Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:NFCR)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media files 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.

Note that this page should be used for:

  • Discussing a file that has both some appropriate and inappropriate uses (that is, the deletion of the file is not a desired outcome).
  • Discussing multiple non-free images on a single page
  • Discussing whether a non-free file should be treated as free (possibly public domain or uncopyrightable)

For cases where deletion of one specific file is desired by the nominator, typically representing its only use on Wikipedia, please open discussion at WP:FFD.

How to nominate[edit]

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

  • For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO.
  • For media files, such as images, sounds and movies, add the {{Non-free review}} template to the file's page. If your question is about the selection of non-free files for an article, post a message on the talk page linking here.
    • If the file has any existing delayed deletion tags, such as {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, remove those tags so that the discussion here takes priority over those tags.
  • Start a new section with level 2 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title.[1]
    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[edit]

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 30 days 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 uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure.

Closing the discussion[edit]

Closed discussions will be archived by ClueBot III.

Media action[edit]

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 file 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.

If an article is tagged, follow the same steps individually on each offending image, and remove the Non-free review template from the page.


  1. ^ To nominate multiple media files in one section, title the section "Multiple files" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all files are linked in your comments.

edit guidelines


File:UCF Seal.svg[edit]

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually it should not even be shown in Pegasus (mascot) because there is a freely-licensed replacement. The depiction of the logo in the latter image is covered by freedom of panorama for buildings in the US.The seal though would fail WP:NFCC#1 in this article. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hm, would a logo on a building really work? Most companies and many other organisations have a copy of the logo printed on its main office, so this would affect a large number of logos on Wikipedia. There was a case where a statue was considered to be a part of a building (and therefore covered by the building's FOP), but I believe that you should apply a separability criterion and determine if the logo can be separated from the building. You may also have to show that the building was completed on or after 1 December 1990. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the logo in File:UCF Burnett Honors College.jpg is a case of de minimis since the image is obviously intended to show the entire wing of the building and does not focus on the logo. And according to Commons, "for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans." So I guess this image a lucky shot indeed because it serves two purposes: it depicts the college's building and happens to include the university's logo. De728631 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
De minimis means that the copyrighted work is irrelevant to the image. If an image is used in an article for the purpose of displaying a copyrighted work seen somewhere on the picture, then de minimis can't be applied with regard to the use in that article, even if de minimis might apply with regard to the use of the same image in a completely different context.
"Full FOP" means that there is no copyright for architectural works completed before 1 December 1990, but there is no special provision in the copyright law which allows you to take photographs of works completed before 1 December 1990. Works other than architectural works, such as logos, are subject to copyright protection even if the building was completed before 1 December 1990.
Recent buildings are subject to copyright protection as architectural works. However, there is also freedom of panorama for such buildings, provided that the building is visible from a public place. As some buildings (very few of them) aren't visible from public a public place, this is a somewhat limit FOP and therefore not full FOP. In Leicester v. Warner Brothers, a court ruled that certain sculptures which are affixed to a copyrighted building are considered to be a part of the copyrighted building, and FOP therefore applies to those sculptures. The law which enabled copyright protection and freedom of panorama explicitly applies only to buildings completed on 1 December 1990 or later, and therefore you can't use the FOP loophole with regard to sculptures, logos or other works affixed to buildings completed before 1 December 1990. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Fuldheim[edit]

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg[edit]

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))
To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SAU Athletics logo.png[edit]

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So High (Ghost Loft song)[edit]

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Magda Olivero[edit]

I removed the Youtube link to the filmed recording of the subject's rendition of "vissi d'arte". However, the edit was reverted because of PD claims. I wonder if the removal was justified under copyright law of Italy Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the External Links noticeboard, but a quick answer is that if the original work is copyrighted and the YouTube uploader is not the copyright owner, then we should not be linking to the copyright violation. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What Can I Do? (The Corrs song)[edit]

There are too many album covers in this article. Also, the logo shouldn't be here. The logo was deleted from some other articles by User:TLSuda after another discussion was closed, but after that, it was added to this article without any FUR. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, all but the first cover are inappropriate uses, the logo being outright flagrant violation. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Umbrella (song)[edit]

There are way too many pictures from the music video. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion in the article to support one image, but not 5. Certainly not the first, or the last two, but I dont know if the other two are good either to showcase what is described in the text save for the one about applying silver makeup. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Runaway (The Corrs song)[edit]

Two music video screenshots are used. Do proses of music videos replace them? George Ho (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no critical discussion of the videos (outside describing what they show) that require the use of non-free over, say, a free picture of the band or just prose. Both are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:William Van Der Hagen, Drogheda, 1718.jpg[edit]

Not sure why a painting from 1718 is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that motion. Is there any reason to believe it is in fact not in public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The UK National Gallery might think so, but we've got the backing of the Foundation that any unmodified, 2D slavish copies (read: scans or photographs) of 2D PD art will be PD. So this should be PD. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It has no rationale for Willem Van der Hagen anyway, so best to move it to Commons as PD-art. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to scroll down my watchlist and I clicked the rollback button. bd2412 T 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Absolutely a free image, regardless of the National Portrait Galleries claims to UK law.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivanta Hotels.png[edit]

Is this copyrightable in the United States? It violates WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be PD in the US, likely not in countries like UK, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the United States copyright office would likely refuse registration of this work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)[edit]

There is more than one album cover. Shall there be one or two album covers? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been arguments presented by the Album wikiproject when a second album cover is allowed, generally for a major release in a different region. I am not sure their take on special editors/reprints with new art, but I don't think its necessary here. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces[edit]

It has three logos. Is either of them eligible for copyright in India? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My read on India's copyright stance appears to be close to UK's, so yes they would be copyrightable there, but they do fall short of US thresholds, and would be PD-logo US Only here. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Taj Hotel Logo.svg and File:Gateway Hotels.png are almost certainly ineligible for US copyright and so are free works for EN Wikipedias purposes. Regarding File:Ginger Hotels Present Logo.png, the drop shadow probably pushes this above WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg[edit]

It is claimed that this is from 1856. Why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian Infantry Regiment No. 3 attacking during the battle.jpg[edit]

This is claimed to be from 1850. Why is it claimed to be unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivian James.jpg[edit]

I've tagged this copyrighted image for deletion because it is not critically discussed in the article, and tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone. It therefore fails NFCC #1 and #8. Discussed with the uploader, but he is convinced any sourced commentary on the image is sufficient, despite what WP:NFCC says about the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", something this image does not fit. Dreadstar 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Image might be better over at GamerGate where there is actually discussion about it. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Suffers the same issues in that article too; the image tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone, and it is not critically discussed. There's nothing significant about the image. Dreadstar 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Masem, there is critical discussion about the character at the article:

After 4chan members donated over $5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign they were allowed to create a character who would appear in the winning game. The character created by 4chan, named Vivian James as a play on "video games", was designed to appear like a normal female gamer. Vivian James was criticized by Allegra Ringo of Vice as "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". TFYC responded to criticism of its association with GamerGate and the related harassment of Quinn by offering to sell Vivian James t-shirts with profits going to iFred, a charity Quinn was supporting.

There is actually more commentary about the character than at the GamerGate article. I mean, even more could be added given some of what is said in the sources, but there is already plenty of critical commentary regarding the character.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur. The mascot's origins has curious origins which are intertwined with the convoluted course of the GamerGate, and indeed has become emblematic of GamerGate as a whole. While I've noticed a lot of Vivian James avatars on Twitter on #GamerGate, she has also been illustrative, literally, in mainstream press coverage. It's fair to say both that she has taken on a life of her own, and that it would detract from the article not to include an image of her. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that the mascot is more an issue that arose from GamerGate, even though it was more connected with a project by TFYC. It definitely should not go in both, but I do feel the rationale is stronger for the GG article due to it being made in response to all the events there. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with the character going in both? Vivian James is more closely associated with TFYC in reliable sources and is supposed to appear in the game they eventually produce but is no less significant to GamerGate. As far as coverage in reliable sources, I would say Vivian James is less significant in the GamerGate, but the same non-free image can appear in more than one article. We wouldn't provide for the possibility otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
We look to minimize non-free use - if only one image will work, then we do that and link from the other case. She's appropriate in one article, but not both. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What this needs is comments from editors uninvolved in the GamerGate, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion; unlike the three involved editors above who have commented thus far - one of whom is the uploader. Dreadstar 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Be aware I'm a frequent NFCR reviewer too and been involved in too many discussions to count. I'm speaking from that perspective here. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is of questionable copyright status (as the hivemind of /v/ or /pol/ or whichever board made it is unknown) and it seems superfluous whenever it's added to the pages in question. The subject of the file may be mentioned in these articles, but Dreadstar is correct that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. The content quoted by The Devil's Advocate may be discussion of the subject of the file, but it's not critical commentary of the file itself but the subject of the file. Describing the character as being created by a group or it being an antifeminist spite mascot does not qualify for critical discussion of the image.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems inadequate to meet Fair Use guidelines and absent any notion of who holds the copyright, it does not meet the criteria for enhancing any articles on either topic. It's just an attack cartoon. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously someone who dismisses it as an "attack cartoon" is only thinking about our non-free content criteria . . . The NFCC does not mean an exact depiction of something needs to be the subject of critical commentary. The character is the subject of critical commentary and I think it is important for people to see what this "anti-feminist icon" looks like.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As the image has definitely been published, and there's enough RS to direct its origins somewhere on 4chan, I'm not seeing any immediate copyright issues to prevent us from considering is as NFC. The NFC points still need to be determined, of course, but we're not talking that we cannot adequetely explain a source and give a license for. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The character and all art handed to The Fine Young Capitalists are under public domain. They themselves can, and have on multiple occasions, confirmed this.[1][2] Additionally, none of the sources cited on the file's page specify that the character or the art would be owned or used by 4chan, merely that it was created by its users. Yet the file is listed as being under copyright and owned by 4chan. 4chan, LLC does not claim copyright ownership to any content created by its users. (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
If this is confirmed, the rest of the discussion is moot. The Twitter link is to the same account that released the original art, which is also the same one linked from the group's official web page, and says "Characters's public domain so it's fine" as a reply to someone talking about Vivian. The Tumblr post explicitly says "TFYC does not own Vivian James, we consider her to be public domain" in a post created by thefineyoungcapitalists, so it seems legit. Do we have confirmation that this Tumblr account is official? Diego (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they tweeted about it when they first created it (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

