Wikipedia:Non-free content review

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page. Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law. How to nominate Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review: Add the {{Non-free review}} template to the media page. Start a new section with level 2 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title. For example: ==[[:File:ImageNameHere]] == Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. How to close When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any editor may close a discussion. Closing the discussion Put a {{discussion top}} template below the media's section header. After the last comment, add four dashes (----) on a new line. Enter closing comments and/or action taken under the dashes. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. Put a {{discussion bottom}} template under your comments. Media action Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If there is no consensus after a reasonable amount of time has passed, use the {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} tag instead. If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example: If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{subst:nsd}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{subst:nld}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{subst:frn}} template to the media page. Notes edit guidelines

File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.png

Multiple tags claiming public domain because it was a song by Mozart, GFDL released because of the author and being non-free if not. Source is listed as:

• Reti, Rudolph (1958). Tonality, Atonality, Pantonality: A study of some trends in twentieth century music. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313204780.

— Moe ε 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question or concern? Hyacinth (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How's it look now? Hyacinth (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use is not valid here, because it's easily replaceable by a free image (the score without annotations) and a textual explanation of Reti's analysis. That said, I don't think the annotations are sufficient to warrant copyright protection, so File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.png should be PD in my opinion. For example, IMSLP regularly hosts scans of recently published musical scores of old pieces; it is generally thought that such annotations are too trivial for copyright protection. Regardless of the status of the PNG, File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.mid is definitely PD because it has no trace of Reti's material. I have modified the tag to reflect that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout now? Hyacinth (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this one. I think some things have become a bit mixed up in the discussion. There are three potential aspects of creative content at issue here: (a) Mozart's music: obviously PD. (b) Reti's analysis, as expressed through placement of marks above certain notes: that analysis, I would argue, is probably copyrightable, unless you were to argue that it involves only an abstract "idea" and not its concrete "expression". If it's copyrightable, it's legitimate fair use, because Reti's technique of analysis is the precisely the object of discussion in the article. It's also not replaceable, because the technique can only be illustrated with an authentic example of itself, and it cannot be suitably covered in text, because of the complex nature of musical notation, which resists reduction to words. (c) the concrete graphical realization of the music example through musical typesetting. As far as I understand, this is in fact not Reti's own graphics (from a 1958 print publication), but Hyacinth's re-setting of it, so there's no problem with that either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Superman.jpg

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

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

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

File:Handbookradio.jpg

This non-free book cover is currently being used in The Adele Clark Show because the book in question was used as a source for the article. Contrary to the uploader's fair use rationale, it does not in fact serve to identify the article topic and does not contribute to the article. Fails WP:NFCI as the non-free cover image is not of the topic nor is it the subject of critical commentary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Easily replaceable by a text reference and/or prose, the book cover was just there to note that the book had material about the show in it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:I Love Lucy Titlecard.png

File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This image is included in I Love Lucy. However, it consists of a title logo, which may be ineligible for copyrights. What are your opinions? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A free element included in a non-free work is non-free. The title card will be non-free (presuming the show is still under proper copyrights). --MASEM (t) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How will the free logo be uploaded? SVG would make that effort more than PNG. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to replace that title card. The background is part of it. Arguably, yes, one could make a png/svg of the text part only of the title card and have that as free, but we're talking a TV show: its identifying mark is the title card; taking the title as a logo out of that is not a fair representation of the show. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce that, here's my take:

• Yes, an svg could be created from that file of just the logo. I could do it easily.
• It would almost certainly be of very little use since it seems it would be a derivative of a copyrighted file - that looks and sounds complicated to me, copyright-wise, and a discussion I would not want to have unless I needed to.
• You haven't told us why you would want it - that's almost certainly relevant to any answer you are going to get here, and without that information, we're guessing...
• Tell us what you want to use the logo for - there may be a simple answer.

