Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71→Archive 73

File:Club Africain.png

Logo removed from child organization articles per UUI#17. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 23 October 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.

Club Africain appears to be the main article, with violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17 on the other pages. Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

agreed, should only be used on the main page. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Image was also being used on User:Alexsd27 in a userbox which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9, so I have removed it. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 11 October 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.

File:21st Century Media logo.jpg

Image now marked as {{PD-logo}}. --Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 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.

Image seems to be simple enough so that it can be licensed as {{PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually PD-textlogo, since it's an US company. I agree that it's not original enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
File's licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per above. File has also been tagged for a move to Commmons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 13 October 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.

File:Coal Miner's Daughter.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 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 recently removed this screenshot from Coal Miner's Daughter (film) from the plot section of the article and someone questioned me about it on my talk page. It does have a fair use rationale for this article that I feel it not valid, but the image is also used in Sissy Spacek and East Texas and I felt some other opinions would be helpful. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no way it could be used at East Texas (there's nothing about the shot that relates directly to the district/area). Maybe at Spacek if one can discuss her appearance in her younger days that a free image today might not be able to capture but that does require sourced commentary. I don't think it's needed at the film article, since it's not a critically discussed scene .--MASEM (t) 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
File was lacking the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c so I removed it per WP:NFCCE from Sissy Spacek. Image is not really essential to the discussion of Spacek's portrayal of Lynn or the impact it had on her career. For reference, this made the file an orphan so unless it's re-added somewhere with a valid non-free use rationale it will likely be deleted per WP:F5. If it would have been better to have brought this to FFD instead, let me know and I'll self revert. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 13 October 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.

Not sure if these are non-free or PD

Most files are not original enough to be copyrighted according to the discussion and have been retagged as PD-USOnly or PD-Logo depending upon whether they are US logos or not. Some files were kept as non-free. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 October 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.

Just wondering if any of the following non-free logos are too simple to be protected by copyright and OK to change to {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-logo}}:

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Of the above, excluding the 92club and the River, these all should be PD-USonly (if outside the US) and PD-logo for those from within the US. The 92club one arguably is PD-USonly but I think the ball shape is a bit beyond simple, so I would treat it as non-free. The River has those lines in the center that are beyond simple shapes and so for the same reason should be treated non-free. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. Just want to clarify File:93-9 The Mountain logo.png. Do you think the line (representing the image of a "mountain") is too simple to be treated as non-free? I'm only asking because the concept is similar to what is done in The River's logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
It's just at the edge that I think would fall under the originality threshold, but maybe we should play it safe on that one and treat as non-free too. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Understand. Will leave that one as non-free just to be safe. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The licensing of all these logos (excluding the three which are to remain non-free) has been changed accordingly per this discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 24 September 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.

File:Screenshot of a Arnub's show Barely speaking with arnub.jpg

Image deleted as orphaned for being replaceable non-free imagery. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 25 October 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 is a video screenshot, used in two articles: one about an actor and one about his fictional character. Is this allowed? The guideline text "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" seems to imply it would only be allowed in commentary on the show or the character. – Brianhe (talk) 19:41, 13 October 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.

Logos used in "The Edge 96.ONE"

Images deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 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 following were all being used in a gallery of former logos in The Edge 96.ONE. I removed the gallery per WP:NFG since none of the logos were the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and their usage was mainly decorative. They've all been tagged as orphans, but I just would like some opinions on whether any their licensing could be changed to {[tl|PD-logo}}, {{PD-USonly}} or some other free license.

For reference, the last three are pretty much the same as File:Edge 96 One logo.png being used in the infobox. The only difference between them is the slogan being used and the coloring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think personally they might barely make it above TOO, based on some examples I've seen on commons:COM:TOO. Barely, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the files, excluding "Edge 96 One logo.png" have been deleted per WP:F5. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 22 October 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.

File:VJ Keith.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 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.

