Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

File:SBS badge.gif

{{discussion top}} Several IP's (likely same user) have made assertions that the stated copyright information may not be correct. I am referring the issue here for review. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some prior discussion with the copyright-asserting user is present here. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
IP was also discussed on AN/I here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No further action appears to have been taken by the asserted owner IP address and/or account in over six months to prove ownership. Regardless of the actual ownership of the copyright which remains unclear (the link provided by the IP have not provided the image when queried at a variety of times throughout the week), it still falls within the bounds of WP:NFCC and has an appropriate license and FUR. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2010 (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:TopOfEverybodyDrawMohammedDay.jpg

{{discussion top}}

  • There are strong indications that the creator of this copyrighted image would not want it published in Wikipedia. She has deleted the image from her own web page, has withdrawn her support from the draw Muhammad day project, and has made a video apologizing to Muslims while wearing a hat covering all of her hair. Her specific permission should be required before all or part of the image appears in Wikipedia. Prior to filing this request, I tried to contact her, but she has removed contract information from her website.
  • The use of Norris' drawing also fails to meet contextual significance standard. The copyrighted drawing is not the subject of the article as claimed in the rationale for fair use. The Wikipedia article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is about the day itself. Further, it was not the particular drawing by Norris that spurred the movement; rather, it was her statements regarding free speech that attracted the attention of other bloggers.
Just some comments, whether the creator would want it published or not doesn't really matter at this point. Second, it claims "The article is about the cartoon as well as the movement it spawned.", and you point to the section where the drawing is described, so I'm not sure where you're going with this point. Further, do you have a reliable source that says it was her statements and not her drawing that inspired the movement? Finally, that the image be "necessary to the readers' understanding" isn't one of the WP:NFCC criteria, only that it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". VernoWhitney (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
RE: Verno's comment that "whether the creator would want it published or not doesn't really matter at this point." Are you a copyright attorney? If you are, and can cite applicable statute and case law that shows that the intent of the creator does not matter, and that my other arguments are inapplicable, then I will withdraw this request.
I am also saying that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 is not met. That is why I pointed to the section where the drawing is described. The Wikipedia article repeats Noris' statements and describes the copyrighted picture in great detail. The presence of the copyrighted picture does not significantly increase readers' understanding. The non free content criteria are not all met as required by WP:NFCC. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
See Fair use -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

More indications the creator would want the image taken off Wikipedia This is from her website - she apologized profusely, and marks up the poster. [1]. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm the uploader. I covered #8 on the image page: This partial image shows the poster-like nature of the cartoon, which is impossible to completely convey in words. It also shows the visual emphasis of certain words in the original and the breezy style of the drawing, also not possible to completely convey in words. The cartoon is on numerous blogs, including newspaper reporting blogs, already, initially at the instigation of the creator of it. Here's an example of how the image may be useful: I happened to have my local newspaper opened to the editorial page when I logged on. Kathleen Parker's op-ed article (originally in the Washington Post) on this subject is on the page. Second paragraph: "a Seattle cartoonist who sketched some doodles and unwittingly launched a movement." Readers of Parker's column will know what Parker means by "doodles" if they can see the image -- they'll know that "doodles" refers to the look of the cartoon: It looks like it was put together pretty quickly. Whether or not that has anything to do with the cartoonist's (Molly Norris) quickly changing views on this, I don't know, but the readers may find the visual information useful. Oh, one other thing: Parker writes, "Her idea, which Norris insists was intended only to serve as a stand-alone cartoon--not a movement!--has spawned ..." So at one point, all this was just a cartoon and only intended to be one. It isn't really possible to cover the subject fully without readers seeing at least part of the cartoon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The image should be kept, and remain in use. It is of significant importance and directly related to the article it is used in. Also, agree with above comments by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs) and JohnWBarber (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The argument that the image fails fair use criteria don't hold water. Obviously, the image is central to understanding the flurry of support it spawned. Likewise, the author's wish is--if anything--a good reason Wikipedia should not pay attention to that wish, as there is ample evidence that the retraction of the image has been made under (real or imagined) duress. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Image has been replaced in the article by File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg and consensus appears to support that this (and correspondingly the other image) meets the standards WP:NFCC. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2010 (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.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

{{discussion top}} Do we need 10 cover images in the infobox? Se also talk. Rettetast (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd say, yes, that's a problem. I've removed all of the covers, as not a single one of them had a FUR to the article, and tagged them all now as unused, since they aren't being used elsewhere. I don't think a valid FUR can be written for them, as their use was somewhat akin to using album covers in a discography. That still leaves 11 images, which seems like clear NFC overkill. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Images removed

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:Heather Harmon.jpg

{{discussion top}} I'm new to the fair use image process and believe I've found the best image for this article. I do not think it is copywritten. I contend that image cannot be replaced with a free image due to the fact that the performer has effectively disappeared from the public eye in order to start a family and is unlikely to return. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a proposed policy that defines what is reasonably replaceable here. See Not Reasonably Replaceable. To be clear:

  1. Here whereabouts are not generally known
  2. She has effectively disappeared from public view and wishes to remain that way
  3. Stalking her and taking an unauthorized photo is not a reasonable alternative
  4. Distributing this non-nude portrait in no way takes away from the commercial potential of website
  5. She modeled only for her husband typically in their own home or a private outdoor location. The company they started, IDT Productions, holds the copyright to those images. All of the thousands of stills and hundreds of videos are waterwarked along the bottom. This image was offered without waterwark for publicity purposes.
  6. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" No. She does not make public appearances and non-consential photography is unacceptable
  7. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" No, due to the fact neither the model or website provided a last name, visual recognition will be required by some to accept article as valid.

-Stillwaterising (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The image was being used in the infobox to identify the subject and as she is still alive it is considered reasonable that an image can be taken of her, so it is replaceable; a nude or non-nude image is not required to identify her, any freely licenced image will do the job. Such a fair use claim for any image must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and besides failing #1, it likely also fails #8, "contextual significance". There is no commentary about this particular image that would even remotely make it contextually significant to the article. Unfortunately some articles just have to remain without images. Now that you have removed the image from the page it will be deleted because non-free images must be used in an article to remain here per WP:NFCC#7. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As per #8, I could find an image of her deepthroating a phallic object but it didn't seem very tastefull. As per #1 I think I made a reasonable argument. As per NFCC#7, I read that files under dispute are to be orphaned until resolved. That makes more sense than "use it or lose it." - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question Can somebody please point out to me a Policy stating that no living person is to have fair-use content? I feel betrayed and mislead and like I wasted a large amount of my time posting and defending an image that is never going to be accepted no matter the rationale. This is an unreasonable process and I'm requesting that the word "reasonable" be taken out of the process.

The rationale behind deletion was stated "A living person so it's reasonable to expect a free image of her to be available."

This should be changed to "The subject is a living person so it is expected that a free image be used. No exceptions."- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted.

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.

Sample of screenshots with Windows/OS X etc. non-free widgets

{{discussion top}} Hi,

I tried to start some discussion of this on Template_talk:Non-free_software_screenshot#Windows_UI_elements_etc. (possibly not the right place, so direct the discussion to another place if you feel so); anyway:

On commons:Commons:Screenshots, there's been some discussion on UI elements like the Windows close/minimize buttons etc. not being free. While they might qualify for fair use, they probably fail the Wikipedia non-free policy if they are replaceable, i.e. if a similar image could be made without them (possibly using a free system or something), or they could be cropped.

In my experience, while there are such policies on Wikipedia, they aren't systematically enforced, so I went through the first 100 hits when searching for "screenshot" in the File: space. Here are some images to consider (a mere sample); I'm not tagging them yet, as I'm not sure enough about the issue (I think mass tagging without discussing first would be rude anyway). Note that all these were among the first 100 hits, and I only considered those that were screenshots of software and not a full-screen game without any OS widgets (which often still are non-free). One of them actually contains album covers, and a couple contain Wikimedia logos which I understand render them non-free.