Begoon ^talk 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This logo is free: that's the reason, right? Title card is copyrighted, yes? Does the svg version of the heart-shaped logo without background replace the title card? I just want a free image, so no need to extract a screenshot from copyrighted material, right? Here: I Love Lucy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and (for administrators who have access to "deleted" pages) File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I want the logo without backgrounds just for the infobox. Therefore, if logo is proven to be {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-textlogo}}, then this logo is easier to share in Commons, as long as trademark laws are followed. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok - if you can tell us what you'd use that logo for (ie where you would use it, and in what articles), it might be worth thinking about how we'd deal with the copyright/free use issues, but until I'm clear on that question I don't have much to add here, sorry. If you're trying to work out a way to get a non-free image in an infobox I can't help - but if you have a real plan for using the logo, and an idea of where you want to use it, hit us with the details - it'll help. Begoon ^talk 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This heart-shaped logo of I Love Lucy for I Love Lucy and its infobox to identify this familiar show, right? I hope: a free image of a logo does not infringe copyrights, correct? Or maybe I'm not specific enough? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TV shows generally don't have "logos". They have title cards. While you are probably right that extracting the written text and the heart into an SVG to use as the "logo" is creating a free work (as alone those elements aren't copyrightable), that's no longer a proper representation of the show; its value as an equivalent free replacement is not there, and thus it would better to use the original title card and still pass NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

George, it's the 2nd of Jan here, which i guess means bedtime. I hope you had a good New Year's day. I've been up for about 20 hours. You seem to be missing a question I think I've asked a couple of times. It's important. I'll bold it for you - What do you want to use the (theoretical) logo for? In what articles? Where in those articles? You're not making it easy for us here, and we are trying to help. Begoon ^talk 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

(edit conflict)Begoon, I think I've already answered it to you and Masem: I wanted the free logo to replace the non-free image in I Love Lucy, and Masem rejected the idea for the identification purposes, unless you, Begoon, do not see it as an answer to your question. To make everyone happy, what if both the free exists in Commons and non-free in English Wikipedia at the same? Then anybody can use the free image for any purpose, while the non-free is used for just one. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you cannot replace the title card with an SVG version of the logo, any more than you could replace the image in the infobox of Sound Affects with an SVG of the title, just because the title would be PG. There's no point creating an SVG version of the words "I Love Lucy" and uploading it to Commons (nothing to stop you, just no point, because it won't be the titlecard of the Lucy show) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this discussion, about three files up [2]. I think you missed the significance in that discussion of the bit about there being no point of creating a version of the non-copyrightable text because the entire title card was copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's different, isn't it? The Golden Girls is too complicated to imitate, and substitutions is too impossible. I Love Lucy, on the other hand, ...well, the background is creative and impossible to create yet uninspiring. Originally, I wanted to replace it, but objections went too strong. How can we explain the deletion of JPEG image: see again I Love Lucy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? Haven't I mentioned already: the title card and the free logo can co-exist separately? One title card in I Love Lucy article, and one free logo in Commons without replacing each other. Maybe I'm not making sense, am I? And what's a PG, by the way? --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of that jpg was done by an F7 but that was likely an improper process, given that, again, TV shows don't have logos, they have title cards. You're right that you can have the free logo, but again, title cards are generally the identifying work of a TV regardless if there's aspects that are free on their own. There's a larger problem here that probably needs the TV project involved. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the jpeg file as it is in a preferred format for screencaps. I believe the argument that it could be replaced by a re-created svg is not valid, as it wouldn't be the titlecard. If you guys decide which version is better, the other version can be orphaned and deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also left a message at WT:TV to see if NFCC#1 applies here when a free SVG can be made from the title card as a equivalent replacement. Also, we should definitely keep any free images : they can be used in template nav boxes for such shows without harming the NFCC work. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 :And George has improved the FUR (nice one George), and pointed people to this discussion. I hadn't thought of nav boxes, that would be an excellent use of an svg of the free portion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at The Cosby Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). They have the copyright-ineligible logo in SVG format. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I asked the TV project to help. There is a question here specifically on NFCC#1: equivalent free replacement. Many TV show titlecards have logos that can be made into a SVG logo that as you note is ineligible for copyright. The question is (and I don't know the answer to this) is whether the logo is an equivalent free replacement for the show's copyrighted title card. I can see where it can be considered as such, but can also see where it can't be. Thus, let's pull in the experts on TV shows into this discussion and determine if this is the case. If it is the case that logos are equivalent to titlecards in terms of NFCC, then we should be doing replacement en masse across all TV shows where it is possible. If it is not universally true, then it should be up to consensus per show page whether to do it that way or not. So let's get some more input for that before we do much more changing or deletion. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool - that sounds like a plan. If it turns out that any help is needed as a result of those discussions, creating SVG logos from originals, give me a ping on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. Only fair that I should help out with the solution if I'm able. Begoon ^talk 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The I Love Lucy DVDs use the heart and "I Love Lucy" text as the show's logo (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q8MV5PDEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DAWJ22JPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WW26287ZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg). OK, so it's not the title card, but obviously it's still a suitable identifier of the series if CBS use it on the packaging. MOS:TV doesn't disallow the use of Logos for identifying TV shows, although it does say a titlecard is preferred. And while I'm not anywhere close to being an expert in these matters, but surely placing the logo on top of what appears to be randomly and loosly placed cloth does not meet the threshold of originality? Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The cloth aspect exceeds the threshold; the threshold is limited to text (regardless of font) and simple shapes. "I Love Lucy" + the heart, alone, fails originality, the cloth background does not despite its generic-ness. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Without being confrontational, how so? What makes it that someone spreading out a piece of cloth is creative? Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun of intellectual property law. Unfortunately, we can't redefine those rules. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:TheTwilightZoneLogo.png

