have is that the non-free use rationale provided states "I [The uploader] have explicit permission from the owner to use it for the article on Wikipedia" for WP:NFCC#2. Who is the owner? Matteson? Climate One at The Commonwealth Club? The copyright holder is listed as "Climate One at The Commonwealth Club", so if they have given explicit premission for use on Wikipedia, then licensing it as non-free strange is strange, isn't it? Why not just license it using a free license and send an email to OTRS for confirmation? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Permission to use on Wikipedia does not equate to a free license. Lots of people grant us permission to use their works on our website. But, unless they specifically release the media under a particular free licenses, we have to treat the media as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Hammersoft. Sorry if it seemed I was implying that granting permission of use automatically means an image is "free". All I was trying to say was that if permission had been explicitly received from the image's owner, then it would have been better for uploader to have had the owner
torelease it for use on Wikipedia under a free license per WP:DONATEIMAGE. Perhaps the uploader did ask and the owner simply said no, but in that case the owner's explicit permission is irrelvant for WP:NFCC#2 in my opinion. For the record, two other images (File:Brad Mattson at Novellus Systems, c1985.jpg and File:Brad Mattson installing solar panels in an off-grid Indian village, June 2013 .png) authored by Mattson and used in the same articleauthored by Mattsonwere licensed as "public domain" and "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" respectively by the same uploader Slainte12. This seems to mean that Mattson is not the "owner" who gave their "explicit permission" for this particular image. Since there is no notice that an email has been sent to OTRS for the image, it should be treated as "non-free" and, thus, subject to all 10 of the NFCCP regardless of whether the owner (whomever that is) gave permission. As I stated above, I don't think the image satisfies NFCC#8 and that removing it from the article will not be detrimental to anythereader's understanding of Mattson. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC);(Post edited by Marchjuly to correct typos, etc. - 23:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC))- That's a much more articulate way of saying what I was trying to get at, thanks. I don't see what the benefit the image is to the article, per #8. The conference is only given a single sentence in the article, supported by primary sources. The image is implying that this conference was significant, but implying-without-saying is actually the opposite of increasing understanding in this case. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi everyone and thanks for highlighting the areas you see error. I think Grayfell was on point in saying, 'The image is implying that this conference was significant, but implying-without-saying is actually the opposite of increasing understanding in this case.' Perhaps this section needs to do a bit of explanation as to who Jigar Shah is and what The Commonwealth Club is? I thought by linking them (allowing people to research and discover on their own) would provide enough context that it was notable Brad Mattson spoke alongside Jigar Shah at an event hosted by Climate One at The Commonwealth Club. The conference was significant as were the people present, but it would seem that this is no longer clear because either a) I didn't adequately provide context in the original article text or b) the context was lessened after Grayfell removed a lot of the content and changed some headlines. The section that this photo is part of was originally titled 'Leadership & Humanitarianism' rather than "Public Speaking,' meaning that there was a focus to speaking on a particular issue, rather than just speaking publicly.
- The photo is not significant because it's a 'talking head' who is 'sitting together with two other people at a conference and discussing something,' but because it is two leaders in the field of renewable energy sitting together and discussing pertinent issues related to their work at a public event that was hosted by one of the most prestigious public affairs non-profits. Jigar Shah is one of the most famous people in the United States (if not the most) for his accomplishments and vision to the field of solar energy, having founded and sold SunEdison and having been CEO of Richard Branson's The Carbon War Room. This guy is a heavyweight in renewable energy and in order to be sitting next to him on a panel discussing solar energy doesn't just go to a 'talking head,' but someone who is equally legitimate, like Brad Mattson. Additionally, this event was - as is listed - hosted by The Commonwealth Club, which is the oldest and largest public affairs forum in the US and has had speakers ranging from Presidents to Jack Welch to the King of Spain to famous authors. The Commonwealth Club does not get professional 'public speakers' but people of actual significance to discuss what they are doing or have done.
- The article as originally written didn't convey this very well, or where it did/attempted to was deemed too promotional in tone (and thus removed), so now the context is even worse. This section is about the thought-leadership Mattson has in the renewable energy world and the photo does provide context to this, provided that the section be worded differently to help convey this point, going back to where I quoted Grayfell to begin with. I propose that I make the context of the photo more clear in the section of the article would that be good enough?