File is claimed under fair use as a TV screenshot used for identification or critical commentary on the program in question, but instead, the image is used to illustrate a biography of a living person, for whom it should be possible to obtain a free image. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it violates WP:NFCC#1 there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
File was deleted per WP:F9 a few days ago, re-uploaded, and then deleted once again today per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 21 October 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.

File:V jumper.png

DELETE & REPLACE WITH FREE IMAGE:

The image can be replaced with a free alternative. It will be deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 19:27, 26 October 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.

Image is being used in North Melbourne Football Club guernseys#Gallery of designs. All of the other images are taken from Common and this is the only one licensed as non-free. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I am not sure if use is OK per WP:NFTABLES. Should the image be removed per "NFTABLES"? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the base drawing of the jersey is from a free license source (it should be) , the markings on the jersey are too simple for copyright and the image should be free. However, I do see that they reference an external website for the source - this can be recreated by a WP in a free manner so it is a candidate for free replacement. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Does this mean WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied? What is typically done for images such as this? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes this is definitely replaceable with a free outline, and a PD-Simple V shape and number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 26 October 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.

Logo for Distil Networks

Information provided. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 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.

(Original title was "http://www.distilnetworks.com/wp-content/themes/distil/images/logo.png", renamed to avoid issues on TOC here --Masem)

Request addition of company logo file for Distil Networks under Non-free content criteria. Logo used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distil_Networks article.

[1] (changed from ref to direct link to avoid floating ref footer -Masem)

Tonybdistil (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an allowable use of the logo; you should be able to go to the "Upload File" link to the left of the Wikipedia screen and follow the Wizard there. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MASEM, but I get the following error: "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it." Tonybdistil (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You probably should be okay now. We do have autoconfirmed protection to avoid spambots. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 29 September 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.

File:Grace Foods soup-mixes display.jpg

File deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 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 about this image since I'm honestly not sure if this is a free image or a non-free image. I think it is free since someone took the picture, but I think it is non-free since it includes a logo. However, either way, I do not think its use as a non-free image since it's intended purpose is to identify the company, but a logo by itself would suffice to do that; and, if it is to identify the subject of the article, its current placement in the article is incorrect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a concept called de minimus which says that a photo may include copyrighted elements as long as the copyrighted elements are not the central focus of the photo, such as capturing an image of a billboard in the background of a paronaric shot. This is clearly not such de minimus the packaging is the focus of the picture and thus is non-free. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree that this is inappropriate. This reminds me of File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg and User talk:Diannaa/Archive 41#File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg. It seems that with these kinds of things that a nfur is not only needed for the copyrighted product label, but a free license is also needed for the photo. Since the article is about the company and not the product, I think it would be less problematic to simply use the logo on the company's official website instead. FWIW, I'm pretty sure this would not be allowed on Commons per c:COM:CB#Product packaging since photos like this are typically deleted unless there are some extenuating circumstances. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Steel1943, Masem and Marchjuly, I'm the editor who took the photograph and uploaded it to Wikipedia. I too was unsure of whether this kind of image was allowed. (I mistakenly uploaded it to Commons first, actually, but realized my mistake and tagged that copy for deletion.) It seems to me that it illustrated the article content well at Grace (food company), but I do understand that copyright concerns trump all. I look forward to seeing what consensus develops, to guide me in my future uploading practices. Regarding Marchjuly's point about the article the image is currently used on being for the company rather than the product, would this photo be an acceptable fair use image for an article about the Grace Cock Soup product specifically (maybe if the other two varieties were cropped out)? A quick peek in Google showed there may be sufficient sources for that soup mix's notability, partly due to its being a staple in Jamaican cuisine and partly due to the giggle factor... —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was asked to make a comment here. I would avoid using this image anywhere, just because it is too difficult to determine how, where and why to use it. I understand that the purpose for having the pic in the article is to show how the product is sold. (An to get a giggle, which I am all for.) Now, I took an idea from the Swedish Television. Since they are a public service network it is sometimes forbidden to show logos much for the same reasons as here on the WP. Therefore logos are often blanked while the rest is showed. I have taken the liberty of making such a "delogolisation" (cf. Defenestration <humor>) of the pic and uploaded it at the Commons. The Category:Food packaging has a very helpful tag about packages and logos on the page:
  • "English: Most product packaging is copyrighted; images where copyrighted product packaging constitutes a major aspect of the image are not allowed on Commons. Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use of such images.
  • However, the following are allowed:
  • 1.Images of packaging that does not include any copyrighted images or logos."
In some cases the package itself is copyrighted (such as perfume bottles or wine bottles), but this is a very generic packaging, so sans logo the pic should work to use in the article. IMHO. w.carter-Talk 15:36, 19 October 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.