Is the logo itself eligible for copyrights? The title card itself is copyrighted, but I simply asked for the stand-alone logo. This is used in both The Twilight Zone and The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series); however, The Twilight Zone also uses other two images: File:The Twilight Zone 1985.jpg and File:Twilightzone2002-logo.png. If this 1960s image is ineligible for copyrights, would the SVG logo be possible? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The lettering alone would be PD-ineligible; with the star background it's copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So what about the 1980s and the 2000s images? --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

2002 would likely be ineligible; the 1985 one starts getting on the iffy side but still seems to be (when you subtract out the background starfields, of course). --MASEM (t) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As the uploader of the image, I don't understand what's wrong. Essentially every single television show article has its logo/intertitle in the infobox, so why is this one singled-out? I understand that it only has one rationale for its use in the main article, and, well, it could be resized. Is that all that is wrong, because it'd odd this is singled-out when there's thousands of the same instance. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the 2002 image has no rationale for The Twilight Zone, and we don't know what portion you used and how replaceable this image is for the '2002 series' article. Doesn't matter what size as long as that image is small as is. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you still working on the rationale for the article of franchise, The Twilight Zone? By the way, maybe the reduction is not necessary; can you revert the image back to its origin, or does the previous version fail NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the logo itself is not likely eligible for copyrights, according to Masem. You can ask in Masem's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:FriendsLogo.jpg

Is this logo eligible for copyrights? It appears hand-written, and it was released in 1994, so copyrights may be possible under Berne Convention Implementation Act. See more at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/November#File:Friends titles.jpg and File:FriendsLogo.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Here's another one without colors: File:The Friends Stage cropped.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, as simple text and figures, it's likely PD-ineligible, but that's not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say definitely PD-ineligible, simple text and simple geometric shapes. Doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Erring cautiously (never being one to release other peoples, especially rich and powerful ones, legal property and intellectual rights to the public domain rashly, on the advice of my fathers lawyer)- It looks like a copyright-able recognizable logo to me. What benefit to the project would the questionable release of this logo by a couple of its editors to the public domain be? Youreallycan (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be erring on the side of not understanding copyright. There are ample examples on the page Seraphimblade linked to that show this is clearly PD-ineligible. When the law is clear, as it is in this case, we rely on it. In the US, you can sue anyone for any or no reason. That doesn't mean we should turn off all the servers. Your language is nonsensical; there is no 'releasing' going on. You need to read up a lot more on copyright. Nyttend's comments at the linked discussion are supported in case law; the ones that follow are conjecture unsupported in case law. Non-hanwritten fonts aren't inherently less original than handwritten ones. --Elvey (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

David Ho (scientist) on cover of Time Magazine

Would File:The 1996 Person of the Year (Time Magazine) - Dr. David Da-i Ho.jpg meet NFCC in any of the below articles:

• Time Person of the Year
• AIDS
• Antiretroviral drug
• David Ho (scientist)

Although his being selected as Time's Man of the Year in 1996 is undoubtedly a significant event in his life, I'm not convinced that the reader needs to see him on the cover of Time Magazine to understand this. In the articles other than his own I think it could be replaced with a free image of Ho, which is available. January (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at each case;

• David Ho (scientist); Blatant failure of WP:NFCC #1 and #8. The article does not discuss the cover in any respect. It simply displays it. The only piece of significant information is that he was Time Magazine's person of the year. That's already conveyed in the article, and the image does nothing to add to that understanding.
• AIDS; Dr. Ho isn't even discussed, or the cover. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8.
• Antiretroviral drug; Dr. Ho is discussed, but not status as man of the year. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8.
• Time Person of the Year; isn't currently used in that article, and shouldn't be. Use of non-free items fails WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFLISTS.