- Also I'm confused whatMarchjuly means when they said 'This seems to mean that Mattson is not the "owner" who gave their "explicit permission" for this particular image.' Mattson is not the owner of this photo Climate One is. That's why the organization is listed as the owner and yes I did get permission from them to use it on Wikipedia, but only on Wikipedia and not as a general free use license, thus it is non-free content. Does that make sense or is that not your point? If it is not, I'm confused by what you meant and don't understand please further explain. Thanks all Slainte12 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Slainte12 for clarifying who the owner of the image is. My comment about Mattson not being the owner was me "posting" (rambling perhaps?) out loud since it was not clear to me whom owned the image. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, permission of an image's owner is not needed to use their image as non-free on Wikipedia. All that is needed is for the image to satisfy all 10 of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Satisfying all of those criteria means that a non-free image may be used in an article, but it does not necessarily mean that a such an image should be used in an article. That is something that is, once again to the best of my knowledge, determined through discussion and local consensus on the article's talk page. FWIW, I am an American and yet the first time I ever saw the name Jigar Shah was in that article. He indeed may be very well-known in certain circles, but I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that he is (currently) the most famous or one of the most famous people in the United States; Otherwise, there would be no need to explain who he is. On the other hand, maybe the fact that I didn't know who he is says more about me than about him. Regardless, I still do not see how having a photo of Shah sitting next to Mattson increases the reader's understanding of Mattson to such a degree that not having the photo would be detrimental to that understanding. This is why I feel it fails NFCC#8 regardless of Shah and his accomplishments. If you wish to show that Mattson's is legitimate and has "actual significance" then it would be best to do so using reliable sources speaking directly to those points and not try to do so through a photo showing him sitting with Shah. The Commonwealth Club must have had a reason for asking Mattson to participate in that discussion. There are no sources which speak directly to that? What about the audio for the discussion? I believe audio can also be used as non-free media. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- The argument for keeping the image seems kind of tautological, and the photo doesn't really say very much. Nobody on Earth is so important that mere proximity bestows notability, and Jigar Shah is not the exception. The article mentions that Mattson and Shah spoke together at a conference, which is all that should be said with the sources provided. The free use rational and the article itself both dance around the idea that Mattson's notability is established by such events, but this shows a poor understanding of WP:BIO. The specific event lacks any secondary sources, and notability isn't inherited. Nobody is denying that the event happened, but why is this visual record of the event so important that it trumps Wikipedia's (admittedly ambiguous) copyright policy? This is equivalent to name-dropping. We would, at a bare minimum, still need good secondary sources to establish why this was significant before going into such visual detail. Simply saying it's important because the people are important isn't good enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Slainte12 for clarifying who the owner of the image is. My comment about Mattson not being the owner was me "posting" (rambling perhaps?) out loud since it was not clear to me whom owned the image. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, permission of an image's owner is not needed to use their image as non-free on Wikipedia. All that is needed is for the image to satisfy all 10 of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Satisfying all of those criteria means that a non-free image may be used in an article, but it does not necessarily mean that a such an image should be used in an article. That is something that is, once again to the best of my knowledge, determined through discussion and local consensus on the article's talk page. FWIW, I am an American and yet the first time I ever saw the name Jigar Shah was in that article. He indeed may be very well-known in certain circles, but I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that he is (currently) the most famous or one of the most famous people in the United States; Otherwise, there would be no need to explain who he is. On the other hand, maybe the fact that I didn't know who he is says more about me than about him. Regardless, I still do not see how having a photo of Shah sitting next to Mattson increases the reader's understanding of Mattson to such a degree that not having the photo would be detrimental to that understanding. This is why I feel it fails NFCC#8 regardless of Shah and his accomplishments. If you wish to show that Mattson's is legitimate and has "actual significance" then it would be best to do so using reliable sources speaking directly to those points and not try to do so through a photo showing him sitting with Shah. The Commonwealth Club must have had a reason for asking Mattson to participate in that discussion. There are no sources which speak directly to that? What about the audio for the discussion? I believe audio can also be used as non-free media. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Hammersoft. Sorry if it seemed I was implying that granting permission of use automatically means an image is "free". All I was trying to say was that if permission had been explicitly received from the image's owner, then it would have been better for uploader to have had the owner
- I concur with Grayfell. The image needs to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Everyone - what I will do is try and find some good secondary sources regarding the Climate One event today and tomorrow; in the event I cannot find them I'll delete the photo (or do one of you need to do that?). Thanks all for your help Slainte12 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think what we're getting it is the image adds nothing to the article that text does not, even with sources. The image needs to go. Period. If it were free, fine. It's not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Roger that Slainte12 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (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.