File:Quentincrisp1.jpg

File deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 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.

That Quentin died in 1999 does not mean that no photographer has ever taken a photo of him that the photographer will never be willing to release under a suitable license, for surely such a photographer must exist. The death of the subject of a photo does not de facto that only a fair use argument must be resorted to in order to represent them, as the copyright holder is not the person in the photograph but the photographer (when all of THOSE are dead, we will have the basis of a fair use argument!) . KDS4444Talk 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that they are willing to compatibly license their photography and reachable for such a request, which is much harder to achieve than to take a photography of a living person or ask for a compatibly licensed one. In this case I would wait until a free image is actually offered.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The policy says that a non-free photo of a deceased person may be used if "obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" (WP:NFCI, emphasis added, being reasonable is key). Personally, I think searching for freely licensed existing photos before uploading a non-free one is reasonable, and this reasonable effort taken should be disclosed in the rationale (as KDS4444 notes, the fact that the subject is dead does not automatically constitute WP:NFCC#1). Whether starting to emailing copyright holders of previously published images is reasonable or not, is another issue. Personally, I think it's sometimes beyond reasonable and a fair use claim may be pursued. If anything, such a campaign may lead to the awkward situation of someone explicitly refusing to let you use a photo they have taken, yet you would like to use it as fair use without a permission needed. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No, its the reason-ability. Someone who died in the last couple months, there may be a chance that there is a free photo out there, so there's a period after a person's death that we would not allow a non-free. But for someone dead in 1999, there is zero expectation that we can obtain a free image. We cannot, in considering the possibility of a free image, expect to have third-parties provide material under a free license. Yes, if we know the photographer and they are approachable about the possibility, by all means we should try to get a free image, but this is not a requirement for where no new free image could be made. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Masem, what do you think of the wording at WP:NFCI that says "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" (emphasis added)? Since there are no perpetual copyrights, ever obtaining a free photo is not only likely, but certain, in terms of any photo. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute (outside of copyright expiration) is not reasonably likely" --MASEM (t) 14:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just heard back from a Flickr photographer who has a brilliant portrait of Quentin that he has indicated he would be honored to see included in the Wikipedia article. I still need to negotiate over the licensing terms with him, but this was my very first attempt to ask a photographer if we could use his work on Quentin in this way and I got an enthusiastic, "Yes." So much for the "zero expectation" argument! Isn't this exciting??! Sometimes you just need to do some asking around! And while it is possible he will still change his mind once he fully understands what he is giving up, there are still dozens of other photographers who have taken photos of Quentin and posted them on Flickr, and I honestly believe I will be able to find at least one of them who will be willing to donate a better image than the one under consideration for deletion here to be used in the article. I think I have even shown that it is "reasonably likely" that this will happen. Yes? KDS4444Talk 05:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Asking around if you can find a source - great, that's completely fair to do and in a case like this a step we certainly recommend trying, but NFCC#1's "no free equivalent" cannot be based on coercing a non-Wikipedia image copyright owner to release a work with a free license. Our policy cannot be based on that unknown factor of human behavior when it comes to works they control the copyright of. Hence, no, until the moment you get this person's free license, the image above satisifies NFCC#1; once you get that free license, we have a replacement. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"Coercion"?? Really? I mean, I get your point, and even agree with it... But I never held a gun to anyone's head. I swear. KDS4444Talk 00:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning in a forceful manner, just that if we take the interpretation that "if there is a photograph out there that is not from a corporate source (that is, from a source who is not going to have layers of legal to get throuhgh), that that means there is a free replacement", that requires us to be able to convince the photographer/copyright owner to licensing the image freely, and we do not have that type of control on non-WP editors. We do expect WP editors to willingly put photos into a free license (that's hopefully part of the reason they are editing here to help build up a free encyclopedia) but there's zero expectation on that for anyone else. It's always an option, one that can be explored, but our NFCC#1 works independently of that. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. In any case, the article now has a freely-licensed lead image of Mr. Crisp, licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 and with OTRS permission received and approved. The image under discussion here is no longer needed— a fair-use rationale for its existence isn't necessary and it seems can no longer be justified. KDS4444Talk 05:43, 25 October 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.