The inclusion of the image does not meet our NFCC imo. The image appears to have been added to the article purely for decoration. Fails NFCC #1: Its inclusion does not tell us anything that cannot be told using words alone. The fact that the character exists can be adequately covered using words. Fails NFCC #8: It does not increase our understanding of the subject of the article, which is the group The Fine Young Capitalists. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about other people's motivations. I added it because the character is prominently associated with the group and its involvement with 4chan per reliable sources and is discussed by said sources. It also is kind of important since saying "4chan designed a female character" does not adequately convey the matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, artwork cannot be replaced by prose. Now...whether or not its exclusion would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject is another matter. Not sure about that at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
""Artwork cannot be replaced by prose."", where in Wikipedia policy are you getting that from? I don't see anything like that in WP:NFCC. Please clarify. AFAICT, it's a simple cartoon drawing of a girl, nothing educational or significant to the understanding of the article's subject that I can see. Dreadstar 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Show me exactly where it says I have to argue with only policy. This is a matter of meeting criteria and not entirely about a policy based reason. I said, generally speaking artwork cannot be conveyed in written words and carry the same understanding to the reader that the artwork can. That is generally accepted and understood by the Wikipedia community and through a wide range of consensus discussions here and elsewhere. What you see is not the exact issue here. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you're free to invoke WP:IAR and even A picture is worth a thousand words, but that attempt is guaranteed not override Wikipedia:Policy, wherein it describes how community consensus, best practices and the law create policies like WP:NFCC. Feel free to try and change WP:NFCC policy to fit your views that art conveys more than words, so fair-use laws can be ignored. Heck, I'd love that, I've had many images rejected because words have been judged to be sufficient to replace images (art). Dreadstar 05:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC) are NOT welcome to tell me what to do or that I am evoking policy or guidelines that I am not. The consensus of editors has been that for the most part, artwork cannot be described with prose. But that is not even an argument to keep the image just that in general it is not the best argument to use with artwork that it can be replace with prose.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You, um, are joking, right? Me tell you what to do? I think we have a communication problem here, when I say "you're free to do X", that's not telling you what to do, it's saying you're free to do as you like...which I guess is sorta telling you what to do, but that 'doing' is whatever you want... I think I'm done with you, carry on with others. Dreadstar 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the fair use rationale with references from three reliable sources (on of them The Independent) covering the relevance of the character as the mascot of the 4chan /v/ board, and thus their primary means of identification. I've used the logo template, just like Cobi does, as apparently there isn't a mascot-specific one except for teams; I'm not sure if the logo template applies, but the rationale definitely does, as Vivian James has been recognized by the RSs as "the primary means of visual identification" of the /v/ board, and that is an accepted NFC criteria per WP:NFCI#2 and Wikipedia:Logos. Diego (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Independent did not mention TFYC so I removed that mention, though it can definitely be used in the GamerGate article for that purpose.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. Diego (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
"Source", for the fair use rationale template, is intended for the source of the image, not a source that discusses the image. The source for the image needs to be chagned to The Forbes article states that this was a mascot for a game, not for 4chan or 4chan /v/ board. We don't have an article on 4chan /v/ board, so the image currently qualifies for removal under speedy deletion criterion F6 for the article 4chan. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. There's a broken template on the file page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the broken template, as no one else did. You're right about the URL, I didn't notice that Vice includes the link to TYFC's twitter, only that the crop uploaded here is the one by Forbes, and Vice had just the face; I've updated it too. We have The Independent identifying the mascot as an emblem for 4chan campaign, so also being a mascot for the game is not incompatible - it can be both. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. I absolutely don't see it that way, nor have ever seen anything in that regard; the text in the template itself is addressed to whomever has "successfully addressed the concern", which IMO I did. Diego (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Discussion of people making an image is not the same thing as discussing the image itself. I see nothing in the content above that is aided by having the image other than just normal illustration. That is not sufficient to pass NFCC imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Where in the criteria does it actually say the image must be discussed to used?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Remember, ALL NFCC criteria must be met. NFCC #8 more specifically Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion What understanding would the reader have about this topic that they would not have if the image were missing? What discussion of the image is there? Note the "only" in the identification bit. Is this the "only" way to identify the image?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, that is simply not what that says at all. First that section makes it clear from the top that the two most common "circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are..." and then lists those two common circumstances. Nowhere does that state those two instances are the only reason non free images may be used or that if those two circumstances are not met that the image cannot be used. I am sorry but our non free content criteria in no ways states that as an absolute...only that "[M]eeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content" and that we determine such by "principles of due weight and balance."--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is discussion of the character. It is unlikely there will be discussion of a specific image of Vivian James, as is the case with most images of fictional characters. In the case of fictional characters a non-free image serves as an exemplar. For instance, critical commentary on a particular costume or design for a character may be illustrated by any official image of the character with that design or costume. You are unlikely to find a source discussing the exact image you are using because it is interchangeable with any number of examples of the design or costume and is not really the primary copyright concern. Copyright most specifically applies to the design of the character.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As another data point, if Vivian was a notable character for her own article, we would allow a non-free image of her in that for identification. Can that be done? Arguably yes - there's enough data for notability here. However, separating her from the discussion of either TFYC or GamerGate would be rather duplicative, but because she would be notable for her own article, we would allow a non-free in one of those places as well. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't even come close to passing WP:GNG. and since it's regarding a WP:BLP, that's another huge hurdle it would fail to pass. That's something else to consider here, BLP. Dreadstar 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There's multiple secondary sources talking about the creation and use of the character, and while there are BLP reasons that led to its creation, the character itself is not tied to anything directly. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC and even WP:TALK. The cartoon drawing is not notable, fails non-free, and is an attack on a BLP. Clearly and undeniably. Your data point actually goes to deletion, not an article. Dreadstar 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, your original reasoning is not to NFC criteria and notability is not a factor for inclusion in an article but whether a stand alone article is needed for the subject. You do not appear to have demonstrated the BLP concern you have. The one thing that could possibly be accurate is that it may not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" but I am not clear on whether that is accurate either with this image on the current article.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually read my first comment here, it does indeed talk about NFC criteria. My comment about notability is regarding the suggestion above by User:Masem that the image may deserve it's own article. The image fails NFCC criteria, period. Please stop attempting to twist my words, I never said notability should keep the image out of an article, I know quite the opposite, "They do not limit the content of an article or list". Please read more carefully in the future. Dreadstar 05:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect no, it does not fail NFC criteria...period (as you state). I am not attempting to twist your words but trying to understand your reasoning which I feel you have not fully supplied. --Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to read what you wrote, it appers to accuse me of using WP:N to keep the image out of the article, else why you reference my 'original reasoning' not being with NFCC, followed by WP:N is not a reason to...well, hell, this is ridiculous, it's clear what you wrote. And yes, we disagree in NFCC as it regards to this image. As far as BLP concerns, there are names of living persons associated with it. But BLP wasn't my main argument, I think that much is clear. Dreadstar 05:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to read the full section here but thanks for providing something to look into the BLP issue you claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I think we have a communication gap, I don't know what it is that you think I'm missing. But let's let it lie and let others chime in. Dreadstar 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well...that catches me up on a few things on DRN lately...but I am still not clear as to whom this artwork is supposed to be a BLP violation of.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying who, but if you know the subject matter, it's pretty clear who is closely associated with it. In any case, it's not the main or even secondary reasoning for deleting the image. Dreadstar 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. Well of course that is up to you but we have discussed what the specific BLP violations are in the that is the only way to determine if there is a violation. If that is truly uncomfortable please email me the details as I do find BLP violation an important enough issue to take very seriously. However, your original post stated "because it is not critically discussed in the article". However, that is not a part of NFC criteria. Now...we are certainly not in agreement as to whether artwork can or cannot be conveyed in words alone. I feel strongly that it cannot. I urge you to take a moment to e-mail me the BLP violation details. I got my e-mail up and running again...might as well use it now!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done like 4 minor edits to the whole GamerGate article, and like people have said, TFYC mentioned it's in the public domain. Also the info in the image is WRONG. Copyright isn't atributted to 4chan as an entity. Any content created there is owned by those who submit it, and as such is their responsibility. Also this isn't the character itself, it's not the exact likeness that will be featured in the game, it's a sketch, of which there are plenty (countless) of. The image serves its purpose to show what's described as an "every-girl of sorts, and maybe not what you’d expect from 4chan" and criticized for "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". Someone reading this would seriously be curious what's her likeness. Loganmac (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Dreadstar, I'm, like, a stickler on NFCC#8 and frivolous use of images with very weak claims here, but there is actual discussion from sources of the character, so showing what the character looks like is a reasonable allowance under NFCC#8. There is no immediate BLP violations, unless the character is meant as an unflattering mockery of a specific person, which doesn't appear to be, even if the character was created in an issue riddled with BLP. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a stickler for NFCC#8 is not an issue with any non free content, as long as it isn't stricter than it is written into the guidelines. But for the most part on this...I fully agree with Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the case against this image on NFCC 1/8 is a slam dunk, but I'm also not seeing a whole lot of commentary on the character and little commentary on the appearance. I'm inclined to agree with dreadstar, but I understand and can sympathize with masem's point above. Soo... it's a weak delete for me. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on the exact appearance of the character is not inherently important. If you think saying the character is an "every-girl of sorts and not maybe what you'd expect from 4chan" or saying "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists" does not demand illustration then, well, I don't know what does. More commentary could be added, but the article isn't very long and what we have already satisfies NFCC#8.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That's why I am considering if one could make an article on the character (not that we have to, but if possible), as we generally do allow one nonfree image of a notable character in the context of discussing that character, even if there is no specific reference or details to the appearance of the character. The character is likely notable (several secondary sources talking about her) so this would mean that it is reasonable to include that image somewhere associated with the discussion of the character. Whether that's TFYC or GamerGate, that's the question. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh. It's a character for a not yet created game, descriptions of which appear to mainly be used to make 4chan sound awesome. I don't think it demands illustration in any strong manner. That said, it's not devoid of secondary sources discussing the character (which would only really discuss the image as the game isn't out yet). So I'm not going to the wall for deletion but I haven't been convinced we need a non-free file for the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WRT the 4chan article, it used to have a thorough description of how 4chan was in the middle of the controversy and the character was spiting feminists, but someone decided it wasn't relevant to the topic. Heh.
In any case, it seems confirmed that the character (and this very same image in particular) is in the public domain, so there would be no need to treat is as non-free. Diego (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: Where is it confirmed that the image is PD? If so, that would short circuit this entire discussion (a good thing!). Protonk (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
See the links right above Arbitrary break 1, TYFC say that the character is in the free domain in their official Twitter stream. Diego (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Hmm. So here's the problem. the statement on tumblr is hard to parse. Did they "own" the character (or more importantly, the work that we have uploaded to wikipedia now) and then release it to PD? Or did they always consider it in the PD because it came from /v? If the former is true, we can cite something indicating as much and re-tag the image. If the latter is true (which, unfortunately, is likely) then it's more of a case of a misunderstanding of the public domain than it is a claim that the image is owned by no one. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The character was created so that TFYC could include it in a video game they're making, so the whole purpose of asking /v/ to design a character was so that they could own it. We can dig the terms on which the work was commissioned, so to say, but if TFYC say it's in the public domain, they probably have good reason to say that. Diego (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
We really would like to have the original creator(s) state the PDness, unless there is documentation that it was created as a work for hire for TFYC (meaning that TFYC own the copyright in such case). Considering that the creator is likely someone that would not want their real name fully known but would need to state that for the clear evidence of PD, that's why doing the ORTS aspect would be the best approach - the name would be held on the system in private but validate they have made it PD. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As masem says, we'd need some evidence to declare it a work for hire in order to determine that TFYC can actually release it to PD. I'm skeptical of the claims we've seen from them so far because it's common to confuse "available on the internet" with PD and possible (though less common, as the applicability is pretty narrow) to misconstrue the nature of work for hire. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Found this. TFYC know who's the creator and got permission from them to use the image, they should be asked to contact them and confirm the license. Diego (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Please direct them to WP:CONSENT if they do not wish to upload themselves. (We cannot use that alone as proof but that's a great step in the right direction). --MASEM (t) 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted earlier in this discussion, it'd really be a good idea if everyone who has had a hand in the GamerGate saga to kinda step off and let non-involved (yes Masem, even you, despite being an NFCR regular) editors review the matter. That's why I have been reading all of this but will not enter a keep/delete opinion. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
IMO the aticle content itself borders on Coatrack.
The content the image illustrates is minor and veers off subject wise in an article that is already suspect. Adding the image visually and content wise weighs the article inappropriately towards content that is minor.The content, minor, not critical to the article, means the image as well is not critical commentary to the article as a whole. A picture is worth a thousand words. Add the pic and minor content takes on stature it doesn't have. I would delete.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC))
I am not involved in the dispute, and have not been a part of the DRN as I recused myself for having interactions with Masem (here in lots of discussions) and others on the request there. I stand firmly here, again reminding editors that NFCC has no comment "requirement"....however Protonk brings up the issue that concerns me the most: "Eh. It's a character for a not yet created game, descriptions of which appear to mainly be used to make 4chan sound awesome. I don't think it demands illustration in any strong manner." If this artwork is PD that still doesn't answer the underlying the image needed and would its exclusion hinder the readers ability to understand the subject?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be endless, but FWIW and my two cents again, the image was specifically created as an attack on an individual and by association, similarly situated individuals, and hence it is a BLP violation to be including it in the articles where it is placed for that reason most of all, but it also adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the issue, particularly where it is peripheral to the main topic of the articles in question - and soap and coatrack guidelines both are implicated here. I also do not see a clear copyright release, in spite of claims made above. That's three strikes in my book, so it should be out. Montanabw(talk) 02:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Your BLP reasoning is completely POV and has no basis in policy. The character does not represent, nor is the character meant to allude to, any living person. I should not that the extent to which non-free content contributes to the reader's understanding is influenced by the significance of the non-free content in relation to reliable sources. Since Vivian James is prominently associated with TFYC in reliable sources, moreso than with GamerGate, the significance of the character and the related commentary clearly meets the criteria. As to the disputed nature of copyright, there is no dispute that the character was designed by members of 4chan. Exact ownership is murky, though TFYC obviously feels it has no rights to the character, but it is not as though we do not know the origin of the character. Clearly those who designed it had every expectation and intention of people using the character freely without crediting them. That is not the same as releasing the character under a free license, but it should be another point of consideration here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, clearly associated with a BLP. And as far as "significance of the character and the related commentary ", it's a cartoon drawing of a woman with shoulder length red hair, with large sad almond shaped eyes wearing a green and white horizontally striped hoodie, with the hood down. There, free text that fully describes the image - if even that description of a mundane cartoon drawing is necessary; these free words show that no copyrighted image is necessary - there's nothing unusual or out of your imagination that needs the image presented to show - words alone do it. Ridiculous to assert otherwise, there's nothing special about that drawing at all. Dreadstar 02:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
How is the character image a BLP problem? Yes, it is connected to a BLP issue, but specifically, does the image evoke any of the BLP (not NFCC) restrictions? Is it a grossly-malformed image of a living person or otherwise meant as derogatory to a specific person? No. There's no BLP restriction on including the image. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it's "grossly malformed", it's clearly connected - there's just one BLP mentioned in the link I provided above, and anyone with knowledge of the entire issue knows exactly who is being referred to; right down to the red hair and the MD. The image also fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Dreadstar 02:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look anything like Zoe Quinn , if that's who you are referring to. Quinn has long had short-banged hair and dyes her hair a variety of colors. (And the other possible target, Anita Sarkeensian, is also nothing like that). Remember that whomever the artist was on 4chan designer to be an "everywoman of video gaming" (per that article, but also from others I've read) and I would doubt they would do that based on a person that was currently a subject of hot debate at 4chan (Quinn or Sarkeensian) --MASEM (t) 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It clearly was meant to attack Zoe; then the attack was broadened to include Anita, and then to a group of women. I don't see how this avoids BLP. But I'm done arguing the point, I'll let the uninvolved make the decision. You should too. The image is unnecessary to understand anything in any article of the proposed list of articles where certain others believe it should be included, You can argue the BLP issue till you're blue in the face, but it fails even the most basic non-free-content requirements. And just to be clear,a to me, it violates WP:BLPGROUP, since it is about a very small group of individuals. Dreadstar 03:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hah, it's laughable, do the supporters of this mundane cartoon think it HONORS these women? Crazy... lol... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"Female gamers" is a very small group of individuals? Diego (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
(48% in the latest ESA study, fwiw). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeensian are well documented (beyond BLP), but that the image itself is nothing degrading or insulting immediately directly at them (it's not a perverted characterization, for example), I see no BLP issues with the image or discussion of the mascot. While we have to be fully aware writing these articles we'll encounter BLP, there is a different between making an unsubstantiated claim about either woman, and showing a mascot that was created in a reactionary response to some of the ideals these two have set out as to give the different impression of what a female gamer would look like. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The image as a visual aspect weights the article and emphasizes content that is of marginal significance. This image's effect is insidious, but it also clearly highlights insignificant content drawing attention to it.