File:Old_project.net_screenshot.gif

File:Flcelloguy's_Tool_UI.PNG

File:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG

File:Musicportal.gif

File:WM_screwedupimage.PNG

File:2007-E-uncat.png

File:Commonist_screenshot.png

File:Inkscape_screenshot.png

File:Screenshot-big.gif

File:FeedDemon_screenshot.png

File:TUGZip_screenshot.png

File:VMware_screenshot.png

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg

File:Zultrax-3.39-screenshot.png

File:BBEdit_Screenshot.png

File:PowerArchiver_screenshot.png

File:GOLD_screenshot.gif

File:GayOne-screenshot.jpg

File:Screenshot-AlbumPic.png

File:Openmotif_screenshot.png

File:Commonplace-screenshot.jpg

File:Freehand-screenshot.jpg

File:Ichitaro_2006_screenshot.jpg

I explore Wikipedia systematically anyway (I do copyediting), so I might spend some time tagging images like this, if there's a consensus of what I should do to them. --SLi (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific blanket action to take for all the images. In my opinion, the Windows window design and minimize/maximize/close icons are too simple to attract copyright, so a screenshot of free software that just happens to be running in Windows is OK (provided it doesn't show taskbar or a copyrighted background, etc.
Some of those images don't have a sufficient rationale, though, and fall to be tagged {{subst:nrd}}.
Anything with the WMF logo is also non-free and needs to be tagged appropriately. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To expand on this, these images basically fall into one of the following categories:
  1. Images on Commons, which are outside our responsibility
  2. Screenshots of free software which only display freely-licensed material (I'm including a window with minimize/maximize/close icons in this)
  3. Screenshots of non-free software which have a proper rationale
  4. Screenshots of non-free software which do not have a proper rationale
  5. Screenshots of free software which include non-free content (including Wikimedia logo, other copyrighted programs, copyrighted text or images, Windows interface, etc.)
What action to be taken on the image depends on which category it's in. #1 is out of our hands, #2 and #3 are probably fine. #4 should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:dfu}}, or similar, and #5 should be tagged as {{PUI}}. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt modern UI elements would be considered simple enough to not merit copyright protection at least in the US. Of course I think this question is somewhat academic in the sense that whether to allow those images or not is only a Wikipedia policy question, since they quite certainly would be fair use. But the bar for copyright protection is usually quite low. Old black-and-white UI widgets with a cross as a close button would not be copyrightable, but I'm fairly certain if we're talking about more artistic wighets, and e.g. having the Windows logo in one of the widgets (as I think is often the case in Windows) and more stylish widgets, then the UI at least as a whole would get copyright protection. (And how about the Windows panel... bar... whatever the thing in the bottom part of the screen is called?) I also think showing a Windows logo wouldn't be any different from showing a Google logo (for example the small site icon in a browser), even if it's embedded in the standard UI of Windows.
In any case, the nice folks at Commons seem to have discussed this issue quite a bit. --SLi (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not the individual elements are subject to copyrights, their use in a larger work is usually de minimus, meaning their existence doesn't cover the copyrighted status of the resulting image. It would be like a photograph of someone mailing an envelope that happened to have a copyrighted stamp on it. Envelopes have stamps, but the stamp is incidental to the image. I say usually because obviously there are exceptions. I say in most cases, treat the images as if the user interface elements were not a factor. Use common sense though - if there are non-stock user interface elements, or the elements are large and their design is integral to the program being screen-shot, they very well may be a factor for copyright purposes. In particular, user interface elements in games which have their own user interface elements rather than using the ones from the underlying operating system or a widely-used library may be considered "part of the art of the game" for copyright purposes. Also, more complicated elements, like a print dialog box, may rise above "incidental use/de minimus use" and have protection in a larger work, where a simple element, like a radio button, might not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:03, 5 December 2009 (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.

Four images

{{discussion top}} User:Sligocki is making a claim that the following four images qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}:

Comments welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an overly-liberal interpretation of PD-textlogo. It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Maaaaybe the File:Spb metro logo.svg. The other three are obviously not textlogos, and I'm pretty sure that "a shape that is designed to look like an M" is not automatically given the status of typeface. Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say no to all of them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If any of them are close, I'd say File:MetroSP.png, because it is just Helvetica, some rectangles, and some lines. Graphic element on the left seems to be simple geometry, or composed of typographical elements (say a ^ and a | ). But it is pushing it a bit. I'd agree with the above.-Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the latter two would be fine without their logos; the former two are not ok in any part. Powers T 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg - this isn't a letter, or combination of letters, or any geometric shape. It has no grounds to be ineligible for copyright.
File:Spb metro logo.svg - This could be a letter. I'm not really up on my Cyrillic alphabet, but this easily could be a single letter with some artistic variation. If it is a letter (like the letter "M"), then it meets the criteria for {{PD-textlogo}} as its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." [1]
File:MetroSP.png - Arrows are not subject to copyright, neither are squares, rectangles or plain text. This one fits PD-text to a "T"
File:MTR Corporation.svg - Same as above, but even moreso as they are Chinese characters. — BQZip01 — talk 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You say discussions with me are "futile", yet you keep responding and twisting my words.
File:Spb metro logo.svg, "with some artistic variation" means it is still a letter "M" and therefore PD-text. "...copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation..." In short, if it is an "M", then it is text and its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." and it cannot be copyrighted. It really is that simple.
File:MetroSP.png "[XYZ] might be copyrightable" You seem to have no desire to delve into actual copyright law and learn what is copyrightable and what isn't. You are content with saying "it might not be, so we have to assume it isn't." There is no counter to that specious argument. Just because you personally don't know doesn't mean you just do what you want anyway.
Arrows (in both of the last two images, though the last one is of such small resolution that it is marginally useful at best) are not copyrightable: ...it is not possible to copyright...a standard symbol such as an arrow..."
You cannot make something copyrightable by placing a box around it much as you can't simply outline it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hammer, it doesn't help to complain about bureaucracy, but it does help to show where I am wrong. I am quoting from the U.S. Copyright office which explicitly mentions the design feature here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that no matter how hard anyone tries, you don't ever shift your position. For the sake of happiness, I'll allow that from your perspective I'm sure you feel the same about me. You've reiterated the claim about the copyright office I don't know how many times. Honestly, we get it, we know you disagree, we know you quote the copyright office to substantiate your belief. In turn, we disagree with your position. The paradox and irony I find here is I think you'd prefer everything were free. That's exacly what I would like to see too, which is why I love this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
File:MetroSP.png – This is a simple combination of letters and geometric shapes. It is a textbook case PD-textlogo.
File:MTR Corporation.svg – The icon on the left is not a letter or a simple geometric shape. Unless this icon is a PD for some reason, the logo as a whole is not PD.
File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg – The S is distorted into a circle with a center bar and the M is superposed on the bar. Although it is composed entirely of letters, the artist has shown great originality. (The distortion and superposition are similar in kind to the Bruins logo we discussed above. Although this one has a bit less originality than the Bruins logo, it still crosses the threshold.)
File:Spb metro logo.svg – The side bars of the М are distorted into a circular shape. It is no more like a Cyrillic M than a Latin M (Indeed a upper case Cyrillic М is the same as a Latin M; lower case Cyrillic м is like a small cap Latin M, in cursive script with a hook-in on the left.) Although it has less originality than the Shanghai logo, it still crosses the threshold. —teb728 t c 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how the logo on MTR Corporation.svg is not a simple geometric shape, but the one on MetroSP.png is. Powers T 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a good way to determine if a logo consists of simple geometric shapes: If you could describe the logo to me in one sentence and I could produce a nearly-exact copy solely from your description, it probably consists of only simple geometric shapes. Of the four logos presented here, only File:MetroSP.png meets that test. Kaldari (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one image is PD-textlogo. Garion96 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2010 (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:Citizendium main page.png

{{discussion top}} There's a disagreement over whether or not this screenshot of a website passes WP:NFCC#8 for use in the Larry Sanger article. Discussion appears to have stalled. I'm hoping to get some outside input from those with more FUR experience. --Onorem♠Dil 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The fair use rationale for Larry Sanger is "To illustrate the Web site founded by Larry Sanger using a screenshot of the main page". This is rather weak. We generally don't allow non-free band logos in articles about bands (let alone a screenshot of the band's webpage), so a screen shot of a website that someone created in a biographical article seems even more contrived. The appearance of the website does not increase our understanding of Mr. Sanger. We don't need to see the website to understand that he founded a website (or if we do, the rationale and prose don't explain that visual importance). I would say this clearly fails WP:NFCC, except apparently it isn't clear to everyone. -Andrew c [talk] 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
All Citizendium content is available under Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0. That's an acceptable license for images, no? I think there is no reason to go the "fair use" route at all to have an image like this, just do it (possibly a new image) in a way that is license-compliant. - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Image removed from Larry Sanger. Garion96 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2010 (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.

Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual

{{discussion top}} I would like to revive the Help talk:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual#Licensing problem and images problem discussion. Problem is that the content is non-free (although licensed under GFDL), against Wikipedia's licensing terms, because the book includes an Invariant Section (the Author and Publisher Information). This means the book is out of the scope of the CC-BY-SA relicensing of Wikipedia. As mentioned in the discussion mentioned above, we would need to either go back to O'Reilly/the author to get this relicensed or delete the book from Wikipedia. PleaseStand (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The book was donated by Broughton himself, a Wikipedia user; he is the one who started the page, and he has said he intended to have it freely available to be edited. If there is a concern, perhaps this could be moved to WikiBooks (with a soft redirect left here), but I certainly don't think it needs to be deleted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the right to change the licensing of the book; I'm not sure whether that right is solely or jointly with O'Reilly, but they would have to agree to any changes. The invariant section that appears on the copy of the book at en.wikipedia.org was an attempt to comply with GFDL requirements; it appears that we did not anticipate the CC-BY-SA change. (The discussion about free content, between O'Reilly and me, began well before the critical date of November 1, 2008, but didn't conclude until shortly before the book went up in late January 2009.) In any case, both O'Reilly and I had intended to make the book free content, requiring only attribution, as I've said before, and I haven't changed my mind, and I'm sure that no one at O'Reilly has either.
It would be really helpful if someone could point to another book that began life normally copyrighted, and subsequently was released under CC-BY-SA, so I could in turn point that out to O'Reilly. I'm almost positive that they'd be amenable to a change, but the less work it is for them, the better. (Or, similarly, say exactly what needs to be done - page X needs to be deleted, page Y needs to say "whatever", and so on.) If I go back to O'Reilly and simply say "the license needs to be changed to CC-BY-SA", the issue is likely to end up on the desk of someone who has fifty more pressing things to do than to research the matter. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the person at O'Reilly's desk would simply have to sign the following form: Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries ... --1904.CC (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; very helpful. I'll check with O'Reilly. I not that it's a large company, which has gone through a reorganization and layoffs since January 2009, so this may take a bit of time. I'll send the OTRS folks my half of the release/declaration. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (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:Chapman_as_Brian.jpg

{{discussion top}} The image Chapman_as_Brian.jpg currently has a fair-use rationale for Monty Python's Life of Brian, but it is also being used on Graham Chapman. I'm requesting the attention of you, the great Fair Use Cabal Experts, to decide whether it should be removed from that article, or permitted to remain (and the current rationale modified accordingly). -- Perey (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is my cynical take (and my unpaid "volunteer") take. If it doesn't have a fair use rational for an article, it is in violation of policy, and must be removed from that article. If someone cares enough about the image, they can fix it themselves. I guess I have that mom's "I'm not the maid" mentality. ha. If you personally believe it is a justified fair-use, then you are welcome to write a rational yourself (that is, if you are more diligent than I).-Andrew c [talk] 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not me mate! I've gone ahead and taken it out of the article. If anyone does care, that should get their attention. If not, well, now we're compliant. -- Perey (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Image removed from Graham Chapman. Garion96 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (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:GeneSummersSchoolRockRoll.jpg

{{discussion top}} I have removed this image five times from the article since January 2009 as being a non-fair use of an album cover in the infobox of Gene Summers, but keep getting reverted without an explanation. Summers is still alive and a free use image could be found. Since the image is used in the album's article, The Ultimate School of Rock & Roll, so the image cannot be deleted from Wikipedia, but I would like other people's opinions on the album cover's use to illustrate how Summers looks/looked. Aspects (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See two topics up, regarding File:Chapman_as_Brian.jpg. There is no fair use rationale for this article, so it can simply be removed from the article. Please inform me or another admin if it gets re-instated, and I'd be glad to communicate NFCC to that user. -Andrew c [talk] 03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image removed from Gene Summers. Garion96 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (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.

Use of software screenshots in Wikipedia and Help namespaces

{{discussion top}} Firstly, apologies if this is not the place to raise this. I've been working on Help:Searching from a web browser, which details how to use different browsers inbuilt search mechanisms to search Wikipedia. I uploaded some screenshots to demonstrate using the search bar. Two screenshots (which I created myself) come from Internet Explorer - File:IE8 add search arrow.png & File:IE8 add search menu.png. These are non-free as IE is proprietary software. Both these screenshots were blanked by a bot and File:IE8 add search arrow.png is now tagged for deletion because it's an orphan. I discovered that non-free content is not allowed on project namespaces.

Whilst I understand that allowing non-free content outside the article namespace is generally undesirable, I would like to keep using these files as they help people understand how to use Wikipedia more efficiently and are important in conveying the instructions. Additionally, I would like screenshots from other browsers to be added - some of these browsers could also be proprietary. I would also like the possibility of using non-free screenshots on a small number of other help pages too - though I can't think of any pages at this time.

So what I am asking for is an exemption to use non-free screenshots on the Wikipedia and Help namespaces. These would only be used if no free equivalent was available, and only to explain the relationship between a specific piece of software and a specific Wikipedia feature. This means that the vast majority of software and all other types of images or media would not be eligible for display on non-article namespaces. If this proposal is approved I would like a new template for relevant files - {{Non-free software screenshot project namespaces}} for example. This would clarify the situation and help stop bots from blanking/tagging images. Gareth Aus (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not really possible. We can't just write up a second set of non-free content criteria for using non-free images in the Wikipedia space. We can't just make exceptions because it would be nice if we could have non-free content on certain pages. We're a free content encyclopedia- if we can't even write the meta-pages without non-free content, what hope do we have? J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2010 (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:Joseph Conrad.jpg

{{discussion top}} This file is used in the infobox of the Polish British article. I removed this image [2] as being unneeded fair use. It was restored 10 minutes later [3]. The infobox already contains four free license images to depict Polish British people. This makes the use of this and the image below redundant to the purposes of the infobox and failing WP:NFCC #1, as the purpose of depicting Polish British people has already been achieved with free license imagery. Second, the images fail WP:NFCC #8, as their presence does nothing to significantly add to the article. In the case of both images, neither image is discussed in any respect and the people they depict are merely listed in the "Notable individuals" section. If their presence in the notable individuals section is sufficient to pass fair use inclusion in the infobox, then perhaps we should also include File:HaroldPinter.jpg, File:Andrzej Panufnik.jpg, File:Marie Rambert.jpg, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your contribution. I'm sure you are an expert on pictures - I am not. As far as I am aware there is no way of objectively measuring notability of individuals, nor do I know of any threshold for inclusion of individuals, nor do I know of any guidance on how we should make individuals more or less prominent in articles like this. This is where I understand WP:Consensus comes into play, and human input as opposed to arbitrary rules. Personally, I would argue Joseph Conrad is the most notable Polish Briton there has ever been, and for that reason I think his pic should be included. Other editors are entitled to disagree with me, but that is my honest opinion. Conrad has been on the page for a very long time indeed and I don't know who added it. I added Skarbek on a whim, thinking her bio is fascinating, and fit the definition of Polish British. I've no justification other than that. As to the others you mentioned, I'd be delighted for you add them as well. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no fair-use rationale for this use so Hammersoft's removal is entirely justified. I doubt any fair-use rational would pass even if an attempt was made to write one; it clearly fails at least 2 NFCC criteria per Hammersoft. Consensus has nothing to do with this use, either it is an allowable use per all 10 fair-use content criteria or not. You cannot use this image in an infobox of an article that is not about the subject of the article. This article is not about Joseph Conrad, where the image is properly used with an appropriate rationale, but about Polish British people. Where images are properly used in one or more articles, and another improper use is made of the image, unfortunately we cannot just delete the image as would be the case for a simple single improper use. This is just the type of article where free images already exist, so no non-free images can be properly used even if they have been in the article a long time without being noticed. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that Conrad died in 1924, has anyone investigated when this photo was first published? If it was before 1923, then we're home and dry, at least for en.wiki.
Sadly though I have to agree with Hammersoft and WW2Censor, though: if this is not free (pre-1923), it simply doesn't add enough that is sufficient and irreplaceable and unsubstitutable to justify what seems to me basically decorative use at Polish British. Jheald (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are photos from March 1916 (though publication date might need to be confirmed). There is also this shot from our own Wikipedia Commons. Google images shows several more possible candidate alternatives too. Jheald (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Image replaced. Garion96 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2010 (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:Krystyna Skarbek.jpg

{{discussion top}} Essentially duplicate request to above. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Needed for use in Krystyna Skarbek. I'm in favour of keeping this, seeing as the subject has been dead for nearly 60 years. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The use of this image Krystyna Skarbek, the article about the subject, is not in question, but its use in the Polish British is in question because firstly there is no fair-use rationale and secondly, even if there was one, it would fail at least one, if not two, of the non-free content criteria which requires that all 10 criteria are met. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Image removed from Polish British. Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2010 (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.