File:Chicago Police Logo.png

The file was deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 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 image is probably used improperly. There is already a free image in the infobox in Chicago Police Department that helps identify the subject. For that reason, this image seems improperly used and unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for three images (even three free images) in the infobox, and the use of the two non-free seem to fail WP:NFCC#3a because it makes no sense, at least to me, to have multiple images claiming to be the "primary means of identification". It might be possible to use the non-free ones later on in the article if they are the subject of sourced critical commentary per WP:NFCC#8, but not in the infobox. For reference, this type of usage seems to be used in articles about police departments of other major American cities (see New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department to name a few), so it might be another WikiProject guideline typetype-of-thing which doesn't take into account WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to fix wording -- 04:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)]
I would be in favor of this image (and all other images of similar to the Chicago Police logo) being removed from Wikipedia as long as the Chicago Police patch image I uploaded remains though User:Steel1943 has also stated he wants my image of the patch removed. Asher Heimermann (talk)
Does the free image serve essentially the same image as the "patch" per WP:NFCC#1? Assuming the image in the infobox is intended to serve as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in question, then I'm not sure why it has to be the "patch" that does that. Couldn't this or a version of it from home.chicagopolice.org do basically the same thing? That logo is probably too simple to be above the threshold of originality, but still seems sufficient to identify the organization. As I said above, the patch could be used later on in the article as part of a discussion of its elements or significance per WP:NFCC#8 and long as that discussion reflects what reliable sources say and is not just someone's original research.
Finally, this logo in a different format exists on Commons as c:File:Chicago Police Logo.jpg. I've tagged that as a copyvio because it doesn't seem to be "own work", but (a big but perhaps) if it survives, then the non-free version would not be needed again per NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, delete the logo but the patch stays. Asher Heimermann (talk)
Commons version of the file has been deleted as a copyvio and the non-free version has been tagged as an orphan. Further discussion about the non-free use of File:Chicago Police Patch.png ("the patch") should probably be limited to its NFCR thread from here on to keep everything in one place and so that this thread can be closed and archived when appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, How old is this? (It shows the date of 1837.) It might be in the public domain due to age, or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Yann:: Chicago was incorporated on March 4, 19371837 as the logo says. I have no idea how old this particular logo is, but it seems to be a derivative of the city seal File:Seal of Chicago, Illinois.svg with a "star" image added to represent "police". Since the seal is "PD", maybe this is as well. If that's the case, then the Commons version could be undeleted and this one deleted per WP:CSD#F8. Even if it's not, the fact that the seal is PD seems to mean that free equivalent of the non-free logo could be created per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct error in the year the city was incorporated. It was "1837" not "1937" -- 08:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)]
Yes, obviously PD then. And it is 1837, not 1937. Yann (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Silly mistake. Thanks for the correction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 26 October 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.