BLP violations are not always blatant., and a BLP violation does not have to be negative , that may be an issue here, but it is not the only issue that points to a BLP violation as has been mentioned numerous times. And its naive of us to think an image does not have huge impact. If BLP violation is even suspected then the safest action is to remove until there is agreement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

The character is prominently associated with TFYC as evidenced by the fact most TFYC-related articles post-Vivian James discuss Vivian James in some significant manner. It is also a character that has become widely associated with GamerGate and thus warrants some attention in that respect. Any BLP argument is simply absurd and has no basis in a reasonable interpretation of the policy.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree as do several other editors here. There is no overall agreement here and there are editors who see a BLP violation however subtle.That's enough to question the inclusion of the image and possibly to remove it until agreement is reached. People come first in terms of BLP and Wikipedia not satisfying a desire to include content no matter who is damaged. This image is blatant depiction of a female gamer and is a pejorative pictorial commentary on them. Vivien Jones is a small part of TFYC but in the Wikipedia article dominates the visual aspect of the article. Its wrong not absurd.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC))
A "pejorative pictorial commentary" on female gamers? Where the hell did you get that idea? The people above are arguing the image is associated with harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian, but that is just twisting the facts. Vivian James was designed by 4chan members after they donated a significant amount of money to TFYC. It is true that said 4chan members were donating money to TFYC because of their feud with Quinn, and 4chan members have played a major role in pushing the GamerGate controversy that began with talk of Quinn's personal ties to certain journalists, which has prompted some harassment of Quinn, but that is just absurdly indirect reasoning. The image of the character is in no way an attack on anyone.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You can disagree but don't discount other opinions. The image impact is subtle - unsmiling, tired looking. Is that the iconic female gamer? Apparently so.(Littleolive oil (talk))
The problem is that no one is making the BLP claim you are making. Vivian James is not meant to make anyone look bad. It was a character literally created for the exact opposite reason. The people who created the character did it to make themselves look better because the character is so harmless and inoffensive in appearance.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the article and its sources and what I'm saying is that the pic is not as inoffensive as it seems to some of the people here. Others are alluding to the same. I'm traveling right now and can't continue this, Early flight tomorrow. I've had my say. All I ask is that it be considered as well as the undue weight argument. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC))
A removal on the grounds of BLP should be better argued than a simple "I think it may be offensive in an unspecified way", though. Something like explaining how and where it breaches BLP policy, at a minimum. Diego (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the usage in The Fine Young Capitalists, without knowing anything about the political backstory though. On the face of it, there is certainly enough critical commentary about this character there ("critical commentary" in the full sense of the word, including commentary on the aesthetics and creative choices in its design) to make visual illustration easily pass NFCC. If there are concerns about this coverage and the visual presence giving undue weight to some aspect of content that is "offensive" under a BLP angle, then that is an issue to sort out regarding the text of the article; as long as the text of the article is what it is, the image as such seems easily justifiable NFC-wise. (Note that I have removed the FUR templates regarding the other articles for which it was originally claimed too but where – quite rightly, it seems – it's no longer being used.) Fut.Perf. 11:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    I bow to your greater experience in this area, FPAS - although I'm surprised that such a simple cartoon can't be described in words alone, which is free content. As for the BLP issue, I believe it violates WP:BLPGROUP in that it was clearly meant and is used to attack Zoe Quinn,[1], Anita Sarkeesian and a small group of female game developers [2]. Dreadstar 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    It seems acceptable to me. Has anyone asked FYC to release it under CC-BY-SA? Incidentally is the best image to use? All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Wait - how is it that the image is now deleted, when it's subject to a review process? Diego (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been restored. Diego (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Better question is how's the file still marked as non-free content and under review process more than 3 months later, when the specific file, and even the character as a whole, were confirmed to be public domain already in September. Days before most of the talk on this page, too. Quasipaa (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:This Is How We Do MTV Scrrenshoot.jpg[edit]

This does not provide any rationale as to how this passes the non-free content criteria. And it does not at present. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an unnecessary illustration that does nothing to help understanding the section about the music video. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Crooks in Cloisters[edit]

This article only needs one poster. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The article already has a poster in its infobox. This image is in a gallery and does not have critical commentary failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. Aspects (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana[edit]

There does not seem to be any need for two covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So High (Ghost Loft song)[edit]

We don't seem to need two covers here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Second cover unnecessary for sure. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fabergé egg[edit]

An editor has been adding a large number of non-free images of Fabergé eggs, pasting each both into the dedicated article about each of these artworks and in the main Fabergé egg article, where they are used in a list table. Problems are as follows:

  1. While the sculptural artwork as such is presumably free, the photographs are not.
  2. FURs on the file page currently describe only the use in the dedicated articles; FURs for the main article are missing
  3. The use in the main article falls foul of WP:NFTABLE
  4. FURs don't address the question of replaceability of the photographic work; in particular, we can't use non-free photos if the eggs are on public display and could be photographed there, or if the photographer may have a commercial interest in the photo. The only scenario where a non-free picture would seem legitimate would be if it was made available by the owner (collector, museum etc) of the piece, and the owner is known not to permit photography otherwise.

Fut.Perf. 09:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

to 1 Yes, therefore fair use.
to 2 I didn't know that each particular use needs a FUR.
to 3 Ok, tables too, i didn't think that an overview also falls in that guideline.
to 4 That's a very tight commentary, a FUR is only valid if the owner enclosed its artwork?

--Ras67 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We can easily meet WP:N for each individual egg. We can, and with enough effort available, should have articles on each egg.
Of the many sins against NFC carried out on WP, I would suggest that admins instead focus on its more egregious breaches. Perhaps starting with the case where a non-free image so clearly non-free that national media have picked up on the story, where the photographer has suffered clear financial loss as a result of WP's actions and where Commons has ignored COM:PRP to do so. An image where an admin has even chosen to gloat with WP's sovereign power over mere photographers by using it as the highlight of their user page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody has been attempting to improve the FURs and address the issues I raised above, I have gone ahead and removed the non-free images from the main article, per WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFCC#10c failure. I have also tagged most of the image pages with "disputed rationale" (for the remaining usage in the dedicated articles on each egg), since none of the rationales address the crucial question why a free photograph could no longer be taken. In cases where the eggs are apparently in public museums, I have instead tagged them straight away as replaceable. Fut.Perf. 12:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brandenburger SC Süd 05[edit]

This article has too many non-free logos. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Second logo is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


The (copyrighted) proclamation of the Canada Act 1982 is used in four articles. Are rationales for Constitution Act, 1982, Pierre Trudeau, Canadianism, and Title and style of the Canadian monarch valid? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no need for any of the image uses that are given. You don't need a non-free picture of a document to demonstrate the document exists. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The text is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-laws}}. The image parts of the PNG file are presumably copyrightable, though. The file is replaceable by the same text encoded in "text format". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The proclamation still belongs to copyright of either the United Kingdom or Canada. Perhaps we shall treat it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, right? And then treat it as non-free? --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal for speedy deletion, because the Proclamation, while under Canadian Crown copyright, is one of the types of documents which the federal government permits to be reproduced under the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, SI/97-5, which is cited in the wikipedia article on Crown copyright for Canada. Proclamations bringing an Act into force are an "enactment" as defined by the federal Interpretation Act, and therefore this Proclamation comes within the grant of reproduction in the Reproduction of Federal Law Order. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
See {{db-f3}}. That permission does not permit modification. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please help me a bit here. I'm new to this process for challenging the use/deletion of images, so I'm not familiar with the technical points. I did review that link you pointed at, and I do not see anything about modification there. In any event, how has the image been modified? My basic point is that the Canadian government has clearly recognised that legal documents, even if they are under Crown copyright, are of important public value and can be freely used and copied by members of the public; see the preamble to the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, SI/97-5: "Whereas it is of fundamental importance to a democratic society that its law be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law; And whereas the Government of Canada wishes to facilitate access to its law by licensing the reproduction of federal law without charge or permission;" The federal government has granted a licence for reproduction without charge or permission, because it is important for laws to be easily obtained. Since the holder of the copyright has granted that licence, because of a strong public policy interest in making laws readily available, why should Wikipedia be more restrictive, and frustrate that federal policy? It's not a breach of the Crown copyright for us to reproduce the Proclamation, so what other basis is being advanced to delete the file? I simply do not understand. (And in any event, the fact that we are having this discussion illustrates to me that this file is not a candidate for speedy deletion. For example, it is not an Unambiguous copyright infringement given the federal Order.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the "di-replaceable fair use", "di-disputed fair use rationale", "di-replaceable fair use disputed" banners (which are expiring now) so that this discussion will decide on the outcome. Now the choice is "free" or "non-free" - my view is that "free" is not an option - allows reproduction, but at Wikipedia we want more - images must be also available for commercial use and allowed to be derivatised. While the Canadian text does not mention commercial, it does not negate it - however it does say due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced - that (to me) equates to "no derivatives", and thus cannot be used here as a "free" image. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I assume that means it's no longer on the "speedy deletion" track, and we have some more time to discuss? Could you elaborate, please, on what you mean by "no derivatives"; I'm not understanding what you mean. However, with respect to the issue of commercial use, in Canada the publishers of commercial legal texts regularly reproduce federal laws and judgments, for example in case-books and texts; one of the most common types of books on a statute is an annotated statute, where the text of the statute is reproduced, with detailed annotations after each section, explaining how it's been interpreted, and so on. So I would assume that commercial use is included in the grant under the federal Order. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
For a work to be free here on WP, we require that the copyright owner has licensed the work in a way that anyone, commercial or otherwise, can modify the work freely (without seeking permission). This language is not explicitly stated in the Canada's laws applying to copyright of state-issued documents. As such this cannot be free, and has to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MacArthur Geniuses[edit]

This says the the pictures are licensed Creative Commons (see bottom of page) [3]. Does anyone have experience with our using these? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind - already uploaded to commons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG[edit]

Violates WP:NFG in List of passports. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dance Again World Tour[edit]

I'm not convinced that we need two different posters in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the second one down in the body is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


This section deals with the use of the following images in Listicle:

Both images fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The headlines themselves are titles that are ineligible for copyright, so the headlines could be replaced by text. Also, in accordance with WP:NFCC#8, we don't need images to demonstrate that a listicle-style headline appeared on the cover of a magazine. (Additionally, I point out that the Men's Journal cover also appears in Men's Journal but has no WP:NFUR for use in that article.) RJaguar3 | u | t 03:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A free content mock-up could be made to demonstrate how the listicle can be presented on a magazine cover. Definitely failure of NFCC#1 for both. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Customs United F.C.[edit]

There are too many logos here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Symphonic World Tour[edit]

We probably don't need two non-free images in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Album cover is definitely not needed or appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:PowerHouse Books Logo.jpg[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. The original revision should be undeleted. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo is definitely below TOO, and can be marked free. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


The logos of the sub-entities should not be in this article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed, the two sub-entity logos are unneeded as they appear to have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo for ContentBridge LLC not transparent.png[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the TOO, meets PD-text. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:IDEO logo 2014.png[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Gulahmed gr.jpg[edit]