Sehnsucht (Rammstein album)

{{discussion top}} I looked and boggled. I guess at least the different artwork from the foldout liner are mentioned - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting as they are, six album covers for one article seem pretty excessive to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is excessive, particularly with the lack of sourced commentary. I'd pursue this but the fight I would have in Files-for-Deletion bores me in advance - Peripitus (Talk) 08:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All but 1 cover image have been removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2010 (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:15 watterson lgl.jpg.jpg

{{discussion top}} thread copied from User talk:SchuminWeb

Hi. You deleted the photograph of Bill Watterson, File:15 watterson lgl.jpg.jpg, and I'm wondering if there's any chance/point in getting this discussed. I was under the impression that old photographs of people who currently refuse to be photographed (famous recluses), were generally kept, per precedents at ... (oh gods, we deleted Thomas Pynchon's picture? This diff from 2008 had it, but the filepage File:Pynchon.jpg states it was deleted in 2006. I'm confused!).

There's probably a ton of history here, so I was wondering if you could point me towards relevant thread(s)? Or should I make a thread at Wikipedia:Non-free content review? Or something else? Thanks for any suggestions or pointers :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Start a thread, so we can all kind of "take the temperature" on this one. I was always under the impression that, reclusive or not, as long as they're alive, it is considered possible to create a free image of them, and therefore we can't use a non-free image of the person solely to show what the person looks like (but once they die, the game changes). SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's another wrench: it was kept at FFD already. So I don't think it qualifies for speedy. –xenotalk 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 6#File:15 watterson_lgl.jpg.jpg.
I'll copy this thread to Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:15 watterson lgl.jpg.jpg, let's continue there. Thanks all. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

end of thread copied from User talk:SchuminWeb
SchuminWeb being overenthusiastic here. Image was kept in FfD discussion and should either be returned to FfD or taken to deletion review;for those that way inclined. I'd suggest that SchuminWeb undeletes it and takes either of these two paths. I don't have an opinion on whether it meets NFCC#1 as I have not really read up on this. I do note though that as recently as maybe 2008 (see here) he has been photographed in a posed shot. He does seem successful at keeping away from photographers. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The image you link to there is the same one we're discussing here ;) Taken in the 1980s, and possibly the only known photograph of Watterson. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No look further down on the page - him about 20 years later - Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I had javascript turned off and it didn't load. Hmm. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2010 (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.

Issue with three pictures taken in the Phipps Conservatory

{{discussion top}} Hello, three images I photographed ( File:Phipps5.jpg, File:Phipps4.jpg, File:Phipps2.jpg ) at the Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens have been declared to be in violation of the Non-free image use in galleries by Hammersoft. I disagree with Hammersoft's view that the images don't have proper fair use rationales to be included in the Phipps Conservatory article, because the images detail portions of the interior of the Phipps Conservatory, a historic place, and they help the article in an encyclopedic and educational way by showing examples of what it looks like inside the Phipps Conservatory. The issue here is that pieces of art glass designed by Dale Chihuly can be seen in the images amongst the gardens, plants and water features. The art glass, though in a public place, is three dimensional art, and in "the land of the free" you can't freely transmit such images (even though they can in jolly old England, as evidenced by the pictures in the Dale Chihuly Gallery) on Wikipedia without a fair use rationale. So, I listed a fair use rationale that I believe to be reasonable for use in the Phipps Conservatory article, and I included the images in the article's gallery of images. But Hammersoft does not think my fair use rationale is valid in this way. Perhaps for the article, though not for the gallery. Because galleries don't help people learn more by seeing more examples? I don't think these images are superfluous or gratuitous either. Anyway, I would just like to get some more opinions on this matter to help determine if these images should stay or go. According to the current policy regarding Non-free image use in galleries, there is some chance for these types of images to be included in the galleries if a good fair use rationale is provided, and it says the images "should be considered on a case-by-case basis." Well, I'd like to hear what others think on this matter. Leepaxton (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Hammersoft on this. We don't need 3 non-free images in a gallery. If we had a section talking about the glass work of Dale Chihuly in the context of the garden, and that content was sourced and notable, then it would make more sense to have one (not three) non-free images to illustrate that portion of the article. I noticed we in fact already have a paragraph on that starting with In 2007, Phipps teamed with glass artist Dale Chihuly ... So I would recommend choosing the one image that best represents that concept, moving it out of the gallery and placing it next to that paragraph, with a clear caption (and a clear fair use rationale), and we should be OK. But 3 non-free images of similar material in a gallery is non-free image overuse.-Andrew c [talk] 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Andrew. I'll choose one of the images and put it in the article in context to the mention of Dale Chihuly's collaboration with the Phipps Conservatory. We'll see how that goes, and hopefully that will satisfy everyone here. Then the other two images can be removed. Now I just have to figure out which one should be saved and which two should be thrown out. I'm leaning toward using either File:Phipps5.jpg or File:Phipps2.jpg. One shows a big piece of glass surrounded by plants, and the other is a water feature. File:Phipps5.jpg depicts a more dramatic piece of glass, but I like the water feature shown in File:Phipps2.jpg. Though I likely will not choose File:Phipps4.jpg, it is still a good image because it shows the interior of an older section of the Conservatory. File:Phipps5.jpg shows an elaborate piece of art glass, which is a hallmark of Chihuly's famous style, but there are other images of similar glass sculptures by Chihuly elsewhere on Wikipedia. So, I will most likely choose File:Phipps2.jpg, because it's an interesting image that shows the plant life, water feature, and the art glass interacting together. One can see how deciding these things isn't always easy, because each image shows a unique and different scene inside the Phipps Conservatory. I think they all can add to the article, and again, I don't think these images are superfluous or gratuitous either. I guess it's too much to ask that people should be able to see each image on Wikipedia in the gallery relating to the Phipps Conservatory article, but I would rather they are able to see one image than none. So, I will select one image with its fair use rationale, add it the article, and try to go from there. Leepaxton (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The image File:Phipps2.jpg was kept as fair use in Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens, while File:Phipps4.jpg and File:Phipps5.jpg were deleted. —RP88 (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2010 (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.

Golden Team

{{discussion top}} A whole lotta non-free images, most of them totally unnecessary. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the images have a non-free copyright tag but are missing a fair-use rationale so clearly fail WP:NFCC#10c and should be nominated for deletion based on that reason alone but due to so many images being used most also fail WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use. At most one or two non-free images might be considered justifiable at most. ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated most of the images together at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 16#File:Hidegkuti.jpg and this one Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 16#File:Wankdorfstadion1952.jpg one it own. There may still be too many as the non-free images that remain un-nominated will require a fully completed fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Images have been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

File:South park muhammad.jpg

{{discussion top}} I am unsure about the fair-use justification of this image on 200 (South Park). It seems the image comes from another episode of South Park and was only referenced (but not shown) in this episode, which makes me question how critical it is to a reader's understanding of this episode. Since it is a Muhammad image, the issue is a bit muddled ("Wikipedia is not censored"). However, my only question is whether the image falls only Wikipedia's strict non-free content policies. A discussion is ongoing at Talk:200_(South_Park)#Muhammad_image; however, it could use the input of people with more experience in borderline fair use cases. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: The image should be kept, and remain in use. Image of significant importance to this article and a few others as well. -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (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:GeneTurnerObit.JPG

{{discussion top}} This is a scan of a page from a magazine, for purposes of discussion here [4] of what to do about Eugene Turner given that the magazine actually plagiarizes Wikipedia and not the other way around. It's not for an article; I couldn't find an exact fair use classification for it; in addition of plagiarism of Wikipedia, the image contains text (unatrributed) copied from another website, not Wikipedia. I'm not sure what sort of fair use rational is appropriate in cases like these. Yakushima (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No fair use rational is applicable, only reason for its use was to ask a question about reverse copyvio - answering at the linked talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (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:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg

{{discussion top}} User:12.7.202.2 has twice removed a speedy deletion request. The IP has added the review tag to the image. Since they failed to start the discussion I will do so.

The file was originally used on two articles. Teabagger and Free Republic.

  • The file does not have a FUR. The IP has attempted to add a fur but it is not article specific or sufficient.
  • The image says it is from the Huffington Post but originally said the author is "Anonymous". It now says that "'FReeRepublic.Com' on the face of the poster" is the author. That is for the poster not the image itself.
  • The licensing template is also for the poster itself and not the image.
  • It is replaceable on the Teabagger article with something like File:Tea Party Protest, Hartford, Connecticut, 15 April 2009 - 050.jpg
  • It is replaceable at Free Republic with images already shown on that page.

Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was based on the edit history showing a previous failure to add a FUR to the same image after it was requested, edit warring, and my notice to that user of this concern (didn;t realize it was an indef). I guess that is for SPI though.Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now looked more closely at the relevant edit histories, and I withdraw the word "possible". It is perfectly obvious it is the same person. I don't have time to start a SPI now, but best of luck if you decide to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have also opened something up at SPI. Please feel free to follow up over there, JamesBWatson, if I missed something. It doesn't matter if he is a sockpuppet for this discussion of course (although it would be bad form) so I assume that cannot have any bearing on if the file is kept.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
FUR is added and speedy removed. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Your purpose is not valid, and there is a big warning message saying something needs to be fixed in the FUR. Please fix the template again. And while we are at it, can you confirm or deny that you avoiding a block on one (or more) of your usernames by editing anonymously? Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 17:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP has again removed the tag by adding a FUR (that is not sufficient) to Teabagging. He also reverted multiple edits including the redirect of the page that was decided over two talk pages. He also has not added a FUR for Free Republic. So it is still not in compliance.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
{{Db-f7}} or {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} or take it to FFD. -Andrew c [talk] 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a little confused. The image is tagged as a poster, but it's actually a photo of a protest. The poster itself would be PD-text, and maybe we should just crop the image to show only the poster, and retag it as PD-text? Is the context of the photograph important? Who took the photograph? I was under the assumption that this was a copyrighted photo, but if it is just the poster that is claimed copyrighted, then that's a different matter. Could someone explain this to me? What makes this image non-free?-Andrew c [talk] 00:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is copied from the Huffington Post so the image (not the sign itself) is more than likely under their copyright. Who actually took it has not been provide by the uploader. Simply cropping it and using PD-Text might work. I don't know if it would add enough to the article to justify the effort and I am not familiar enough with PD-Text to know if it supersedes what I assume would be restrictions on derivative work. And the reason this sign has any significance is because it is one of a couple that is speculated to be he first use of "tea bag" as a sexual pun by members of the Tea Party movement. Someone else reverted the IPs revert of the Teabagger article but there is still no FUR (it looks like there is half of one) for the Free Republic page.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the same user (ongoing sock discussion regarding IP range from the same area) has added a FUR for Free Republic. It takes care of many of the concerns. However, under "replaceable" it states "There are others, but they are likely to be of similar license." File:Tea Party Protest, Hartford, Connecticut, 15 April 2009 - 050.jpg is similar and conveys the same meaning (one of the "as evidence of first use of the verb "tea bag" by Tea Party protesters ~4/15/2009." It appears to be replaceable with currently available free media. Also, its historical importance is speculative and its presence does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. If there is no response here I will take it to FDD as recommended above.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the other image is a valid replacement for this one in the manner which it is used, which means it should be removed and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Your "other image" is not a clear use by a protester of the verb "teabag/tea bag" in two meanings; the sexual meaning is only implied. The two meanings are clear in the image under discussion.

There have been multiple disputed uses of this image that remain to be settled. I fear the very controversies contained in those articles seem to be animating attempts to delete this image.-12.7.202.2 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_22#File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (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:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.png

{{discussion top}} This logo has recently been added to a userbox style template: Template:Sea Shepherd Support. As a logo, it is protected by copyright and possibly trademark. WP:NFCC states: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions" The creator has interpreted the Wikipedia article on fair use and this source as allowing for thumbnails. I disagree with how it is being applied in this situation ("...under very strict and limited conditions. This interpretation of fair use, in regards to thumbnail images, applies when thumbnails are used in an indexing system.") and note that WP:NFCR states "Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content." Any other instances like this, related preexisting Wikipedia standards, or thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this usage is protected under
  1. US Fair Use Law (its a thumbnail) Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
  2. http://www.seashepherd.org/copyright.html Claims that their copyright is only applicable to commercial use
  3. That the page with the image, also has the same encyclopedic content that makes the other page fine.

☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 04:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the FUR for the main article is sufficient and not being questioned here.
Images like that must be free for commercial use and alteration to not require a FUR so their website's disclaimer doesn't help in this situation.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Teamcoltra the use of this image in the template clearly fails WP:NFCC#9 because non-free images may only be used in the article namespace. All other uses must be removed. And indeed commercial use is required for Wikipedia use, educational use is not enough. ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)This is unambiguous. WP:NFCC #9. Non-free content cannot be used outside of the article namespace. Yes, it may be legally fair use, and yes, Wikipedia is non-commercial, but a) we are the free encyclopedia, and thus our non-free content policy is stricter than US law and b) our free license ALLOWS for commercial re-use, so that the organization may not be happy with commercial mirrors of our site using the image (which they'd rightly be able to do under our licensing, in theory...) If you want content to be used liberally on Wikipedia, it must be licensed freely. Non-free content is heavily restricted, and our rules clearly make the use in the template a violation. Thus I have removed the image. -Andrew c [talk] 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Image removed from template/non-article namespace. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (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:Portal2 coop characters.jpg and File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg

{{discussion top}}

File:Portal2 coop characters.jpg

  • Image was copied from a magazine which was given exclusive access to the pre-release material, as it is a commercial magazine, this clearly infringes on the magazines ability to sell their magazine, or draw visitors to the images they host on their website. If the images are available on Wikipedia, then why would you buy the magazine or visit their website? Clearly violates criteria 2 of fair use policy as it is replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • Copyright tag it has is wrong, it says "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." This wasn't taken from an advertisement, the original authors, or a press kit.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, {{Non-free promotional}} is the wrong FUR tag for that image. I'll retag it with {{Non-free fair use in}}. —RP88 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg

  • Image was copied from a magazine which was given exclusive access to the pre-release material, as it is a commercial magazine, this clearly infringes on the magazines ability to sell their magazine, or draw visitors to the images they host online. If the images are available on Wikipedia, then why would you buy the magazine or visit their website? Clearly violates criteria 2 of fair use policy as it is replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • Copyright tag already points this out, it says "does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context".--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll answer both of your questions together since they're basically the same. The copyright almost certainly belongs to the game developers, not to the magazine. The original market role is to advertise the game, not to sell the magazine. Thus WP:NFCC#2 doesn't apply, because their use on Wikipedia does not impair their ability to advertise the game (in fact it's the opposite as they're getting free advertising). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "The original market role is to advertise the game, not to sell the magazine." Wrong. They advertised they had this content on the front cover to sell the magazine.[5]--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not contesting that the reason for the magazine to use the images was to sell the magazine, I'm saying that it's irrelevant unless they own the copyright. The analysis must be done based on the market role for the actual copyright holder. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The magazine bought the rights to exclusively publish the images in their magazine for profit. Has Wikipedia got any rights to republish these images?--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They didn't buy the copyright, they only bought the right to publish them. The magazine would pay the authors x amount of money to do this. By republishing them here, you are infringing on the magazines ability to profit from them.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand fine, but their agreement simply doesn't matter. Fair use and the NFCC are only concerned with the copyright holder. RP88 goes into more detail below. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia has the rights that are conferred by the fair use doctrine, despite not having a license to the images in question. In the U.S. the fair use doctrine allows the limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder. —RP88 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding regarding fair use and how it interacts with licensed exclusivity. Consider the case of a first-run television program. TV networks purchase the right to exclusively distribute a program from the program's production company. Despite this exclusivity, Wikipedia routinely includes a copyrighted screen shot of the program in the article about the program. When doing so Wikipedia relies upon the rights conferred by the fair use doctrine (WP further restricts itself with its own self-imposed rules, i.e. WP:NFCC). Now imagine the case where TV Guide magazine pays for the rights to exclusively show screen shots of a forthcoming TV program, a program that has an article on Wikipedia. Does this change the reasoning of using screenshots from the program in the article? It does not, under the fair use doctrine the rationale for using copyrighted material owned by the production company without their permission remains the same. If the earlier use was reasonable, the later use is reasonable. —RP88 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
For those interested in reviewing these two images, you may first wish to read the lengthy discussion at WP:FFD. The result of the discussion was Keep, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-free tagging of these images are correct. However, I agree with VernoWhitney, WP:NFCC#2 does not apply. —RP88 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the FfD (thanks for the link), the only real issue I can see with the images would be WP:NFCC#8 which is always the most subjective one. I looked at the use of the images in the articles and they are each discussed in the article in at least some detail, so I'm inclined to believe that the images meet all of the NFCC requirements. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect FUR tag fixed. As to the rest, see WP:DEADHORSE. Forum shopping including an edit war at Portal 2, then here, here, here, and here/here have all resulted in the same answer which has now been explained at considerable length. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (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:TEC arms.PNG

{{discussion top}} information Note: This relatively recent discussion may be of relevance to this thread. NJA (t/c) 07:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Last revision of User_talk:Nja247#episcopal shield.png before discussion wound down on 11/27. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an official logo of the Episcopal Chruch in the United States, see link. It is marked "free" but its copyright status is unclear.