File:D'Elidas Picante Chombo Hot Sauce - Bottle 11.5 Oz.jpg

Closing discussion as original rationale no longer applies: all other referenced replacements in this discussion have been deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 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.

Image has a non-free rationale for D'Elidas, but it seem unnecessary per WP:NFCC#1 because File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg is also being used to provide essentially the same information. Granted the Commons image's licensing is questionable (I am going to ask for clarification at Commons VP), but for the time being it doesn't appear the the picture of the bottle of hot sauce is needed. There is also File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg on Commons which seems to be the essentially the same image and was uploaded by the same editor on about an hour later exactly the same day. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Image was tagged as {{di-no source}} since there was no source provided. A source has been added per this edit but it is to this wikia page, but its not clear whether the uploader of the image actually took the photo of the image or got it from somewhere else. Does that even matter? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Would this image or this image from the company's U.S. branch's official website be acceptable as a replacement for the above? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 7 July 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.

File:20070624 Dubuffet - Court les rues.JPG

Keep but remove from all galleries. The image was removed from all articles except Jean Dubuffet. Unlike the other articles, in Jean Dubuffet it is not a member of a gallery and it is not clear that there is a free alternative. If a free image of this or another of Dubuffet's works becomes available, that image should be substituted on his article and this image deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 19:09, 4 November 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 violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles in which contain the word 'painting': the picture is used in a gallery format and isn't critically discussed there. Pointing at the article about the painter should be enough, see WP:NFC#UUI §6. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Important work that is used where necessary...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-free removed from user page; for the other pages, if it is an important work, then it should be able to be sourced and discussed in that manner on the pages about the types of paintings to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Done...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Not done. The only thing you seem to have done is that the painting now is mentioned in two of the articles. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the third article. There is still no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance to the kind of art discussed in the section. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 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.

File:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.jpg

No consensus here. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 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.

Image is used in the infobox of 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 WP:NFC#UUI. From this webpage it looks like the logo was used for at least two different years. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 19 June 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.

File:688 Club logo.jpg

No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:688 Club logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 4 November 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.

Image seems simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" and not as "non-free". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 23 July 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.

File:Socceraustralia.png

No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:Socceraustralia.png. Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 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.

Image has non-free use rationale for Football Federation Australia#History, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion so the image should be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 24 July 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.

File:Shichinin choushou promo.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 5#File:Shichinin choushou promo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 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.

Image has a non-free use rationale for Shin SD Sengokuden Shichinin no Choushougun Hen, but use seem to be primarily decorative and not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 5 August 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.

File:Hitler-Cat.jpg

The file was deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs) at FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 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.

Unclear attribution - I can only find a Jennifer Osborne on Flickr who has a different picture of a Hitler cat, and this is marked as all-rights-reserved. The image used here appears to be a bad photoshop of a watermarked image on catsthatlooklikehitler.com.

Any potential non-free usage as "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is undermined by the fact that there is an entire website called "catthatlookslikehitler.com" - it would be possible to find a different, licence-friendly cat that also looks like Hitler. McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the number of such images on the website in question, the likelihood of getting a free image of a cat that looks like Hitler is very high (they're unusual but not rare or elusive). Fails NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 2 October 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.

File:Blackhall Arms.png

File has been deleted per speedy deletion criterion F5. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 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 arms are not, and never have been, those of the "Barony of Blackhall" (which shows every sign of being a fabrication or hoax). They are the arms of a certain Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, to whom they were granted in 1995. Use in the article Barony of Blackhall is thus apparently not justifiable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 26 October 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.

File:2011-11-06-WORColorLOGO2in.jpg

File moved to Wikipedia Commons at C:File:WOR (AM) logo 2011-2013.jpg; in effect, the file local to Wikipedia has been deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 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.