In short, none of the uses qualifies under WP:NFCC. Also, be aware there is currently only one rationale on the image description page - for an article where the image isn't used. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pacman-cutscene.png

This began as a discussion at FFD, at WP:Files for deletion/2012 January 16#File:Pacman-cutscene.png.

I would like to examine the use of this image at Power-up. I wrote

Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8. While the description is correct that there are unlikely to be any free screenshots of power-ups from games circa 1980, the article does not go into detail about the history of power-ups. Rather, the image appears in a section about offensive power-ups. Consequently, the loss of this image, or the replacement of this image by a similar image from a free game or a mock-up would not harm the reader's understanding of the subject.

—User:RJaguar3, FFD discussion

The uploader, User:Diego Moya, replied

I disagree that both File:Supermushroom.png and File:Pacman-cutscene.png fail #1 and #8 of WP:NFCC. I've given rationales based on the popularity and historic relevance of both images that no other free image could met, and have sourced them accordingly.

#1 (No free equivalent) requires that the free replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose; the SuperTux power up and a recent cutscene would not provide the same encyclopedic purpose. Unless you can provide references of free images with equivalent cultural impact and historic relevance, the existence of power-up and cutscene free images is not enough to claim that #1 is not met - they would simply not "have the same effect".

As for #8 (Contextual significance), again File:Supermushroom.png is THE number one representation of the power-up. It's presence as the most significant example should go uncontested unless very good sources are provided to the contrary. There is a valid case to remove File:Pacman-cutscene.png from power-up as long as history of power-ups is not included in the article (though history is mentioned in the images caption, and PacMan is mentioned in the section). Since your deletion request, I've included the image in cutscene where it is contextually significant (discussed in the article's text) and no equivalent image can be provided (Pac-man is directly discussed), so the image should not be deleted even if it is removed from power-up.

—User:Diego Moya, FFD discussion

I do not contest that the image has a valid NFUR for use in cutscene, which is why I withdrew my nomination for deletion. However, I maintain that the image's use on power-up fails NFCC#1 and #8. I will reply to Diego's points momentarily. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Diego's response:

• I contend that there is a free equivalent. The image appears in the section Power-up#Offensive abilities. The power pellet (but not the cutscene) is indeed specifically mentioned as one of many examples. However, it is not the only image that can demonstrate an offensive power-up. For example, in SuperTux, Tux can get a fire flower that allows him to shoot fireballs at enemies, which is clearly an offensive power-up. Certainly, it won't have the same recognition as the power pellet from Pac-Man, but an appropriate image from SuperTux will convey the idea of Tux collecting a power-up that allows him to use a ranged attack against enemies, which is the encyclopedic purpose behind an illustration of an offensive ability granted by a power-up.
• Further, even if there is no free equivalent to the image, it fails to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of offensive power-ups. Tellingly, the power pellet itself is not shown. Also, the text "Ghosts can be attacked after Pacman is transformed via power pellets" appears to significantly convey everything that a non-free image can convey about the use of power pellets as a power-up. Therefore, the image also fails NFCC#8.

RJaguar3 | u | t 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For SuperTux or any other image to be added as a replacement it should have the same popular reach, you should provide a source explaining its meaning, and should describe in a simple way the dynamics of the power-up with respect to the normal gameplay. The "story" told by the Pac-Man cutscene has all of these properties; it's an artistic depiction of the effects of a power-up, using a comical rendition to explain the power-up with a hyperbole, and thus covers the describing function of #8 in a way that the mere textual description doesn't convey. An unsourced image that may or may not convey the idea of the effects of a power-up is not really equivalent to this historical, sourced storytelling that uses metaphorical language to describe the section topic. Diego (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the Pac-Man cutscene is an example of both the deffensive (invulnerability) and offensive (eating the ghosts) aspects of the Pac-Man power-up as described in the text. Diego (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this idea for a replacement image from SuperTux:

• There are 2 images. The first shows large tux and a fire flower.
• The second image shows Tux with the fireman's hat (indicating that he can shoot fireballs), along with fireballs on the screen and enemies who have just been hit and are being removed from the screen.
• The caption reads something like this: "After Tux grabs the fire flower (left), he gains the ability to defeat enemies with fireballs (right)."