Used outside the article namespace. Is it copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be US-only PD-logo, but not worldwide. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ginger Hotels Present Logo.png[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Gateway Hotels.png[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Fix Your Face Album Cover.jpg[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-text}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, would be PD-text at least in US. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Field Studies Council.jpg[edit]

Used on pages without satisfying WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c. Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD-text in the US only but not worldwide. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Chevrolet. Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only valid for the main article. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:5 denari.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Eurasian lynx. Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard failure here: we don't use non-free to illustrate how a thing was commemorated. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Raanjhanaa (soundtrack)[edit]

This page probably doesn't need two covers. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Second cover (for single) is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad Reputation (Joan Jett song)[edit]

This article seems to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Second cover is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Royal Farms Arena[edit]

This seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Baltimore_Arena_Logo.png is not needed, but the other logo is PD in the US (textlogo) so is okay. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of Param Vir Chakra Awardee[edit]

Could I trouble someone for a comment regarding this matter here? Talk:Yogendra Singh Yadav. Please be mindful that this man is considered a hero in Indian Society and I feel that such pedantic interpretations of policy, with no thought to being practicality, is disrespecting the man and his service.Myopia123 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't make exceptions for living persons that are clearly around in the public; a free image is definitely possible so we cannot use a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least you were courteous enough to begin with 'Sorry'.Myopia123 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the Right to Information Act [4] of India, information is defined as

    "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
    "record" includes(a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not);

The relevant parts of the act, which apply to this image:

3. Right to information.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.4. Obligations of public authorities.......(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (/), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

As an Indian Citizen, it is the government's duty to make this image available to me, which is what they have done on the website that it was obtained from (Indian Army, which is part of Ministry of Defence, which is a public authority). As an Indian citizen, I have the right to upload it to Wikipedia.
All of this legal jargon aside: India is not the US. You are treating this like a lawsuit waiting to happen when the reality is that every party involved will be happy that we are using images of a national hero for an encyclopediaMyopia123 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

From the Foundation, our goal is to provide free content, which includes the ability for it to be built and modified by any other user for any other purpose, as long as attribution is given. India's Information Act does not grant that right, so images from them will be treated as non-free. As the Foundation also seeks to promote free media over non-free media, if a free image is possible (not existing already) we cannot use a non-free; this is the case for nearly every living person, and definitely in particular for someone who is claimed to be a nation's war hero - it might require finding someone in India to go to an event that this person is attending to get a picture, but it's possible for sure. So a non-free cannot be used. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The act does not expressly grant that right because it is not prohibited at all. It is a form of freedom of expression. Here is a link to the same image modified by a newspaper [5]. The act was not made with Wikipedia and internet copyright in mind but the implications are the same.Myopia123 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because a newspaper modified doesn't mean that right is a sure thing; that can fall under fair use. But we need explicit language that all users have the right to modify the image, and that's just not present in India's law - free access, yes, but not free reuse. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of such explicit language in another country's laws so that I know you are 100% correct in what you are saying?Myopia123 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
US's law, which puts all works into the public domain, is spelled out as "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government" Section 105. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The spirit of the Indian act was for the same purpose. The link which you have provided does not use that language either, it has been interpreted to suit this purpose. Anyway, I think I've had enough of Wikipedia editors for one lifetime. Tc. Myopia123 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the Indian law does not divest the work of any copyright, only that citizens should have free access. The US law is clear that works of the gov't cannot be copyrighted, thus in the public domain and can be built on by anyone. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you're the big man who gets to say what is right and wrong over here but in my opinion, you are absolutely mistaken in this case. Copyright law is not as stringent in India as it is in the US, since we are not a litigious society. Just like Indian pharmaceutical companies can freely make dirt cheap, generic versions of copyrighted western drugs, the same is the case for these images. I do not think any Indian official would dispute that once I have free access, modifying and doing whatever I want with images is a part of freedom of expression. However, you are entitled to your opinion, which I understand has more weight than mine over here. Myopia123 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo uploads by anonymous user[edit]

For more than a year, the IP user has been uploading images and adding them to articles. From what I've seen, authorship is consistently attributed to 'Nancy Wong', linked to the non-existent user account 'Edmunddantes'. Here's a recent example out of many. I'm not sure how an anonymous user can assert their copyright. The user also displays an irritating pattern of adding their photos using the 'infobox person' template, and a contribution on their talk page highlighting the issue points to an earlier IP address of the same user that may have been banned. ARK (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • An IP can't upload images, although already uploaded images can be added to pages by IPs. The account Edmunddantes exists both here and on Commons (where the images seem to have been uploaded), but is not attached to SUL, so the English Wikipedia account might not belong to the same person as the Commons account. The fact that the account isn't attached to SUL could explain why the images are being added by an IP: lack of SUL doesn't provide the user with any automatic login function on Wikipedia. This is more of a problem to solve on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Herald.png[edit]

Is this image copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

logotypes are trademarks and therefore non-free by definition. There are lots of logos on Wikipedia, however; they're presumed to be fine under fair use provisions. ARK (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-free is not defined by whether something is trademarked, only its copyright. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably fine. User:ARK is mixing up copyright law with trademark law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely under TOO for the US and should be free. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In Our Time (short story collection)[edit]

Two non-free book covers are used. Shall we use one or two? George Ho (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Understanding that there are two different editions with different content, only one should be used, as the cover is otherwise not the subject of discussion. A couple things to keep in mind is that there might be a chance these are free (at the cusp, being 1923, so there might not be (c) markings or re-registration). Also the 1925 cover may be "free" as uncopyrightable as the only non-text elements are those little symbols on the top quarants and those might be under the line. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The 1925 edition was used for copyright. However, I searched for the renewal registration of the collection in 1953, 1952, and 1951 copyright catalogs. I found none. Even I didn't find other works by Hemingway there. Consider both editions free to use? --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg[edit]

This image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia using the licensing rationale "public domain". This rationale was discussed here at WP:PUI and the result of the discussion was that "the best practice is to have the file as non-free until such a time the copyright status can be proven one way or another". The file was then tagged with {{non-free logo}} and {{non-free use rationale}}, but I am not sure if the image satisfies all ten of the non-free content criteria, in particular "8. Contextual significance". There is no mention/description/explanation of the image (or its significance) at all in the article which leads me to wonder just how its presence "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" or how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Finally, when the image was initially uploaded as "public domain" with this edit , no information was added about its source. This information was provided here later on, but not by the file's uploader. I'm not sure whether this is even relevant at all, but since the source was not provided by the uploader, it seems like it is hard to know for sure whether the source listed is the actual source of the file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The logo of a notable organization, as to be used in the infobox for that organization's article, is generally accepted as an allowed use for non-free images. (The idea being that as a means to id the organization, being in context with sourced discussion about the organization means that it is being used within context). --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Masem. You qualified your above post by saying "generally accepted" which seems to imply that there are cases where the use of such logos is not acceptable. How is this determination made? Is it made strictly by local consensus on a case by case basis or are there some community-wide criteria in place? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, we should have a source for this image , whether a website or an official document, to prove previous publication. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the uploader the only person who can provide the original source or can it be added by another editor? Should the file be deleted for failing to satisfy NFCC "10. Image description page" if the original source is not provided, either because it does not exist or the uploader choses not provide it? On the other hand, if the "non-free logo" rationale is sound and the image is just being deleted because of NFCC 10a., then it could just be re-uploaded as a "non-free logo" and sourced using the information found by other editors involved in the PUF discussion, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If anyone else can provide a likely source for the image, that can be added (and there appears to be a source listed in the PUF discussion). so that can just be added to the page w/o deleting the image. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
OK Masem, so there's no problem with who adds the source. That means we're back again to the "contextual significance" of the image to the article. How is this established? How is this determined if there is no clear consensus? Does WP:STATUSQUO apply in such cases just like any other edit? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is some reason that WP:NFCI#2 and WP:LOGOS does not apply here (which I really can't see - it's the official logo of a notable organization, used as identification of that organziation), it's unlikely to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine Masem. but then shouldn't something be mentioned in the article regarding the significance of the logo. Perhaps something regarding it's meaning or origin? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We'd love that to make the image more useful, but it is long-standing practice that as long as the entity with the logo is notable with a stand-alone article, one single identifying image (even if never discussed) is appropriate, similar to our use of cover art. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understand about album cover art, but couldn't the reasoning given in WP:BANDLOGO be also extended to cover something like this as well. I am not a deletist by any means and I hear what you're saying, so so I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just "writing for the opponent" so to speak just to make sure I understand the rationale behind this. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's how it applies. The better way to see this is that we include logo use in this fashion at WP:NFCI (the list of generally allowed non-free uses). --MASEM (t) 02:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I found File:Iceland road sign E01.21.svg at Commons uploaded as public domain. It looks very similar to the logo we've been discussing. The only real difference I can see is the shield in the center of the logo. Would this be considered a "free equivalent" per WP:NFCC? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I would not think so because of the difference on the shield. I'd stay with what we've had before. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for taking a look. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pelita Bandung Raya[edit]

There are too many logos in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Old crests are unnecessary without any discussion about them. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Det ar dit vi ska cd cover.jpg[edit]

I have doubts over the tagging used on the above named file which may not be in accordance with WP:NFCI. Looking at the file history, the contributor has changed tags multiple times as if they too were uncertain. And the editor has had five warnings in the past for uploading images that were in violation of copyrights, most of which were speedy deleted under WP:F9. If the image is an issue, then perhaps some tutorial for the editor is required to prevent this issue from reoccurring in the future. Wes Mouse 13:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they were trying to get the right template name (the other changes being not proper templates). And as such, one needs to assume good faith that the editor wasn't purposely trying to break NFCC/copyright (their past attempts look like unfamiliarity with the process less than purposely bad cases). This image would normally be allowed as a album cover, however there is a problem that it is lacking a rationale, which can be added/fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am assuming good faith here - hence why I said I had doubt, and even noticed that it appeared the editor was also uncertain. I'm not fully comfortable with image related content, and always treat such with extreme caution and seek advice were necessary. I do feel, however, that the editor in question may benefit from some tutorial in image related uploads, so that she is aware of the scale of things and what can and cannot be uploaded - including which tags to use and when. Such help would be passing on valuable knowledge to inexperienced editor's and help them grow into outstanding contributors - or as I like to say using a terminology learnt during my volunteering at London 2012 - "Inspiring the next generation". Wes Mouse 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Looks like a {{PD-logo}} to me. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, United States Copyright Office would likely refuse to register this, so I agree it should be retagged as PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


This article contains too many non-free logos. Also, the single word "Facebook" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Only the "Power" logo is a problem as excess non-free. the "Mix" one would likely be under the TOO (glow effect being a simple filter like a drop shadow), compared to the beveled look of the Power logo. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia Plus[edit]

The "logo history" section contains a gallery of non-free images, which looks inappropriate. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Both additional logos are non-free, and are not needed without additional commentary about the logo design/critique. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Epcot Spaceship Earth Logo.svg[edit]

Currently marked as non-free; does this logo fail to meet TOO (in which case it should be marked as {{PD-logo}}? RJaguar3 | u | t 17:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For US , it does seem to be just under TOO, but it's an edge case. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Babymetal (album)[edit]

This article seems to contain too many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Main and one alternate covers seems to be in line with allowances for album articles. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:World vision logo.jpg[edit]

Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? If not, it should only be used in the article namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Note: I have removed it from the sandbox draft at User:Emmanuel International Canada/Emmanuel International Canada. Feel free to restore it if the image is determined to be free. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Claimed to be non-free, but seems to be {{PD-Somalia}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely would fall under that PD-Somalia tag, though Wales has stated that we should still respect copyrights from nations that aren't part of the US's URAA reciprocal copyright laws. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Which copyright? According to {{PD-Somalia}}, there is no copyright law in Somalia, so this is in the public domain worldwide. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Revell Logo.png[edit]

Would this logo be a case of {{PD-logo}} (or possibly {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if the logo is not of US origin?) --Elegie (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD-logo in the US only. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
On those grounds, would it be correct to change the licensing to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} + {{Trademark}} ? --Elegie (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Innerst i sjelen (album)[edit]

See WP:NFCC#3a: this page contains too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The English-language version of the original cover is unnecessary since it is a near duplicate outside of text. The Japan release cover is reasonable as a different cover release in a major region, per alt. album cover artwork allowances. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:VEF Minox logo.jpg[edit]

Claimed to be unfree, but likely {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Free, US-only. Would fail that elsewhere in world (that is, non-free). --MASEM (t) 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Seoul Flag.png[edit]

Is this copyrightable? If so, it should be removed from the user namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD in the US, so technically okay in userspace. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


This violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least one article[which?] and also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Userspace violation has been removed. Of the other 4, the one in Alabama is inappropriate, but the other three uses are reasonable (on the page directly about the event, on the page of a person noted for the event as their only photo id, and on a page about the inter-racial relationships that the event reflected.) --MASEM (t) 14:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Userspace violation removed. Agree that the Association use is inappropriate with the separate article for the award. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung[edit]

This article contains too many logos, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The logo gallery section is unnecessary - it duplicates the infobox logo, and the older logo is not discussed, nor that different from the current one to require a separate image. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


It's a close call, but I don't think the combination of standard elements in the CCLI logo meets TOO. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's just under TOO in the US, so should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Fairy Tail soundtracks[edit]

The article List of Fairy Tail soundtracks is the result of a merger of five separate articles on these soundtrack albums. It currently contains five non-free images, one for each album. Normally list-type articles don't use multiple non-free images. How many non-free images should be used in this article? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed them with the summary stating that "non-free images are not allowed in list type articles".[6] This is wrong and the only thing preventing each one from having their own article is that despite being notable individually, the content to make it worthwhile is simply not done at this point. To say none is acceptable when all are independently notable is an overreach, but I am partial to one or two - but I've not been able to rectify lack of content at the moment and I personally hate messing with music templates to clean up the lists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First, this is a discography article, so non-free covers for each item is prohibited unless each is significant. We would generally allow for covers to be kept if the individual articles were notable on their own but the merge was done for better coverage as the group (no need to penalize the idea of better presentation). However, I strongly beg the question if any of the articles are notable. Fundamental details and track list do not make for notability. As such, we generally only allow one cover image to be used as an example for the entire list barring any free image availability. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to agree with that, and I expected it as such. Which is why Vol 1. should be the first choice, but generally those that place in the top charts are notable. The issue here is more that its foreign and lacking depth of coverage. It is not as if these images are irreplaceable either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I would generally say the first one should be used in such a list. (Note: if you can find a montage of the images created by the publisher/copyright owner, that would qualify as one image - but not one created by yourself or someone else). --MASEM (t) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The images violate WP:NFC#UUI §2 in this article. Does the list article meet WP:GNG in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


This image is used in three articles. Does usage meet criteria policy? George Ho (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Most likely yes in all three. We're talking about a mythos/cultural story/figure so I would believe that there should be free artwork that would demonstrate the concept better than a random actress with no special apparances or the like to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagree on this. A screenshot of a film can not be used to illustrate a ghost. The image is replacable. Free artwork can be created to replace the image. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Three Stooges film screenshots[edit]

While going through the filmography for The Three Stooges, I noticed that almost every article has a movie poster or title card in the infobox and a screenshot somewhere in the article, like 3 Dumb Clucks, and some article have three non-free images, like Calling All Curs. Normally I would just remove these as I went through the articles, but their filmography consist of over 200 films, so I thought a consensus formed here if they should be removed and if so, a good way to go through the filmography. Aspects (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The only clear allowed image for any of them is the movie poster (per NFCI#1); a screenshot or title card is excessive NFCC unless the images meet NFCC#8 (and judging by the example of Calling All Curs, they don't). --MASEM (t) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rede Globo[edit]

This article seems to contain too many unfree logos. Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The first three logos used after the infobox likely qualify for PD-USonly as too simple for copyright. But the other logos past that are definitely non-free and not discussed in any manner, so should be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Masem on this one. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Big Girls Don't Cry (book).jpg[edit]

It's just a book cover featuring text and PD-shapes. For an image that simple I'd generally list it to be moved to Commons, but the reason I'm listing it is because it includes a copyrighted quote by Maureen Corrigan. Is this quote enough to not label the cover as {{pd-text}} or it is suitable for Commons. Note: I don't know if I'm in the correct venue. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know - you might have better luck asking at Commons. I would believe here, because they are using a quote in fair use (there's probably sevaral paragraphs about the book that they pulled that quote from) we could justify it as a PD-text here, but I'm not sure on commons. --MASEM (t) 08:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Florence Green.jpg[edit]

This file is used without a fair use rationale at List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. As the last surviving WWI veteran, is it appropriate to use this fair use image in the list article, keeping in mind that she has her own article, located at Florence Green, where it naturally is appropriate to use this image. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this fails WP:NFLISTS as used in this list. ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Energy Community Logo.jpg[edit]

Lacks FURs for several articles and is also used outside the article namespace. Is it copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Borders on PD-Text for the US but not sure about the EU in general. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
PD-text? You've got artistic arrangement with the multi-sized stars and the swooshy thing. Way too much non-text for this to be PD-text, and way too much originality for PD-ssimple. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Jain University Logo.png[edit]

Is this copyrightable? It is used outside the article namespace, but is claimed to be non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free in general even in US (the chrome effect pushing it over). Shouldn't be used in userspace. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Is this copyrightable? This is claimed to be non-free and is used on more than a hundred pages but only has a fair use rationale for one page. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is definitely not so in United States. I used Google Translate to transcribe "Enoden" and it came out 江ノ電, which is exactly what the logo shows. Of course, if you want to be 100% sure, you could ask a Japanese-speaking Wikipedian to verify this. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:DLL icon on Windows Vista.png[edit]

I fail to see how the icon is relevant and essential to the article. � (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Strange sentence. This forum expects you to tell why you think this computer icon is irrelevant to the article. If you indeed fail to see that, then you have no business being here in the first place. Instead, you should check the associated article.
But I do think this image needs a better use rationale. I'll get to it now.
Best regard,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Grieve[edit]

This article contains too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given none of the works are individually notable it seems, 2-3 examples would be far, but not as many as present. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

File:City Art.PNG[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 in Land art. There are several alternative images in c:Category:Land art. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely fails Land Art. I'm also a bit concerned with the fact this was taken from the NYTimes, meaning it likely is a NFCC#2; it seems that we can take a free photograph (but a derivative work of the structure), making a more free-er image. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed from Land Art. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Is this copyrightable? I'm not sure about the background... Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just simply geometric and gradients. Should be okay. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Note: I've requested that it be renamed to File:Beige Arrogant Worms.jpg to avoid a conflict with the file on Wikimedia Commons. Please refer to this new name after the renaming. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Deccan Education Society logo.jpg[edit]

The fair use rationales are contradicting:

  • "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Deccan Education Society."
  • "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Fergusson College."
  • "This is a logo owned by Deccan Education Society for Institute of Management Development and Research, Pune."

Presumably, only one of the descriptions is correct. Therefore, the image presumably violates WP:NFCC#10c (no valid fair use rationale) in two of the articles,[which?] and likely also WP:NFCC#8 in those two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Or at least, the use of the boilerplate non-free logo rationale template is invalid on the second two. But as a logo, yes, its only expected reasonable use is the Deccan ES one; isn't appropriate in the other two articles. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The colleges owned by the Deccan Education Society use the same logo. See official websites [7], [8]. So it is appropriate for all articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

List of national anthems[edit]

The three non-free sound recordings (File:Anthem of the Republic of Macedonia (Instrumental).ogg, File:Bosnia and Herzegovina anthem.ogg and File:Qaumi Tarana Instrumental.ogg) violate WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one place where I might make an exception if those are the only 3 non-free audio samples compared to the rest where the rest of the table is nearly filled. Though there are other rows without samples so I would agree removal may make sense. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering that a lot of the songs in the list are recent, I would assume that many of the so-called "free" ones are unfree songs which are mistagged as free ones. That is a second problem which needs to be solved, but it is outside the scope of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a likely possibility, though also consider that I'd suspect in some countries there might be PD-nature of the anthem. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated some of the so-called "free" ones for deletion on Commons as they obviously have bogus copyright tags. For example, File:National Anthem of Western Sahara.ogg has a tag saying that the composer, who composed the song 35 years ago, has been dead for at least 70 years. There seems to be a lot of cleanup needed in that article... --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in Land art. Also fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Stefan nominated it for deletion because it wasn't appropriate for Land art (no opinion on that issue), its only use. Since an identical image was used at Milton Becerra, I deleted the other image under speedy criterion F1 and closed the discussion as moot, since the image now was used at two articles. This is definitely not forum-shopping on Stefan's part; in closing the discussion, I specifically encouraged an FFD renomination if problems remained, so coming here shouldn't be seen as end-running around the FFD's result. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Paparazzi - Music video - Crutches scene.jpg[edit]

Fails (8) of WP:NFCC, contextual significance. There is no critical commentary about this particular item, I don't think it particularly enhances the reader's understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It has commentary regarding the image, in the synopsis section. I'm trying to understand what it is exactly that you are looking for. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between commentary and critical commentary. Commentary is illustration, for instance "red cars exist". Critical commentary is more along the lines of "this particular red car is notable".
Quoting from WP:NFCC: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
This particular image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the song, and is frankly entirely replaceable by the caption "Gaga uses crutches in the video". This means that the image fails the fair use criterion. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:LG & B telephone MV 02.jpg[edit]

Fails (8) of WP:NFCC, contextual significance. There is no critical commentary about this particular item, I don't think it particularly enhances the reader's understanding to see that the two singers are in a car. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It has, regarding the usage of the truck from Kill Bill and the fashion choices. Same as before, please let me know what it is that you are looking for. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between commentary and critical commentary. Commentary is illustration, for instance "red cars exist". Critical commentary is more along the lines of "this particular red car is notable".
Quoting from WP:NFCC: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
This particular image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the song, or indeed of the video. While it is worthy of note that they include Kill Bill references, readers' understanding is not increased by seeing the duo in the car. It might be increased by a photo of the car, but I would imagine that, in principle, you could get a free image of the pussy wagon, which makes this image replaceable. This means that the image fails the fair use criterion. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


I am not convinced that this image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, nor that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, thus failing NFCC#8. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As this only is used in one article, consider using WP:FFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that this was an appropriate forum for discussing non-free content, and that if found lacking it would be deleted if not in use anywhere else. I can use FFD in future if you think that more appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Basically, this board should be for actions that should not normally involve an admin action to close, so the question of a single image with a single use either means it will be kept or deleted, so the FFD board is better for that; most of the actions here are for images with multiple uses or where one page has many images. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ah. Should I move all my nominations to FFD then? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes that's what you should have done firstly. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Taken to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_November_19#Lady_Gaga_vidcaps -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Pisidhi Indradat[edit]

This article has too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kim Komando Show logo.png[edit]

Is this logo a case of {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? --Elegie (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}, but is it the correct logo? The website listed in the infobox uses a different logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It could be that the logo for the show has changed since 2011, when the File:Kim Komando Show logo.png image was uploaded. Right now, there is an image which has a transparent background and which is overlaid over a dark blue shaded background to produce the logo on this page. Perhaps it would be useful for a more up-to-date logo (even if non-free content) to be used in the infobox. --Elegie (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Garden of Words[edit]

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is quite ambiguous and I have struggled with it every time I write about a Japanese anime. I understand that usage should be minimal and contextual significant, but in the past I have had any extra images taken down because supposedly only the manga or theatrical poster were enough. However, other GA and FA anime/manga articles use screenshots and additional cover art much more liberally without anyone removing it. For example, Pokémon and Madlax each use a screenshot to depict a pivotal or mundane scene, while School Rumble uses a video for a similar purpose. Air (visual novel) uses a screenshot to talk about the anime's location and uses extra cover art; while Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. uses multiple cover images. Voices of a Distant Star uses photo/art comparisons to show the basis for the story's setting.

Given these existing examples, I was wondering what people thought of the following ideas for The Garden of Words, an article I am currently developing:

  • The use of this image, depicting a pivotal scene in the film as already discussed in the article under "Character design and casting".
  • The use of one of these photo/art comparisons. Note: The site these images are posted on appears to be the source and were highly circulated on Tumblr last year. I think the person who posted these took the photos and *may* work for the animation studio... but I'm not sure. Yes, the article I'm working on already has CC-BY-SA photos of places depicted in the film, but the photos on this website (and all over Tumblr) more closely illustrate the production process. Not only that, but I can find other uses for the photos I'm currently using (with new captions).
  • Could the covers of either or both the manga and novel be used? To be honest, even I get confused when the sources discuss these two books unless they show the cover.