Determined to immediately fail NFCC via #2 per photographer's statement. Deleted. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (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 OTRS ticket has been raised by the copyright holder of this image, requesting that we remove it as a copyright violation (Ticket#2015051110011715, for those with OTRS permissions). It is currently used under a fair use rationale, but it's an unusual one - the argument is that similar photos showing U2 in their early days do not exist, and that such a photo is necessary for the article. I'm therefore bringing it here for review. Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Two things: first, as noted in this image above, it is also the base image of the cover of a singles compilation which we have as a separate image (but with the cover labelling). As such, in any situation this image is duplicative of that cover art; one could use the cover art here to reduce the number of non-frees we have. The second is whether that is necessary or not, but it is fair to say that a band that has been publicly performing for 30+ years that their earlier days may have appropriate reason for a photo but that really should be merited on text that discusses their looks at the start. As for a copyvio, I can't see the ticket, but we are technically using the image under all fair use clauses, the only thing I can't address is commercial opportunity, if this was a work done by a freelancer as a press photo that would normally fail under NFCC#2. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with Masem. The idea this is a copyright violation is mooted by fair use law. That said, our larger purpose demands we delete the image as we have a duplicate with the album cover, and we are also not using the image to enhance an article that discusses their appearance during their formative years, but merely as illustration. NFCC purposes fail this image, and any need for it is obviated by the presence of the album cover. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am the photographer who took the photograph of U2 and it remains my copyright. The photograph was credited to me on both the CD packaging and in the 'U2 By U2' book (it can be viewed on my website here - http://davidcorio.com/photos/genre/rock-pop-punk?page=9. It has never been used or purchased by the band or record company as a publicity photograph and there are countless images of U2 as teenagers that are publicity photographs owned by their record company that could be used rather than using my image. I would not have a problem with the usage if the entire packaging was shown with text remaining on the image. Wikipedia states that the image is of a low resolution but Newsweek have used it on their website crediting it to David Corio/Wikipedia Commons. Does this therefore mean that Newsweek are in breach of my copyright for illegally using my image without asking permission and without paying me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.2.72 (talk • contribs)
- I can't and won't speak with authority (as I am not an expert) to whether Newsweek has violated your copyright. However, they are certainly attributing the work improperly. It is not hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which implies it is available under a free license. Their attribution is improper. I see from the Newsweek article they are using File:U2 21081983 01 800b.jpg, and doing so properly. However, the use of your image without your permission seems improper. They are using the entirety of the work without remuneration to you, and not doing so in a transformative way. I would send them a take down notice. But, again, I am not an expert. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Take it down. Save everyone a headache. Myopia123 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would normally wait on issues such as this. But, given the presence of the author's concern over use of the image, and the obvious failure of our WP:NFCC policy with the image, I've removed it from the U2 article, tagged the image as orphaned and notified the uploader. @80.189.2.72: (David Corio, the author). This effectively means that image will be deleted from our server in a few days time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Per Hammersoft, we're removing that image, and checking David's website, he is selling these photos [8] so as such, this is an immediate failure of NFCC#2, so heck, I'd delete the image immediately and not wait for the delayed deletion. Unless that photo itself is the critical discussion, there's zero way we'd use it. (And again, if there is a photo of the young U2 needed, the cover of the singles compilation works fine). --MASEM (t) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, despite many years of service and 10s of thousands of edits I can't be trusted to edit large swaths of Wikipedia. So it's going to take someone like you to delete it. Hint hint :) I support the speedy deletion in this case. WP:IAR applies in spades here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Black Kite beat me to it. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Masem, I had it on my watchlist ... and you then beat me to closing the discussion as well! Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah he edit conflicted me on the close as well. Efficient :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Black Kite beat me to it. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (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.