It is unclear if the official logo was created in 1940 and subject to a new copyright or if it is substantially identical to the version created in 1918 used by the Diocese of Long Island. Absent a copy of this that predates 1923, or a reliable reference saying the two are the same or so similar that no new copyright affixed to the changed version, we must view this file with suspicion.

The file File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif is substantially identical to this one. It is marked as copyright and with a fair-use rationale.

My recommendation: If we cannot determine if this is under copyright or not, we err on the side of caution and be ready to take it down as soon as we get any official complaints and tag it in such a way that it will not be put on the commons. Of course, if we can determine it is copyrighted, then we get rid of it and keep the fair-use version. Likewise, if we determine it is in the public domain, we get rid of the low-resolution fair-use version in favor of this one.

Talk pages of both images1,2 have some history and copyright information which may be helpful.

Courtesy links to history, we need more than this to come to a conclusion one way or the other:

  • [6], "The History of the Episcopal Church Flag"
  • [7], "The Episcopal Shield"
  • [8] Blazon, "Argent, a cross gules, on a canton azure nine cross-crosslets argent in saltire."


davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While this may not be particularly old—Hints online I can see match what you state above that the provenance is possible but unclear—it is simply the visual representation of the Heraldic description "Argent, a cross gules, on a canton azure nine cross-crosslets argent in saltire". As the entire image can be described with standard heraldic text I believe that no copyright subsists in text itself and so no copyright can subsist in an accurate representation of it. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I found a similar file on the commons. It is distinctly different, but its copyright status is similarly unclear. commons:File:Episcopal Shield.gif.
Also, commons:File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg is listed as free, but File:TEC flag.PNG is marked as a copyright logo. I think we can discuss whether the flag is PD or COPYVIO in this discussion as well, and either transwiki it to the commons as PD or recommend the commons delete their copy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We have had continual go-rounsd on this, because Wikipedia admins get delete-happy. Here's the cycle.
1) Upload a non-free version, marked for fair use.
2) Someone else uploads a "free" one, which they say they created.
3) The non-free one is deleted because the free one is available.
4) An admin decides the free one is really a copy of the one the Episcopal Church claims is under copyright, and deletes it.
I'm tired of this cycle. We need to stop this cycle. Can I beg you all to please just make up your minds and we can do whatever is right, but this has been going on for years. Since admins delete "non-free" images immediately, without any discussion, merely upon their individual suspicion that the file is a copy--even if the "copy" is not a file copy, or a representation copy, but just a copy of the same blazon, it still gets deleted, and because admins who love deleting images just charge ahead, we keep going around. I'm sick and tired of it. We have the rights to use it as a logo on Episcopal Church (United States), and we should do so, and the @#*$(@#*$ admins should please just decide how they want it marked, and then leave it alone. Tb (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As the nominator I concur, we should either prove this one way or the other, or if that is not possible, clearly mark all images as "unknown copyright status, do not mark as a copyright violation without discussion" with a link to this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a great theory. Admins will delete images that say "don't delete without discussion" because the current policy says to delete copyright violations without discussion, and admins generally take that as license to ignore all comments to the contrary and submit the image only to their own best individual guess. That has, at least, happened with respect to this very case. Tb (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I been contacted about this issue because I was the one that drew the SVG image (but I did not move it to the Commons). Alright, since some of you know about the pre-1923 rules when it comes to the public domain, I want you to look at this page. The flag was adopted in 1940, but if there was a lack of copyright notice on this flag (and until I see otherwise), this will be in the public domain due to failure to comply with US law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As Hammersoft alluded to below (15:27, 4 December 2009), we should try to prove PD status. It will be helpful or possibly required if we see an official publication that used this logo before 1977 that did not include some type of copyright notice, either for the logo or for the work which contained it. As most "non-disposable" publications e.g. books and magazines which would use this logo will have a copyright notice affixed, our best bet would be old newsletters that may lack a (c) symbol. Items published directly by the copyright-holder and not individual churches are preferred, as a good lawyer could argue that churches who published the logo without a (c) symbol may have done so without authorization. A good copyright lawyer might also argue that internal-use, limited-run printings such as internal newsletters or church bulletins are not "publishing" in the sense of the copyright law. Or best bet to show once and for all this is public domain probably is finding any publication before 1923 or showing that a logo can be created from the blazon without infringing on any copyrights of anyone else. Another remote option is to see if this image has ever been the subject of a real-world copyright suit and what the outcome was. Anyone have PACER access? IANAL. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:TEC arms.PNG - Arbitrary section break

Essentially we should sort this once and for all as we currently three known files depicting the same flag, when we only need one:

  • File:TEC_arms.PNG uploaded by JaMikePA as self created and under review here.
  • File:Episcopal_Church_Logo.gif uploaded by Tb under fair-use after our discussion (linked to at the top of this thread). Note here, that the image is being used for at least one userbox, which isn't allowed under fair use.
  • File:Episcopal_Shield.gif uploaded on commons by Markrobcol as self created.

Separately, but very much relevant if we wish to sort it once and for all are these two files:

NJA (t/c)updated by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (mainly to davidwr) We should not be retaining imagery whose copyright status we can not verify. We don't hold onto images awaiting a complaint from the copyright holder. If we can not prove this is in the public domain, we must presume it is copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We know that File:Episcopal_Church_Logo.gif is ok for its use. (Someone put it in a userbox by mistake, but it isn't in there now afaict, and I watch it carefully to stop bad uses.) I would like it if the other two were dropped, because historically they have caused massive problem with eager-deleter admins, and we don't really need them. Tb (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is marked as (C), which is proper if it is under copyright. If it is based on a public domain image and only has "trivial" changes that don't generate a new copyright, it may also be public domain. The purpose of this discussion is multi-fold: 1) determine if any of the images discussed are mis-categorized as free or non-free or that we cannot determine their status, and 2) determine similar images that might be uploaded in the future are automatically in the public domain or automatically copyright violations, or that we cannot make either statement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Images can be copyrighted for two reasons, one overcomeable, one not. The most common reason - that the work is or is derived from an original creation and which never lapsed into the public domain and which was never freely licensed, is not recoverable. The other is that the image is a derivative of a public domain or freely licensed work. While the latter may have sufficient creative elements to have an overlaying or new copyright affixed, it will not prevent new works based on the original source from being created and released under a free license. Common examples include musical arrangements of existing songs or forks of software projects with new code added. There is a third possibility: That the derivative work does not have sufficient new creative elements to gain any new copyright. Examples are mechanical changes, such as enlargements of photographs or simply transposing a song from one key to another. In this discussion, we are trying to determine where on this scale each of the images fits. Those which are "firmly" copyrighted we must use on a fair-use basis only. Those which are in the public domain should go to or stay in the commons. Those which are copyrighted but replaceable should be replaced. Those which we can't determine if they are replaceable or not, well, we'll have to figure out what to do with those later in the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem. When a replaceable one is replaced, admins can and do declare that, in their judgment, it wasn't replaceable, and they delete it. And there is no discussion, no delay, nothing except brokenness that results. This has happened multiple times with this image. Note the discussion above which is linked to, in which I had this discussion with an admin. He declared that, in his judgment, the assertions of two editors that they had personally drawn the image in question, was suspect, that the image was copyrighted, and they were deleted by him with no further recourse. He declared that they were illegal copies, despite being in distinct formats, because someone could have used photoshop to make them. Because there is no obligation for the admin in such cases to demonstrate what he believes, there was nothing to do. And, by contrast, the assurance that I drew the one image myself, was worth absolutely nothing in the discussion, nor the same assertion by the other uploader concerned. The admin did not believe he needed anything more than the visual similarity to the images on the Episcopal Church website, and showed no interested in any discussion about whether he was wrong or not: his actions were, in his mind, fully correct, and he would make the same action again. It is this problem which you are dancing around, as if somehow we can someway make the right statements and prevent admins from doing this. Because the guidelines tell admins that they should delete illegal images immediately, with no discussion, and without reference to community consensus or the statements of the uploader, there is no such combination of statements which can prevent admins from deciding "this is an illegal copy, and thus I must ignore everything else I see, and delete it." Whatever consensus we get here, will be of absolutely no weight with the admins who believe that the guidelines tell them to delete illegal images on sight. Tb (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Whatever consensus we get here, will be of absolutely no weight with the admins who believe that the guidelines tell them to delete illegal images on sight."
This is simply not true. If all images that are allowed to stay after this discussion have a note at the top saying "See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive whatever#File:TEC arms.PNG before deleting" and this discussion closes with an administrative remark saying
  • "The following images or any similar images should not be treated as under copyright without either 1) further discussion with clear and convincing evidence that the image is actually under an enforceable copyright and has not been released as a free image by someone with the authority to do so, 2) an official complaint by a rights-holder, or a 3) directive from WP:OFFICE or WP:ARBCOM"
then any admin deleting such an image would be guilty of violating consensus and causing disruption.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, if that works, I'm all for it. Tb (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus when it comes to copyright. It is either we got it right or wrong. Anyways, I found out that this shield was made in 1940, so it will be public domain for failure to attach a notice during that year. Also, it will be public domain for the simple design. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And if we get it right, and an uninformed admin gets it wrong, what then? A continual go-round of this process? At least, we know we have the right to use the logo under fair use; if we just settle for that, we can get 99% of what we want, and admins will stop screwing with it. Tb (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, it will stop here. I am an admin, one of the very few that deals with images. For the past few months, I have been educated and given documents about what can be public domain and not; because of this, I can tell you the image will be safe on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I trust you fine. There are thousands of admins. Most of them don't know bupkiss about copyright. They see the image, they see the Episcopal Church website claiming a copyright on a similar image, they delete. They see "please don't delete", they see "there is consensus", and they ignore it--as you already indicated is policy. The document has been on the commons before. Since admins have the policy of ignoring whatever others say about image copyright, how can it be that your assurance will somehow prevent them from implementing the policy which tells them to ignore everything but their own (dismally flawed) judgment? Tb (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:TEC arms.PNG - related problem with File:UMC cross.PNG