Although I would love to make all of these additions, I'd be happy with just one or two. Please let me know what you guys/gals think. – Maky « talk » 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think ideally, every anime and, if available, manga article would have at least one screenshot shown. This is how it's done for video game articles; a video game GAN won't pass without a screenshot unless, in very rare cases, the nominator is in the process of securing free licenses for images and promises to upload one shortly. Likewise, while I don't know how universal it is, a great many music FAs and GAs have sound samples. Tezero (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: Thanks for your thoughts. So the first idea I had (from the list) should be okay... What do you think about the 2nd and 3rd ideas? If I can't use those photo/art comparisons, then I may use a screenshot depicting one of the many highly-praised backgrounds or rain shots instead of the pivotal scene. – Maky « talk » 02:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Since only minimal feedback was given, I have added most of the non-free content mentioned above to the article and noted the general lack of feedback on the article's talk page requesting further discussion there. If anyone else has additional input, either reply there or ping me from here. – Maky « talk » 13:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul Finch[edit]

Could somebody familiar with WP:NFCCP take a look at this article. It currently uses seven images, three of which are book covers, one which is a movie poster, and one which says it comes from a twitter account. The book covers are File:Cover of the Killing Club.jpg, File:Cover_of_Sparrowhawk.jpg, and File:Hunter's Moon.jpg; the movie poster is File:TheDevilsRock poster2011 2k.jpg; and the twitter account is File:Paul_Finch_Silhouette.png. Almost all of these appear to be taken from websites listed in the articles's references. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Afghanistan[edit]

Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, non-free images need to be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto lowertext transcription.jpg[edit]

...and a new table in page Sana'a manuscript are exact copies or uploads from an artcile in the journal Der Islam ([9]) (see the copyright notice at the bottom, © 2011–2014 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH). The editor who uploads is a new editor, assuming good faith, I am not sure whether they would be copyright violations.Kiatdd (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Guillermo Acevedo[edit]

The article contains too many non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

CS Constantine[edit]

The "Crest" section violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Removed and warned Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The page still contains several non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops. I've removed those as well. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? You guys love to WP:BITE, don't you? -Myopia123 (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

To Myopia123: Was my warning really that WP:BITE-y? I try not do do that. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:New Order Movement Cover.jpg[edit]

Is this image copyrighted in the UK? George Ho (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Yellow by Beximco.png[edit]

This is claimed to be unfree but does not look copyrightable, at least not in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Will retag. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters[edit]

This article appears to violate WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud.png[edit]

Moving from Di-replaceable fair use disputed Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mokhtar Belmokhtar.png[edit]

Moving from Di-replaceable fair use disputed Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


This article contains too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep the images in question reflect different periods of time in the station's history. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no discussion about those other logos. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I added some more. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Discussion that just describes the image is not sufficient - do we have details of the graphic artist? do we have commentary about the older logos, etc? --MASEM (t) 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Both of the additional images likely qualify for {{PD-simple}}. The one with the earth image might seem to qualify for threshold of originality, but the background image of the planet is readily available via PD sources. It's not a creative element. The rest of it is text. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Danish 1st Division[edit]

This article contains too many logos. Some do not seem to meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me see... I think the following logos clearly qualify for PD-textlogo:
The only original logo is that of Faxe Kondi Divisionen with the football inside. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Easy (Commodores song)[edit]

This article seems to contain too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • all the images add to the article. --evrik (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
All of the images pass WP:NFCC. Obviously The Commodores single cover passes as the original version. The Faith No More cover version being a notable cover version deserving of its own section and infobox means at least one of their covers can be in the article. Since they are an American band, the North American cover version is the correct one to be first in the infobox. There is discussion about the differences in the cover versions even using different names for the singles "Easy" and "I'm Easy." Since the European version is significantly different than the North American version, both in image and in title of the song and was widely distributed, this alternate cover passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Manhattan Vingboons 1639.jpg[edit]

Why is a map from 1639 unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

File:University of Otago Coat of Arms.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 in University of Otago Faculty of Dentistry. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all it fails WP:NFCC#1. Coats of arms can be freely recreated following the blazon so we don't need to take the original drawing from the university's website. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Television in Italy[edit]

The various non-free logos do not meet WP:NFCC#10c or WP:NFLISTS. Some logos which are claimed to be non-free do not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The non-free logos should be removed failing WP:NFCC and the free logos should be removed as merely being decorative per WP:MOSLOGO. In general, I remove these tables that were added to the article this month, since it was written previously in prose, like here [10]. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


There appear to be too many non-free images, see WP:NFLISTS. Some of the images also violate WP:NFCC#3b and/or WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would keep three images, the animated version used in the first infobox, the toy in gun mode in the toy section that has significant discussion about it and the film version used in the prose section since it is from the first film. Aspects (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Surely highly significant in subject's life, but not significant to see this image to understand the event or its significance to him, and no critical commentary on this visual itself. Fails WP:NFCC#8. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:S.A.S emblem.svg[edit]

The file is on Commons with a free license. I nominated the file for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Special Air Service - Emblem.svg. I startet this review in the hope that we could get a clear answer to the question "Free or not free". MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Now deleted on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


This non-free advertisement is being used on a page about a specific book titled "Gender Advertisements", which is about the book, not about the advertisements themselves. Ahecht (TALK
) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, neither Gender Advertisements not Gender advertisement discuss this ad specifically, and if it is designed to be representative it could replaced with a free equivalent. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


This specific image is not discussed in Gender advertisement and could be replaced by a free image Ahecht (TALK
) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


This image is not specifically discussed in either Gender Advertisements or Gender advertisement. Since it is designed to be representative, it could be replaced with an equivalent free image (either created under a free license or old enough to be in the public domain). Ahecht (TALK
) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ordnance Survey of 1894–6.gif[edit]

Is this from 1894, or is it only based on a survey from that year? If the picture itself is from that year, then it should be either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cairo banner.svg[edit]

If the information at c:File:Cairo banner 1.svg is correct, then this is a free file. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. --evrik (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Where is it stated that this has been released under the given license? I don't see that information at the websites linked from the file page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (as CC licensed). After some archive digging here is an archived version of the mentioned COPYING-file [11]. The license looks OK - I have copied the link into the Commons image page. GermanJoe (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The label has no copyrightable elements, but we need to be assured the photograph is free, which is not clear from the uploading information. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cenobio Sauza.jpg[edit]

Is this free or unfree? A variant of the image appears under the same name on Commons. c:COM:CRTMEX is complex due to various term extensions, so I'm not sure if the image is free in Mexico or not. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the commons image, the person that make the portrait (made in 1906) would have had to been alive past 1953 for the work to be under MX copyright. This is a very unlikely situation (though possible), otherwise it is in the PD. As there's no apparent name attached to the portrait that I can find, so I think the commons version is PD. I would argue that the version above, which is a coloration of that portrait might have some novel aspects and thus would definitely be a copyrighted image; the commons portrait does a sufficiently equivalent job of capturing the image, so this version here is unnecessary as replacable fair use. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
c:COM:CRTMEX also mentions copyright formalities in the early 20th century. We don't have any source for the 1906 date, but the picture shows a person who died in 1909, so it doesn't sound unlikely. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Monticello Wine Label.jpg[edit]

If this indeed is from 1896, as suggested on the image, then it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be tagged free, and moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:WKQX-LP Logo.png[edit]

Is this {{PD-logo}}? If not, it violates WP:NFCC#8 as a former logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The waves at the bottom are just creative enough to put this into question. I'd treat as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


{{PD-logo}}? RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's text only. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My Love on You[edit]

This article contains too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguably one alt cover is normally okay, but I see nothing special about the cover distinctions to require the two alts - it's just a photo of the same singer in different outfits/poses. Keep only the main cover. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ebay express.png[edit]

Probably a PD-textlogo (the modifications to the "x" in "express" probably are insufficiently creative to merit a copyright). If not, violates WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

PD Text in the US most likely, but not necessarily worldwide. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This is PD-textlogo in the US which is also the country of origin. So I say we should transfer this to Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bids for the 2014 Winter Olympics[edit]

This article contains too many non-free logos. The city logos should not be here. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Logos are unnecessary since the main applications have articles that the logo is appropriate on. The two logos from cities that applies but did not get selected as finalists, they are not necessary to understand this article. (however, if one were to create pages about their bids, that would be reasonable targets) --MASEM (t) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Arriva logo.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Arriva. Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Although I get where Stefan's coming from - Arriva have used the logo for each and every division (It'd be nice if it was an individual logo for each division but sadly it's not), It's no different from FirstGroup really. –Davey2010(talk) 13:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The difference between Arriva and First is that First's logo is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} whereas Arriva's logo is not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the blue curl even original enough for copyright? De728631 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely, yes. It is more complex than the second logo on page 1 of this document, which the United States Copyright Office declared was copyrightable. This means that the logo at least is unfree in the United States (the only country which Wikipedia cares about). It may also be unfree in the source country, but I'm not sure what the source country is. Arriva belongs to a German company but exclusively operates outside Germany. The main office is apparently in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Stefan2 you may remember the outcome of the Transdev logo that you also questioned and commented out on every article [12] (keep)... I'm not sure how this is any different...   JaJaWa |talk  03:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Carpenters (Carpenters album).jpg[edit]

Is this copyrightable? If so, then it should be tagged with {{non-free reduce}} and {{subst:orfurrev}}. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Power Girl[edit]

Someone please review this article, Power Girl. I'm wondering if eight non-free images is too much. --evrik (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed yes. Without any critical commentary about the actual non-free images, they fail WP:NFCC so shold be removed and deleted if then orphaned. ww2censor (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
One image for identification of a notable fictional character, even if the image is not discussed, is reasonable (along the lines of cover images and their rationale for inclusion on a notable work), but agreed that other images need critical commentary to be included. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bamse-180 56445a.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure the usage for this picture is more than decorative. File:Bamse_(St._Bernard).jpg is already at Bamse (St. Bernard) (and a much better image of the dog itself) so it's not needed to illustrate the dog. The only illustration done is that the dog was given a bath. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is a work created in Norway, then it is PD due to Norway's PD law and would be okay to include (50 years past creation of non-"works of art", and the dog lived only until 1944) Same would be true of the current image. So these should be PD images and at Commons, and both can be included. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2000 Stanley Cup logo.svg[edit]

This file violates WP:NFCC#9 on File:2000 Stanley Cup Finals logo.png and WP:NFCC#10c on 2000 Stanley Cup Finals. It seems that either the PNG or the SVG should be deleted and that the remaining file only should be used on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The source for the logo is from a site that users recreate logos in SVG format, as opposed to directly from official media (in this case, the NHL). The logo must be replaced with a low-res PNG version, unless an SVG directly from the NHL can be provided. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


This file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page and WP:NFCC#10c on another page. Is the file copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

PD-US but not across the globe. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

T Bank[edit]

Are the logos copyrightable? If so, then one of them should be removed (and a WP:NFCC#9 violation should be fixed). Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Logos can be copyrightable, but it depends on their complexity. Both here are simple enough to be PD-US, but they are not too simple for that across the globe. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Brossard quebec flag.png[edit]

Is this copyrightable? The file currently violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The clover-made-of-b-shapes is just unique enough that I would not be comfortably saying it fails TOO in the US even. Treat as non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:FN-16 MANPADS.jpg[edit]

Moving from {{di-replaceable fair use}} for more input Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a photo from a museum, so means anyone else can visit that museum to take a similar photo and licensing it freely. Even if this museum is a no-photography place (it seems highly doubtful), this is not the only object of its type in the world, and other version still exist that can be taken with a freely-licensed photo. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Zig Zag Revolver (3D Printed).png[edit]

Moveing from {{di-replaceable fair use}} for more input Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an image that can have a free replacement. The revolver itself being a utility object (as opposed to one of design) means its design cannot be copyrights, and the 3D printed version would similarly be the same way. But the photograph can be copyrighted (lighting and composition choices of the photographer) and as that came from a copyrighted website, this version is non-free. Since this appears to be something that can be easily replicated through 3D printing (which is nowadays a publicly accessible means of creation) anyone can take a photo of a 3D creation, and as such, we should be able to expect a free photograph of a uncopyrightable design. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Maat (TV series)[edit]

The infobox contains two non-free files, but only one is needed. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only one or the other should be used: we have no pejorative against foreign language title cards, but generally we only use the most recent title card for a show which appears to be the English -version one. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Qatar TV[edit]

This article contains too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only the current logo should be used (The second one on the current page, with the clean BG.) --MASEM (t) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Walter White2.jpg[edit]