Logo seems simple enough so that it doesn't need to be licensed as non-free, but rather as {{PD-logo}}. If it is, however, really non-free, then I'm not sure if it's use in WOR (AM) satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This definitely seems too simple to be subject to copyright, and tagging it with {{PD-logo}} should not be an issue. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 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.

File:21April1967emblem.PNG

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:21April1967emblem.PNG for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 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.

Image is being used in Phoenix in popular culture and Georgios Papadopoulos. It has a non-free use rationale for each article but use does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either article. Use in "Phoenix in popular culture" also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 since there area a number of images at Commons which could be used to express the same idea. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 1 July 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.

File:2004 Belgium 10 Euro 60 years peace Europe front.JPG and File:Uofchicagophoenix.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on Phoenix in popular culture for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 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.

Both images are being used in Phoenix in popular culture. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is being used purely for "decorative" purposes. Use of images does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 since no context is being discussed and WP:NFCC#1 since there are a number of images on Commons which could be used for the same purpose. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 1 July 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.

File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 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.

Image is used in multiple articles had has a non-free rationale for each. The question is whether the logo of a national federation can be used or should be used in individual team articles. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles, and that logo specific to the child entity should be used instead (ala WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg above). The national teams of many countries, however, do use the same logo for all age-levels of competition and both men and women's team. Most of the official pages linked to for these teams will all show the same logo being used, so I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such cases. I've removed some similar logos in the past per No. 17, so I would just like a little more clarification. I can re-add the logos if there use is actully considered acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 1 July 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.

File:7 Med Bn Gp Special forces Doctor Badge.jpg and File:2nd issue 7 Med Bn Gp Ops Badge.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on 7 Medical Battalion Group for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 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.

Both images are being used in 7 Medical Battalion Group#Selection and training. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it's not clear if either usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. There is some discussion of the badges in the section and how they compare to another military badge, but none of the discussion is sourced. A "citation needed" can be added to the text, but not sure how that affects the use of the images. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the text requires visual representation of the badges (it doesn't impact the reader's understanding). If necessary, one could add mention how they are based on the medical caduceus with the partol's other imagery, but that can be done in text. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 2 July 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.

File:Spider-Man punching Sandman in Spider-Man 3.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#File:Spider-Man punching Sandman in Spider-Man 3.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 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.

Screenshot from the movie Spider-Man 3. It has a non-free use rationale for Spider-Man 3 and Sandman (Marvel Comics). Use might be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 for the movie's article since it is used in part of the article where special effects are discussed. Use does not seem acceptable at all for the character article since the image itself is not being discussed and is simply being used to illustrate (rather poorly in my opinion) that Thomas Haden Church played the character in the movie. Church is still alive so WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied and you can't really identify him at all from the image so the image is not needed at all per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 3 July 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.

File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg

File listed at and deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 30#File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 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.

Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Kingdom of Nepal. Use in article seems primarily decorative and, therefore, does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Image also has no source information other than "The logo may be obtained from the Kingdom of Nepal" so I tagged it as {{di-no source}}. This was reverted, however, by this edit. Isn't "The logo may be obtained from XXXXX" just the default text the template adds when no source is provided? Is that acceptable as a "source" for an image? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we do need an explicit source, you can't just say "Kingdom of Nepal". A non-link to a book or something comparable at minimum is necessary. Keep in mind if this is a coat of arms we should be able to make a free version based on the nature of uncopyrightable heraldy elements. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Understand. I will continue to try and find a link and will ask the uploader if they remember where they originally found the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Tineye found the source of the exact image and I have added it to the file page. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ww2censor and Tineye for providing a source for the image. However, it is still not clear how the image's use in Kingdom of Nepal#Origins satisfies WP:NFCC#8. The image is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification for the article, and it is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article so it does not seem to meet the significance criterion required by the NFC. Image's caption simply says "Royal arms", but there's no indication at all if this is the version adopted as a replacement for the image currently being used in the infobox or simply just an alternative version. There is also no mention of the image in Emblem of Nepal. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Marchjuly I agree with you and as I have some Nepal books did not see anything like this there to give us any clues. It may of course be so old it will not appear online. I will look at some other literature. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 9 July 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.