This became the logo of the United Methodist Church or one of its predecessors in 1968. It's unclear if it is under copyright or not. I've marked it "logo" rather than copyright-logo for the time being. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See the one used in the article File:UMCLogo.svg - Given the artistry in designing the flame this is a copyrightable work, unless it can be proved it of sufficient age, it is not free - Peripitus (Talk) 00:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this image, along with the one under review directly above (File:TEC flag.PNG) were uploaded by the same user (User:JaMikePA) who I've had copyright issues with and recently blocked for a short period. These uploads, along with another (File:TEC arms.PNG), come right after the block and attempts at direct discussion on their talk page have thus far been ignored. NJA (t/c) 07:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Look at this page, it gives only trade mark warnings. Even if there are trademark issues, we cab still have this logo. If you look at this page, if the original design of the logo released in 1968 was issued without a copyright notice, it will be public domain under US law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at some of this editor's other uploads. Given the particulars of this case and the uncertainty of the copyright status by more than one editor, the uploader's edit history should not prejudice this discussion one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Each image in this discussion will be tagged with a link back to this discussion.
  • Each image will be tagged with a warning to not change the licensing- or permissions-related tags, tag the image as a copyright violation without reading this discussion and opening a new one discussion.
  • Each image will be tagged with a warning to administrators not to delete this article for copyright violations without a community discussion first, unless required to do so by a higher authority, e.g. WP:ARBCOM or WP:OFFICE.
  • This discussion will close with expanded versions of the warnings above.
  • Each image in this discussion which is not clearly in the public domain or freely licensed will be treated as if it were under copyright, until such time as its status is clear.
  • Each image in this discussion which is not clearly in the public domain or freely licensed will be tagged to indicate that their copyright status is not clear and that editor research and discussion is welcome and should be added to the article talk page. When the weight of new evidence points to the image being firmly in the public domain/freely-licensable or firmly not freely licensable, a discussion should be opened and an announcement made on all relevant pages, including Wikipedia:Non-free content, all talk pages for articles which use the image, and the uploader's talk page.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there other general recommended outcomes at this time? It's too early to make a specific outcome for a specific image, as I see little in the way of definitive evidence for any of these images yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue is with the third one. Sure, there is supposed to be a "discussion" about images, but really, it is not going to happen. Orphaned fair use images are shot on sight, known copyvios are shot on sight (articles and images). With these, we will most likely not a takedown notice, but given with the information I have about these images, they are public domain due to a lack of copyright notice when first published. Even the sites themselves state that only trademark issues are present and no copyright is held on the shield (and if so, people will declare it pd-simple or pd-old. This is how we work on here and the Commons (I admin both, for full disclosure). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we have proof they were published without a (c) by someone with the authority to publish them back before the (c) was optional? If we do, that would cinch it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The burden is on the copyright holder to prove such a document exists; if not, on the Commons it will go (and has transferred). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You mis-understand my question: The copyright holder has no doubt published at least one thing (probably many things, starting with hynmals and worship books) which, if it were the only publication, would put the item under copyright as it was duly marked (c)YEAR. It's up to us to find at least one publication that shows it is in the public domain. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if such a document cannot be found, it will be public domain for other reasons, such as the simplicity of the design. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Admins have deleted images because they thought uploaders were lying. What makes you think they will trust anything here? The design was just as simple the previous times it was deleted, and yet, admins deleted it. I suggest we settle for the fair use image, which they will at least respect. Tb (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is because the uploaders themselves sucked. The big secret is this; if there is an uploader who just uploads a lot of bad images, we will delete images even if it is good. We can just have someone who is trusted to upload images and it is all good. The main other issue is that the uploaders failed to state why the image is PD. I went ahead on the flag SVG image I did and gave out links on why it is under that free license and explained on the SVG shield image that it is public domain due to simple design (we got a template for that now), the age, the non-registry of the shield. And because the images I did myself (the Botany cross is used on the Maryland flag, so it is a common heraldry design) and people have trusted me for years to make images and upload images, what we have now is solid. I also admin here, on OTRS, admin at the Commons, so it is hard NOT to trust me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In other words, admins freely disregard WP policy to do whatever they please. Awesome. That has happened precisely because the well-tested procedures for article content have been entirely jettisoned in place of an "admin do what you please" procedure for images. What you've said is that admins freely misbehave, but they won't misbehave at you. Well golly, awesome, but you'll pardon me if I'm not delighted. This is why this method of dealing with image copyright is...corrupt. I'm delighted you have magical grease, and that may help here, but I'm not at all pleased that magical grease is what it takes, contrary to the consensus based rules for everything else on WP. Tb (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Tb, part of the reason I'm trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in this discussion is to prevent the very things that have happened with these images historically. With a discussion to nail down public-domain status once and for all, the images should be bulletproof against deletion, at least on the commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Tb, the whinging about admins won't resolve the issue, so please stop as it's completely irrelevant. We can't worry about what may or may not happen in the future; the attempt is to get it as correct as possible now. Also Zscout370 is absolutely correct, put the image up by a trusted uploader who doesn't have a long history of uploading issues and the image is more likely to stay. Good or bad that's how it is, and as I told you before on my talk page if you want a discussion on changes to policy or how things are done take it to WP:Village Pump. NJA (t/c) 10:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is just very few admins that deal with images. Other admins look at images and come grab me if the case is not obvious. While in some cases, like the UCLA images above that I needed an education or two on, at least I am willing to learn. Now, both of the shield and the flag are on the Commons and they have not been challenged as for the copyright status (though me and Davidwr have a disagreement if the shield can be considered simple or not, but that is more of an academic thing). I had the flag here since, probably, 2006 (and we are close to 2010) and this is the first time I heard questions about the copyright status. I am just glad you all asked me. However, if this is one side issue I do wish to point out, but not really related to this; I noticed some of you mentioned about the fair use image inside the userboxes. Fair use images cannot be used in article templates either. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the inability to use the image in templates is a serious problem. It would be nifty to have something for userboxes, but userboxes are not important. What is important is to have something to use on Episcopal Church (United States).
Either way, my drawings will accomplish that and, from checking on the Commons, no one else has complained about the images in question. It would be safe to say to remove our copies. Since I admin here, I can restore images if needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As expected, the wheel moves a notch

The dithering here has produced exactly what I expected above, despite the earnest assurances of User:Zscout370 and User:Davidwr that it would not. An editor modified Episcopal Church (United States) to prefer the "free" version of the logo [9]. Within four hours, a CFD was warned against File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif. [10]. I have reverted the change at Episcopal Church (United States) with a request to allow this discussion to complete first. Can you fancy admin rulers please come to a decision, since apparently we mere mortals are running out of time, and since the suggested resolutions are complex, can you please close the discussion here sensibly, and do all the magic that you believe will prevent this wheel from turning further? Today? Now? Tb (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That editor has today uploaded another version of the logo as File:Episcopal Arms.svg. And so the wheel turns. Y'all who think you can solve it, now's the time! Now! Tb (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:TEC arms.PNG Current status of images

Please update the following as we gather more information. Hopefully by the end of this discussion we can mark all images as public domain.