The file itself is fine since it's the top image for Walter White (Breaking Bad), but it's currently used in Bryan Cranston. There's no discussion of the image itself in the Cranston article, so I'm having a hard time understanding how it would pass WP:NFCC#8 there. Plus, even if there were some valid reason, the use would be redundant with the use in the Walter White article and fail WP:NFCC#3b. Mosmof (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As I explained before on the article talk page, Cranston's career drastically soared due to his success on Breaking Bad, and therefore the character responsible for that life change needs to be shown. Naturally, all that is sourced within the article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There exists a free image of Cranston in the Walter White baldcap/outfit (SDCC image IIRC), which is sufficient to show this. The character's image on the notable character page is fine, but not on the BLP page about the actor. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not contradicted my rationale for the image. As for the free image, link please? Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
No, there are significant requirements for NFCC that have to be met, and a non-free image of a character an actor has played on the actor's page is generally not appropriate unless the visual appearance of that character is critical to the reader's understanding of the actor (which rarely is the case). But if you want free images, there's at minimum this one [13] from flickr that is CC-BY, perfect for our use. (more can be found here: [14] ) --MASEM (t) 15:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
And those Comic Con photos are already uploaded to Commons as File:Bryan Cranston (9362418167).jpg and File:Bryan Cranston (9362420359).jpg. Either would work in context. Mosmof (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Walter White is a character that marked a significant turnout for his career, his transformation is subject to many sourced discussions, and it is probably the most significant page in the actor's life, therefore it belongs on the actor's page. As for the images, they depict a Walter White mask that was worn by Cranston as a prank. We need Cranston's actual face as Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that playing Walter was a significant part of Cranston's career. But we don't need an image to make that point. A free image can be used to help emphasize that and as such the SDCC photos are just as good, but a non-free image of Craston as Walter does not fit NFCC requirements, particularly as, while it is clearly a staged event in the SDCC photos, there's very little distinction between Craston-wearing-a-Walter-mask, and Cranston made up as Walter to the causal viewer. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"[T]here's very little distinction between Craston-wearing-a-Walter-mask, and Cranston made up as Walter" is a disturbingly amateur statement. This is an encyclopedia. As for importance of having the image, when multiple sources prove that White is his "lifetime" career defying role, the character looks very different, and there is not a single image of that character in the article - that is not very professional either, is it? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
However, we are an encyclopedia with a goal of providing and promoting free content, and explicitly cannot use non-free images of living persons without very good cause, and in the past, a non-free image of a career-defining role an actor has played on the actor's page is not one of the limited exceptions, unless the visual image of that actor is critical to understanding the success of the actor - basically that the looks of the actor in the role are the subject of critical commentary. This is not the case for Cranston. Also keep in mind, the page about Walter is a click away from Cranston's page. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of critical commentary on that within the sources in the Cranston article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Not on his visual appearance as White, which would be needed to require a non-free image, and particularly when we have free images that are "close enough" for a bio article. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Again, "close enough" for an amateur blog, not for an encyclopedia. You wouldn't put a doodle of the Mona Lisa here, would you? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a free content mission, and in this case, yes the free image is good enough if you really feel the need to illustrate the Walter character on Cranston's page. But no non-free may be used in its place. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Free content, with permission for fair use of non-free images with reduced quality. For all the reasons listed above, this qualifies as well. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If the image can be replaced with a free equivalent (which can include "no image") we are required to take that by the Foundation. We have a clearly equivalent free replacement, so the non-free is not allowed. It's not "pixel perfect" equivalent, but it is academically equivalent and that's the guideline we use. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
But it's clearly not equivalent, and pixels have nothing to do with it. It's a latex mask vs. the actor's actual face, in an article about that actor playing the role with that face. His mask-wearing prank at Comic-Con is not the subject of discussion, his actual portrayal of Walter White is. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Cranston article that supports the use of non-free imagary of the Walter White character; the reader understanding that Cranston played Walter White is not diminished by the lack of an image. Yes, it is an important role, but there is no indiciation of the visual appearance of the role as it specifically pertains to Cranston's biography, it is just a role, so non-free may not be used to represent it. Note we don't do this for other actors as well as a rule, so we're not going to change it here. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nothing, except for everything I stated earlier. Yes, the reader's understanding is diminished by lack of image, because it is a different image, yet very notable. Please refrain from unilateral removals until this discussion runs its course. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. There is nothing in the article that provides contextual significance for the use of that image - that is, there is not a single line of prose that explains the importance of the visual look of Walter White on how it impacted Cranston's career. Playing the character of White certainly had an effect on his career, but we stay that with prose, the reader has no need to see the image of the character to understand that facet. Period. Look at most other actor pages - we do not include non-free images of characters they are most notable for on living actor bio pages because of non-free. On the character page, yes, its completely in line, we want press kit images of characters "in the mood", to speak, but there's zero need for them on bio pages under our free content mission/non-free policy requirements. Further, you have a failure of NFCC#10 here as well. Furthermore, we have a free replacement image in the SDCC mask images, which work for the purposes of WP, so if you really need to have an image of White, you have those free images to use. NFCC is a hard policy, and is strongly enforced like BLP, and in this specific case, there is no question this is a failure of imagery. Do not readd the image. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Drop the WP:STICK. Masem is quite correct here. There is nothing unique about the "real" photos that cannot be served by the free equivalent in the Cranston article, and as his physical appearance as White is not the subject of any discussion in the Cranston article, no image is an acceptable substitute. Almost every actor has their major roles. Almost none of them have photos in that role. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just as an counter example: Robin Williams (while deceased) has only one non-free image, this of him in his Mork-personality circa the 80s, which is arguably one of his critical roles. It is not because this image displays the Mork character, but because the image itself has discussion within the body of the text relating to Williams the actor have two sides to his performance, and how the image was used to respect the actor after his death. That's the type of critical commentary that we would expect to have about a non-free image of a character played by an actor to use that image on the actor's page. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dark night.jpg[edit]

It this copyrightable? Somewhat unusual typography, not sure if that is copyrightable or not. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Note: As there is a different image on Commons under this name, I've requested a rename to File:Dark Night of the Soul.jpg. Please refer to this new name after the renaming. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No, at least within the US it would be too simple to copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Diran Kelekian.jpg[edit]

A different variant of this photograph is on Commons as c:File:Diran Kelekian.jpg under a CC licence, which looks incorrect. That one, in turn, refers to c:File:April24Victims.jpg, where the picture is claimed to be in the public domain. I'm not sure if this is correct, though. Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The base image of the 10 persons appears legitimately in the PD (if you check the file history, you can see a few editors played around with orientation to get a good working image). So all derived images are (presumably) free; there is no need for the non-free version here. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


This page violates WP:NFCC#9. Various non-free files are used in collapsible sections labelled as travelling. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My violation of the fair-use policy was unintentional. In order to rectify the situation, I've reviewed the status of each media file invoked on my user page of the type described with the disposition of each as follows:
@Taxman1913: You can use this tool to determine what is non-free. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I sure wish I had known about that earlier. Thanks. Better late than never. Taxman1913 (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan2: With regard to the Flag of Nassau County, New York, the blazon for this flag was approved and published by the county on 3 January 1899.[15] Obviously, the flag has been in use long enough to be in the public domain. Another editor questioned on the file's page whether the particular rendering that has been uploaded might have some protection. I don't know how this is possible. Once something is in the public domain, doesn't it remain there forever and ever? I find myself among a group of folks who are clearly more knowledgeable about these matters than I am. So, rather than simply changing the status of the file to public domain, I am seeking advice and comments to ensure that we get it right. Taxman1913 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan2: It is apparent that the coutesy I extended to you with a promt, complete and polite response to the issue you raised has not been reciprocated. You simply deleted the image from my user page. I was interested in getting the image properly classified. I don't know what your interests are; this is disappointing. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I must have forgot about this discussion. This page contains two different drawings of the same coat of arms. Per c:COM:COA#Copyright on the representation, the two different drawings are not necessarily subject to the same copyright restrictions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Iichirō Hatoyama[edit]

There is no need for two copies of the same photograph (one cropped, one not cropped). Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; there's no problem using the uncropped version as the infobox image as long as it is captioned with "(center)" or something to be clear whom the person in question is. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Leelah Alcorn.jpg[edit]

non free file - lots of reason to believe there are and will be free files of this person. Please don't comment from your heart, read and comment only in regards to the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria, as is apparently usual in these cases, the file is no longer hosted at its original uploaded location - originally uploaded by User:Sam Walton - - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the type of case that yes, just because they have died, that they lived a very social life and as such there is a good chance that there will be a free image that we can get (particularly as this is still "breaking"). One option would be to approach the family but well after a fair period of mourning, like 3-6 months down the road. So while we cannot create a free image, the likelihood one already exists has yet to be tested. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Reddon666: who was the original uploader, I just reduced it from the original definitely-not-NFCC-compatible resolution. Sam Walton (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well considering that a lot of personal issues are copyrighted at the time they are taken, including the selfie included, I'm not sure if it would be possible to have one released. The family might have some they might be willing to release, but we can't and shouldn't make that assumption. Tutelary (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My search using google engine reveals a lot of pics of her, she had blogs and a strong looking public persona, she was not a private person in any way that I can see, there is a good strong likelihood that there is a free licensed pic of her out there. The fact that a non free picture has been added to the article seems to me is stopping anyone looking for a free one? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completely changed the license behind this image; it is now listed as "a unique historic image". This must subsequently affect, and perhaps even invalidate, the discussion which has taken place here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not a unique image, given that there are plenty of other picture of this person on the Internet. It is far too soon after their death to be using a non-free image when there's a very likely chance that a free image can be obtained, particularly in light that they have become a major figure for a cause. After 6 or so months, if no free image has become available and asking appropriate people (like the family, but not until a reasonable amount of time of mourning has passed) then we might consider a non-free. But not in the short term. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you User:Masem the recent changes to a claim of unique image have actually served to weaken the case for its non free usage on wikipedia - also the additions to the file description by User:Midnightblueowl such as the claim that, She cited the transphobia and discrimination that she faced in life as a key reason behind her decision to commit suicide....and, it was the transphobic harassment that she faced which led to her death has additional issues in regards to wiki policy and guidelines imo - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed those words as a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem Since the family's reaction to the subject's trans nature was a major component of their suicide, it is unlikely that the family would release a photo of the subject as a female. A male photo would be unlikely to gain consensus in the post-manning MOS:IDENTITY world. That raises an interesting point of if there are identity or other "filter" arguments about a photo, does that factor into the "reasonably available" issue. Its seems that it would per the examples in the policy about actors/athletes whose appearance was notable only in a certain time period. However, all of the trans issues aside, NFCC generally has an exception for dead people does it not? Why would that not apply to this person? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We do allow for non-free photos of deceased persons, but here we have a case of a person that seemed (to me) to be very social in the age of social medium, so we shouldn't rush to include a non-free until we've had some reasonable time to check for other sources, particularly for someone who's visual appearance was not a cornerstone of their notability. And yes, I do agree that even if we wait for a respectible amount of time before asking the family they may be hesistent to give us an image of the person as a female as I understand the story. That said, I also know their name is out there as a big awareness drive for transgendered/gender identity, and it would make sense to try to approach those leading those drives to ask if they have images they would be willing to share in a free manner too. The point, basically, is that NFC policy is not set up to say that as soon as any person passes away, a non-free image can be used; instead the circumstances of the person's visibility in the recent past should be considered, and this is a case where we should just wait for the chance for a free image to surface due to the public visibility of the story. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that in this case, "unique historic image" applies. It's the one most often associated with the story of her suicide, so it should be included in the article. That would seem to conform to her wishes for her death to make a difference. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly in a few months, if no free image has emerged, this would be fine as a historic image, but what we have to be careful of is this immediately "giving up", claiming there cannot be a free image of the person now they have died. We should try to see if we can get one before falling back on using the non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
let's be clear here - historic - there is nothing historic about this picture, the event has only just happened, also, does wikipedia conform to anyones wishes for their death to make a difference, no , at least not within its policies and guidelines it doesn't Govindaharihari (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but it goes toward "would Leelah have wanted this picture to be used in the article". I think the answer is "yes", and we should therefore use this picture. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
What part of wikipedia's non free guidelines WP:NONFREE does the subjects assumed position come into play? "would Leelah have wanted this picture to be used in the article" - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"let's be clear here - historic - there is nothing historic about this picture, the event has only just happened"; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most historians understand as "History". History encompasses the past, whether that be the distant past or the very recent past. Like it or not, Leelah Alcorn's death has entered history. Her death is a historic event, as is the international reaction which followed it. Insisting that this is a recent event and that is is therefore not history is simply not a convincing argument that can be used in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's break this down. WP:NFCCP says:

  1. No free equivalent -- Nobody's come forward to say that there's an equivalent free-licensed version, and we clearly can't get a new one.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities -- replacing the original market role isn't an issue
  3. Minimal usage -- low-res, and picture is only being used in the one article
  4. Previous publication -- Clearly met.
  5. Content -- meets standards
  6. Media-specific policy -- seems to meet them
  7. One-article minimum -- met
  8. Contextual significance -- leaving it out would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic
  9. Restrictions on location -- only used in articlespace
  10. Image description page -- properly indicates source and use