File:75th-logo-bhm.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:75th-logo-bhm.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 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.

Image is being used in Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport#History. Image is not discussed at all and usage appears primarily decorative. I don't think the image is needed per WP:NFCC#8 for the reader to understand the sentence "In 2006 Birmingham International Airport celebrated its 75th year." - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 5 August 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.

File:Taftlogo.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Taftlogo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 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 eligible for copyright protection in the US? George Ho (talk) 02:48, 2 October 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.

File:Amazing Spider-Man 615.jpg and File:Competition Spectacular Spider-Man.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#Images on Sandman (Marvel Comics) for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 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.

Two more images being used in Sandman (Marvel Comics). Neither image is the subject of any critical commentary within the article and each seems to have been added for decorative reasons.- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 3 July 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.

File:Eddiebrocktthree.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:Eddiebrocktthree.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 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.

Seems to be a user-created montage of three separate images. No sources are given for the images other than Wikipedia articles. Seems to be an attempt to compare and contrast how the character appears in three different TV shows/films, but this is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself so not sure if this use satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 3 July 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.

File:3-brand.svg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:3-brand.svg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 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.

Image is being used in Three Ireland, Hutchison 3G and Three UK. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article and each company is stated to be subsidiary of the Hutchison Whampoa. Image appears to be shared by all three companies, but slightly different versions of the image can be found on the relevant official websites (Three Ireland, Hutchinson 3G and Three UK). Does Nop. 17 of Wp:NFC#UUI apply here and should the website logs be used instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 3 July 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.

File:30th anniversary badge best.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:30th anniversary badge best.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 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.

Image is used in Fairbairn College#30th Anniversary. Not sure if use satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the only statement regarding the image is unsourced and simply says "A special lapel badge, seen alongside, was presented to every learner and educator to be worn during the anniversary year." - Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 July 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.

File:37 Armd Engr Sqn Noddy.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:37 Armd Engr Sqn Noddy.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 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.

Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in 37 Armoured Engineer Squadron. No source is listed for the image and I tried searching online, but I was only able to find this webpage which does not look to be an official website of either the unit or the British Army. Is the above website OK to use as the source of the image or should the image be tagged as {{di-no source}}.

Are military unit logos like this generally considered non-free or do they qualify as public domain? I've come across a few similar images which lack any source information other than to say, for example, "British Army" or "44 Regiment", etc. Sometimes I am able to find an official page where the image is used, but sometimes I am only able to find blogs or forum pages where the image is used. How should such images be dealt with per Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 6 July 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.

File:3d world atlas icon.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3d world atlas icon.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 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.

Image is being used in the infobox 3D World Atlas. Image has a non-free rationale for the article but I don't see the relevance of it per WP:NFCC#8 since it' simply shows a globe and there is another image showing essentially the same thing in the infobox. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 6 July 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.

File:3Dfxlogo.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3Dfxlogo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 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.

Image is used in 3dfx Interactive#Early history. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it is not the subject of any sourced commentary at all. The only purpose of the image seems to be to say the company's former logo used to be written with a capital "D". If this information is relevant, then it that text can be used to express this fact and that an image is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 6 July 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.

File:3player logo.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3player logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 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.

Use seems unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since File:3player.png is also being used in the infobox for 3Player - Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 July 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.

File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 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.

Non-free image being used in Wonderbra#History. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, and the claim is that it is relevant to the discussion about the "Canadian Lady Corsette Co. Ltd." The image itself, however, is not the subject of any sourced critical discussion and the connection between "Wonderbra" and "Canadian Lady" can being sufficiently explained using text. So, image is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 7 July 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.

File:A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D.gif

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D.gif for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 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.