RJaguar3 | u | t 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In your example, the attacking behavior is not described by the image, it is described by the accompanying text. Compare that with the visual qualities of a giant Pac-Man chasing a scared ghost to see what I mean about the metaphorical value of the Pac-Man image. Can you provide an equivalent gut-feeling with an image from SuperTux? Can you provide a source to describe the image? And, even more important to the topic: how do you convey that throwing fireballs is the effect of picking the flower up, and not just a basic gameplay feature? (The penguin now has a fireman's hat? seriously?) Diego (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the fireballs on screen would be an indication of an attack in action. Yes, last I checked, Tux has a fireman's hat (he used to be tinted red to indicate the ability to shoot fireballs). Even if the picture requires explanatory text (which arguably the Pac Man image requires, too), that doesn't mean that it isn't an effective replacement for the non-free image. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, I've replaced the copyrighted image by a free schematic depiction of it. This way all the advantages I enumerated can be kept, and the image is not suspect of being provided under incorrect fair use claims. Diego (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reintroduced the original fair-use version for the new History and influence section at Power-up article. The image is now illustrating the history of the Pac-Man power-up and thus can't be replaced in this usage by a free image, so I think it's clearly legitimate now. Diego (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Antonio Inoki WWE.jpg

Maybe I'm not awake yet, but I couldn't tell whether or not this qualifies for SD. Two issues: 1) there was a di-replaceable tag which stated in part: "not trying to steel just showing this great wrestler." I'm assuming this was offered as part of the original rationale for posting the file. If so, not an acceptable rationale; 2) on the non-free use rationale template, it describes Inoki as deceased. Inoki is not deceased. A clear misapplication, IMO. The photo is from the WWE Hall of Fame or associated event. I'm guessing people scavenge photos from Flickr when they can. So far, I don't see anything from 2010. I did find this photo, which I'm guessing fills the criteria of a replacement photo for the article.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Warne-Muralidaran Trophy.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Non-free-use of File:Louisville Helmet.gif

Moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue with File:Louisville Helmet.gif is that the restriction requiring only "non-commercial" use is not compatible with the licencing requirements of WP, as a freer version of the helmet can be created (go to a game and take a picture and then may a FUR for the LOGO only part), we can't use the one taken from nationalchamps.net; more info can be be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Fair use football helmets in team infoboxes. Hope this explains why the file should be deleted.Mtking ^(edits) 09:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed tags and provided a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Any item with a logo added to it has to be "non-commercial" use other then that the person who made the Helmet could be breaking a law by allowing it to use for "commercial use". So no free or freer image with a logo like we have can be made.Theworm777 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with Criteria 1, the template helmet image component of this image is copyright to nationalchamps.net, it is not released in a way that WP can use it and it is repleaceable. For example you could create your own blank helmet file, release that CC-BY-SA then add the team logo on to it and that would be fine and the combined work would come under Fair Use. Again if you read Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 December 11#File:LSU Helmet.png you will see the reasons. Mtking ^(edits) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

End of parts moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I have said before the helmet can not be made with a Logo on it and be Free use. This is not a blank helmet file it is not this image. It is a image of a Louisville Cardinal Helmet. Anyone that makes a Louisville Cardinal Helmet can not be free so if does not fail step 1 first non-free content criterion or any of the other 10 non-free content criterion

"As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.

The answer is no to this. Theworm777 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You stopped quoting the NFCC too early, it goes on to say "or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available" and it can, the issue is with the components that make up the image, the helmet template and then the team logo, while a FUR could be made for the logo part (setting aside 3a. Minimal usage issues with having the logo repeated twice at the head of the infobox for the moment) a fair use can not be made for the original helmet drawing, as it can be replaced either with one drawn my any editor and released CC-BY-SA or go to the team shop, buy a replica helmet, take it home and take a picture of it, release it CC-BY-SA add a FUR for the element of the picture that is the logo and then use that. Mtking ^(edits) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kodak logo 1987.svg

I just had one discussion in WP:MCQ (type "File:Kodak logo 1987.svg" if not found in main page) about this image's eligibility for copyright protection. SPhilbrick said that this image is creative; ww2censor said that this image is simple. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Aayirathil-oruvan-2.jpg

The image holds the copyright as Non-free film screenshot. But this is not a film screenshot. This is the image photographed the Director in some premiere kind of functions. Also it is suspected that the screenshot of the film cannot be used in the articles about the crew and cast who worked in the film. --Jenith (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged this image for wrong license and disputed rationale. This can still be reviewed, while issues still remain. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete The fair use rationale is written for a disambiguation page, but it is not used there. Instead, it is used in the article about a living person to describe that person. Fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable since the person is still alive) and WP:NFCC#10c (no fair use rationale for any of the pages where it is used). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)