Blazon, for both flag and shield:

  • Un-official wording: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/episcopa.htm
  • Publication data affecting public domain status: Published by 1940, may have been published prior to 1923, may have been published without copyright notices, as a blazon, it may not be subject to copyright at all. Put firm evidence of pre-1923 and non-copyright-preserving pre-1977 publications here.
  • Off-wiki expert opinions and official statements regarding the blazon: ??? - list expert opinions or official statements pertaining to copyright status of the blazon here. Expert opinions regarding copyrights of blazons go here. An official statement saying it's in the public domain means it is.

Official shield:

  • Official copies: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/imageshop_11786_ENG_HTM.htm
  • Publication data affecting public domain status: Published by 1940, may have been published prior to 1923, may have been published prior to 1977 without copyright notices. Put firm evidence of pre-1923 and non-copyright-preserving pre-1977 publications here.
  • Off-wiki expert opinions or official statements regarding the shield: ??? - list expert opinions or official statements pertaining to copyright status of the shield here. Expert opinions regarding simplicity of design belong here. An official statement saying it's in the public domain means it is.
  • Wikipedia copies:

Non-official shields that look almost identical to the official shield:

Non-official shields which are distinctly different from official shield but very similar to them:

Official flag:

  • Un-official copies: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/rel-epis.html
  • Publication data affecting public domain status: May have been published prior to 1977 without copyright notices. Put firm evidence of pre-1923 and non-copyright-preserving pre-1977 publications here.*Off-wiki expert opinions or official statements regarding the flag: ??? - list expert opinions or official statements pertaining to copyright status of the shield here. Expert opinions regarding simplicity of design belong here. An official statement saying it's in the public domain means it is.
  • Wikipedia copies:

Non-official flags that look almost identical to the official flag:

Non-official flags which are distinctly different from official flag but very similar to them:

  • ???

File:TEC arms.PNG Current status of images discussion

While I would love to take Zscout370 (talk · contribs)'s word on this, given the merry-go-round on this it's far better if we can "nail this down" hard and permanently, by adding evidence to the discussion above. This way if Zscout370 disappears the claim of PD status will stand on its own without his reputation being used to prop it up. WP:RESPECTTHOSEWHOHAVEEARNEDITANDTAKETHEIRWORDONTHINGS may be good practice, it's not good official policy and IMHO we need to play this one by the book. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't be going away for a while. :) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to do some hard research on this over the weekend but couldn't find anything to definitively show any of these images:
  • were published prior to 1923
  • were published without the required (c) marks prior to the 1970s
  • were ever under copyright prior to the 1970s
  • are or are not pd-ineligible due to simplicity
We may have to close this as "good faith assumption of public-domain status" for the general image based on one or more of the above possibilities and the lack of an image-specific copyright claim on the official web sites, and close as presumed under copyright for specific images copied from official web sites. While this is an ugly solution and I don't like it, it is expedient, it will likely keep us out of trouble until someone makes an official complaint at which time we will revisit the issue, and it's something I and probably most editors can accept. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The shield was from the 1940's, so anything pre-1923 would have been impossible. However, with the blazon that it has, anyone can make an image based upon it and facts cannot be copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some evidence it dates to 1918, but nothing definitive. As for images based on descriptions, if I drew an image of Donald Duck based on a highly detailed textual description and the result looked like Disney's rendition, I'd face both trademark and copyright lawsuits, and I would probably lose on both accounts. Coats of arms with animals and the like lend themselves to a multitude of interpretations, each one of which can have a copyright. The coat of arms we have still lends itself to multiple interpretations, just not as many. If there are many equally valid, equally obvious interpretations, there is a stronger case for copyright on a particular one. If the description greatly limits creativity, then there is likely no additional copyright on the interpretation beyond that which is on the blazon itself, i.e. likely none in this case. It's unclear if this blazon is sufficiently restrictive to keep the official interpretation from falling under copyright. If the official interpretation is under copyright, it's unclear what changes, if any, would be needed to be considered a non-infringing interpretation and whether any of those images would be suitable for use on the commons as representing the shield of the Episcopal church. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia or the Commons does not really focus much about trademark. Sure, stick a trademark tag on an image but it can still be hosted if the copyright is correct. When I drew both the arms and flag, I used the botany cross (very old design used for centuries.) And, if you are worried about the specific drawings, you know mine are free because I made them and said they are. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif is a copy from a church web site and is almost certainly under copyright. It is now orphaned, and has been tagged for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

I take Tb's statement above in #As expected, the wheel moves a notch as a motion to close. Seeing as how it is unlikely we will get any hard evidence one way or the other on this, I concur, further delay is wasting time. I wish I was wrong, I would love to have hard evidence.

My recommendation to a closing non-involved editor: The preponderance of the evidence suggests free images can be made that are virtually identical to the ones on the Episcopal Church web site. Arguments include simplicity of design, a fairly fixed description with little flexibility in interpretation, and lack of any evidence of use of the (c) symbol prior to the mid-1970s. As a courtesy we should give the church the benefit of the doubt for images copied from its own web site, such as File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif. Therefore, I recommend:

  • The closing editor be an administrator who is familiar with images and who will watchlist these images on both Wikipedia and the Commons. This will give additional moral authority to the closing editor's actions.
  • At least one shield and one flag be kept somewhere, preferably one not copied from the church web site. If all non-identical files can be kept that is better.
  • Images copied from or file-format-converted from copies on the church web site be marked (c) the church with a note tha the copyright is because it was a download and that the copyright claim may be very weak. The note should point back to this discussion.
  • All other images be tagged as either public domain or as copyrighted by the uploader, and the uploaders notified so they can license them as they see fit if they have not already done so. There should be a link to this discussion pointing out that the claim of "public domain" or "uploader's copyright" is under a cloud.
  • Any freely-licensed images be transwikied to the Commons if they will take it. They have similar images already, however, they may not want an image that has a "cloudy" public domain status claim. If the commons will not accept "cloudy" images, move them to the English Wikipedia.
  • Any text related to this discussion on any talk pages for images that are to be deleted be copied here along with talk page edit histories, in case this comes up again.
  • All images be tagged with a note saying their copyright status should not be changed from public domain without all the issues raised in this discussion being addressed, namely, simplicity of design, constrained design, and lack of proof use of the (c) symbol before the mid-1970s. Proof of a valid registered copyright specifically on the flag and specifically on the shield would suffice for all 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Striking above per a pending email communication that may solve all of this. Leave discussion open pending results of email inquiry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) edited and de-struck motion to close based on lack of any meaningful email communication in 2 weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh heavens, great, thanks for asking first. I already sent email, and received no reply beyond a blackberry "what would you do with them" question. So, failing an actual resolution, and we were golly just so close until you decided further delay would rock, what should we do? How long should we wait? Do you think maybe you might have wanted to get some facts before declaring that no actual resolution is needed? Tb (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And now, rather than close the discussion, User:Zscout370 has begun deleting images. Now we just need to wait for the image on Commons which he thinks we should use to be deleted, and we can start this all over. I'm so delighted you did this to us User:davidwr, it's going to be awesome. Will you be around the next time? Tb (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)We should give them 1-2 business days to respond. If they ask for information, reply and wait another 1-2 business days. I'll answer the rest on your talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I sent my query on November 26 and received a reply that day asking what we wanted the image for. I replied with an explanation of our free license policy and links to relevant information, and have received no reply. Is a fortnight a long enough wait? Tb (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
More than long enough, did you send something asking if they had received your explanation? Email doesn't always go through, it could've hit a spam-filter or something. By the way, it would've been helpful to know this as soon as you got their initial reply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I sent a follow-up. The whole communication was before you even began this discussion, so where do you think I should have posted it when I got their initial reply? Can you unstrike the motion now please? Tb (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I just got an email back from Barry Merer for the use of the Episcopal Arms.svg file that was derived from the Adobe Illustrator file available from the Episcopal Church. I'll forward a copy of the email that I received on to anyone who wants to check. -Vcelloho (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to check? Like WP:OTRS? -Andrew c [talk] 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Who could I contact about checking? -Vcelloho (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed with no further action at time of close. Original file under discussion was deleted, but discussion appears to have gone stale several months ago without a final resolution. —RP88 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2010 (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.
  1. ^ U.S. Code Congr. & Admn. News, 94th Congress, 2d Sess. (1976) at 5668
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_7&oldid=1142590752"