Non-free logo used to illustrate former logo in History of S.C. Siracusa#From Palazzolo to Sport Club Siracusa. Usage does not seem appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 since logo is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the section. The only (indirect) mention of the logo is "The team's colors were green and yellow." However, the logo has a nfur for A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D. which redirects to the current article. Maybe at one time there was a stand-alone article for the old team, but not sure how that logos current non-free usage. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 11 July 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.

File:Liga I logo.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 15#File:Liga I logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 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.

Image is used in Liga I#Sponsorship to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 since the current text is more than sufficient to explain things.

Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the WP:NFCCP, and simply tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} or should it go to WP:FFD for a full discussion? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 14 July 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.

File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.jpg

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 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.

Image is being used in Super Victor and UEFA Euro 2016#Mascot. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I'm not sure if the image is needed in the tournament article per WP:NFCC#8. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed.

In addition to the aforementioned article, the images was also added to UEFA European Championship mascot, but I removed that per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the stand-alone article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 14 July 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.

File:ABC RTV6 official.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:ABC RTV6 official.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 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.

Non-free image being used in WRTV#WRTV to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 23 July 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.

File:KCUV-FM.png

No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:KCUV-FM.png for further discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 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.

Former radio station logo being used in KVOQ-FM#Former logo. Image is not subject of any sourced commentary within article so contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. In addition, usage for decorative purposes in a gallery or a gallery-like way is not something allowed per WP:NFG. Image, however, might be too simple to be considered non-free and therefore may be a candidate for {{PD-logo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 14 September 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.

File:"Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum" logo.jpeg

File re-tagged as a free file with {{PD-logo}}. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 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.

Pretty sure this one qualifies as a non-copyrightable textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:02, 13 October 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.

File:Emerson Knives logo.png

File is no longer transcluded in any non-article pages. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 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 copyrightable? If so, then the file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 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.

File:18th-century packet boat used for postal service.jpg

This seems to have been solved, but the discussion was never closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (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 uploader of this image says that the depiction of the 18th century boat is from a 19th century book. This probably means the depiction is actually in the public domain (published before 1923/1946). --189.25.241.15 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It probably is, but we need to know what that book was to be sure of that. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Google Image Search kicks me to this page which has a coloured version of the image. It says it comes from an "1825 book plate. RI Historical Society RHi X3 5593".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Then definitely PD-old. But we should link to that description to show that clarity. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:49, 19 November 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.

File:Croatia football federation.png

Seems to be consensus to remove it from every page except Croatian Football Federation. --Brustopher (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It is the logo of the Croatian Football Federation, but it is also used in articles about teams (i.e. subdivisions of the federation). The picture also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think removing it from the the user sandbox is pretty straightfoward thing. I posted on the editor's talk page letting them know about NFFC#9 and giving them a chance to remove it themselves. The UUI#17 stuff is pretty clear cut to me as well, but perhaps there are some others who feel differently. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that this could be considered too simple for copyright protection in the United States and, therefore, be OK as "PD-USonly". I am only asking to be sure before the image is removed from the child articles. The shield and the lettering appear generic enough; After all, text isn't copyrightable and shield is considered a heraldry element, right? The volleyball image, however, is something I'm not too sure about. Is this generic enough to be considered "utilitarian"? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
If something is too simple for copyright protection in the United States but not in the source country, then use {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. However, this seems to be sufficiently complex for protection in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 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.

File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg

Clear consensus to remove from every page except FC Barcelona--Brustopher (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

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.

It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in FC Barcelona. SLBedit (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Logo was also being used in FC Barcelona Juvenil A, but I removed in for not having the nfur required by WP:NFCC#10c. File is still being used eight team articles with UUI No. 17 issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 13 October 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.

File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png

Clear consensus to remove from all pages except Sporting Clube de Portugal. --Brustopher (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

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.

It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Sporting Clube de Portugal. SLBedit (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be removed from all other pages except the parent article. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_69&oldid=1163440143"