So, don't see any problems here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • While the rest are true, this is a unique case where NFCC#1 does not yet apply 100%, in the same manner that BLP still applies to the recently deceased. There is a good chance that there can be a free image that we can obtain from the family or friends, but it is completely inappropriate for us to ask for that during this time of mourning. In a few months, if that is asked and they aren't willing to license one as free, then yes, the image is fine, but we have to give some time for that to prove out. We're trying to encourage free image use, and this is a case that a bit more work is needed to prove out no free image does exist due to the nature of this person's life (involving modern social media) and attention post-death they got. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Masem, my take on that is that because of her family situation, the odds of getting a freely licensed picture of Leelah is vanishingly small. A freely licensed picture of Josh would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The aspect that makes this picture very relevant is the fact that they are in a dress, expressing their feminine side, and knowing the family did not support that. That's great and all, but from the article's current perspective, there is nothing yet that says we need to see that image for identification over the possible likelihood of a free one that the family might be able to provide; we arguably do not need to see someone in a dress to source the fact they considered themselves transgendered when text sources do the same. But that said, I also know this image has been a rallying cry on twitter about promoting tg and the issues of harassment and concerns of suicide, making the image itself critically notable, but that is not (as best as I can tell) discussed in the article to any degree. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I concur with SarekOfVulcan's analysis of the situation here, and express my support for their arguments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • - Sarek - you forgot to mention the part that says, There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. and you also forgot to mention that the default position and desired position on wikipedia is free - User :SarekOfVulcan your position is that as you have no free picture then you can use a non free one, that is not the wikipedia policy position - this is the default - - not, ow, I want a photo in my story and so I will use any I find - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whilst I'm no expert on the many nuances of free versus fair-use, I have to say that I find the comment "lots of reason to believe there are and will be free files of this person" to be rather bizarre. Leelah is now deceased, so there will be no new photographs of her, and what are these "lots of reasons to believe" that people will release free pictures of her? I find that to be very much a WP:CRYSTAL-style statement, not to mention one that doesn't make sense. I do tend to agree with Masem's comments here; it seems unlikely that we will have a free image of Leelah displayed in her preferred gender released by her family, as they didn't support that she wanted to live as a woman. I also agree that we don't necessarily need her to be wearing a dress; any picture where she is obviously presenting herself as female would do. I personally view this to be a situation where we can't win; including a picture of her as a man will draw a lot of (mostly valid) comment from transgender supporters (of which I am one); a picture of her as a woman will keep drawing the trolls that keep trying to change her gender back to male and her name back to the birth name, and no picture at all is going to draw both sides to criticize or try and add pictures in themselves, most of which would, of course, not meet the copyright rules. And if her family were to release a free picture of her as a male... that would create an enormous mess. I simply can't see them doing that; it makes them a major target for harassment (even more so than they currently are). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TV Land[edit]

This article contains too many non-free logos, but some of the logos which are claimed to be non-free seem to be free. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that all but the one with the Santa hat are PD-US. The santa hat one is non-free, and not required. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Katara (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

This article fails WP:NFCC#3a as there are too many pictures of the character. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only the infobox one is necessary (in addition demonstrating her waterbending powers). --MASEM (t) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Scouting in New York[edit]

The non-free logos violate WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, all the logos of the separate scouting divisions are not required. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, just like the disagreement we had in Scouting in California ... and ALL THE OTHER state articles we've had this disagreement about. --evrik (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And in those cases the images were removed. If the individual division was notable for its own article, we'd allow its logo/badge to be used there, but this fails just like those others. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
"We'd allow"? I forgot that you and Stefan are the tag team of deletionists. No, the California case was resolved by breaking apart the California into many smaller parts, which then upset Stefan who claimed that the smaller articles were not notable. No real consensus was made on the state articles. --evrik (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
NFC is a strict policy, treated as highly as COPYVIO and BLP. Our goal is to minimize non-free works that are not contextually significant to the works at hand; non-notable charters of scouting groups do not need imagery to understand the encyclopedic details of the group. This is long-standing practice for articles of this sort. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is not a list, so the images are appropriate. Each council is its own entity. The images are contextual. Inclusion of the images is a long standing practice. --evrik (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, this is a list - not necessary a "list article" but it is just listing out non-notable entities, and per WP:NFLISTS they are inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope, not a list. You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. So, in effect - the rest of your argument is moot. --evrik (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Per WP:NFLISTS: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic,..." which is what this article is. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Even if you were right and the article was a list, the images are used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic, so again, your point is moot. --evrik (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • No, there is no discussion of the images of the badges, and as such they are present as decorative images. They are nice to see, but are not required at all for a reader to understand the separate charters of the scouts, in particular as there is no sourced discussion about the badges. This is use explicitly disallowed by NFCC#8 and the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • And keep in mind, NFLISTS applies to "...articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic", not to simply list articles. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Images removed, will start on deletion. --  Gadget850 talk 10:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. I'm about ready to just kill every image on Wikipedia and be done with it. --  Gadget850 talk 11:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • At least one perfectly legitimate images such as the map showing the Girl Scout councils in New York was removed; the map is certainly legit for Wikipedia since I created it for Wikipedia and set the right permission for its use and I feel it contributes significantly to the article (at least when it large enough to read and not in an infobox). The code for the page was also broken (both now fixed). However for my two cents we have three issues (1) does a given image contribute significantly to the content of the article, (2) is it legal to use it for this purpose, and (3) is it appropriately displayed (good size, sufficient auxiliary information tying it to the article, for instance maps shouldn't be in infoboxes and I feel there seems to have been an overuse of infoboxes in this article and I don't think beside the question of legality whether some of the pictures were contributing enough). However deeper discussions of 1 and 3 belong elsewhere (such as the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting). --Erp (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This conversation was not done and should not have been prematurely closed. --evrik (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a clear violation of NFLISTS/NFCC8 and as such the discussion was closed correctly. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Only clear to the deletionists that haunt this page. I think that Gadget850 acted too soon and that this discussion should have taken longer than three days. These images aren't adornment, they are the logos of each of the non-profits. --evrik (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Resistance is futile. You will be deleted. I stopped uploading images to Wikipedia on March 22, 2013 (21 months ago) (2013-03-22) and it is just so refreshing to let go. --  Gadget850 talk 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

YTV (TV channel)[edit]

This article contains unreasonably many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the old logos are all non-free (no chance of PD-US) and not discussed, and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Olive Edis[edit]

It says that "She served as a war artist in World War I." Therefore, there should be plently of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} pictures by her. The article seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That there were pictures of her aboard is possible but not reasonable to assume. It's fair to have a non-free for now, but editors should be encouraged to try to see if a free photo does happen to exist. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that I am talking about pictures by her, not pictures of her. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Afghanistan[edit]

The three non-free pictures violate WP:NFG and two of them also violate WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and particularly as the list already has free placeholders for those that lack images. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Punjabi-language newspapers[edit]

A page like this should not contain non-free newspapers but should instead refer to articles about the newspapers where such images can be found. Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, though the lead image is reasonable. If the editors want images to break up the lists, the titles of these papers (alone) would be reasonable free (at minimum PD-US due to being just text logos) replacement images. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Anime Network logo.png[edit]

{{PD-logo}}? If not, fails WP:NFCC#8 as a former logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PD in the US for certain. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Palm, Inc.[edit]

This page contains too many non-free logos. Some of them might not be copyrightable. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

File:HP Palm.svg is on Commons as Commons:File:HP Palm Logo.svg. File:Palm logo 2003.svg and File:Palm Roundel 05.svg probably pass TOO due to reflection / gradient. File:HP Gram Logo.png looks like being below TOO. File:Palm logo 2003.svg and File:Palm Roundel 05.svg should be removed from the article for violating WP:NFCC#8. They are used for identification of the company for which NFC is normally only accepted at the top the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The God Delusion[edit]

On the article about the Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, the table of contents of the book was added. Afterwards, the question of the copyright issue was raised on the page of discussion. Could you help us to know if there is really an issue here? Latheae smitherii (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

While a list of chapters is just a list, and thus probably not eligible for copyright, inclusion of subtopics within chapters might rise to the level of creative action. That was my concern. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree that the level of subchapters starts getting iffy. Major chapter titles would be okay; however, a question to ask is if the TOC is really necessary - for most books, the ISBN links (to a number of bibliography sources) will provide this), so unless it is discussed, it would be better to leave out. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The question was about the potential copyright issue. As cited in the above-mentioned talk page, the table of content is freely available on-line through various websites (see the editor, Google books and this link). Do you think that the publication of this list violates some law? Latheae smitherii (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
Maybe, maybe not - just because another site has the list doesn't mean its legal. We play a tighter game in terms of copyright, and would avoid anything that's not clearly within fair use, and this might be such a case when you get past the major chapter titles. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:JLo - Booty.png[edit]

Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The use of a second non-free cover artwork in Booty (song) does not add any value to the article, does not serve the reader in any significant way, and is completely unnecessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have the principle right, but this image appears to be the sleeve of the main release, whereas the other one in the article relates to a remix. It's probably the remix sleeve that should be nominated for deletion. Formerip (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally, I would agree, but the song "Booty" is most notable for its music video, which is for the remix version with Iggy Azalea. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which version is more popular - the cover art for a song that gets by on NFCI#1 for identification is the first release, and not based on popularity. The remix cover is definitely unnecessary here. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If we're talking release, this cover hasn't even seen "release" aside from Lopez posting it on social media (as far as I know, it has not been attached to any retail release of the song). The remix cover is actually present on iTunes. So that fulfills the use rationale of "identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art". –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is the case that the original song was never released as a single and the remix was, then yes, the remix cover should be used instead since that's how the single was promoted, and I can't easily find the original song as a single anywhere. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(←) Pinging Tomica, Status, and MaranoFan for comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A very reliable source, Rap-Up, has acknowledged the former as the official single cover It surel was released [16]. MaRAno FAN 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not the point. The cover was posted on social media, but it does not appear to be attached to a single release, which contradicts the use rationale. Is there a CD or digital single that uses this artwork? –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Carol Peletier[edit]

This page contains unreasonably many non-free pictures, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to being excess plot coverges, only two non-frees are appropriate: the infobox pic and the comic picture. The other nonfree screencaps are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2:,@Masem: I didn't see this when I posted this below, but since my post is also related to an image used on Carol Peletier I thought I'd link it here too for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:'Stormtroops Advancing Under Gas', etching and aquatint by Otto Dix, 1924.jpg[edit]

This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Additionally, it violates WP:NFCC#10c on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a problem - as mandated by NFCC#9, the image is used only in article namespace [17]. NFCC#9 anyway does not talk about files but about their locations, if you think a file's location is wrong just correct it, don't mess up with files. kashmiri TALK 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Its the issue with the image automatically appearing in the "SVG Version Available" template on the jpg page. We should not have both images, and lacking any official source of the location of the SVG original we should default to the jpg version. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So, why not to discuss this at the template page instead of tagging countless image files individually across the Wikipedia? Or, edit the template? It would be much quicker and spare countless hours of work combined, by those who will later have to remove the tags. kashmiri TALK 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


This violates WP:NFCC#9, but is probably below the threshold of originality. Opinions? Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tighter crop to remove the shadows of book spine and corners (or a better source image like [18]) would be better, the base text is definitely below TOO. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:City of westminster logo.svg[edit]

This file violates WP:NFCC#9, and I can't figure out how to remove the image from the violating page. Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is being called into the infobox template on that user's page via the {{Infobox London Borough}}, which I think is a no-no - templates should not instantiate non-free images themselves - allot space for their inclusion on a specific page, yes, but not automatically provide them. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Council of the European Union.svg[edit]

This file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Logo only used in article namespace, in the infobox, as required by NFCC#9. If you don't like that it is used in two articles, then I am sorry that two distint bodies (Council of the European Union and European Council) use the same logotype. kashmiri TALK 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the use of the image in the .png version's file page from the "SVG Version available" template, which is causing the problem. We either should have the SVG or the PNG, and given that the SVG was user created and a non-free, that version should be deleted in favor of the low-res PNG. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So, why not to discuss this at the template page instead of tagging countless image files individually across the Wikipedia? Or, edit the template? It would be much quicker and spare countless hours of work combined, by those who will later have to remove the tags. kashmiri TALK 17:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Lutz Bachmann posing as Hitler.jpg[edit]

(formerly File:German neo-Nazi Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler.jpeg}

This image is used in two article. Is either use appropriate and adherent to the rules? George Ho (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, because it has separate rationales for each article, and because it is relevant and subject of commentary in both articles (in the biographical article and in the article on the organization he founded and led until he resigned as a consequence of the discussed photograph surfacing). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the uploader, so I'm waiting for another person's analysis, please. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the policy on non-free content before starting such discussions? There is no prohibition against using a photograph in two relevant articles with appropriate rationales. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's not fight each other, okay? The "contextual significance" is the matter here. Also, the person is living, so we should be cautious because of WP:NFCC's "no free equivalence" criterion and WP:NFC's discouraging non-free images of living people. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This particular image has made the front pages in newspapers the world over and led to his resignation from the group. There is no free equivalent, this is a unique historic photograph. This person is also only known for starting and leading this particular group, the significance of the photograph for him and his political group is enormous. See Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Even so, there is a difference between news and encyclopedia per WP:NOT. I'm not nominating for deletion. Please have some patience. Just wait for a third party to settle this. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In line with WP:GF I'd say that it's safe to assume that George Ho, with his extensive edit history, has at least some knowledge of WP:NFC. Therefore the remark "Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the policy on non-free content" is uncalled for and unnecessarily rude. -- (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This definitely needs some additional input. In my opinion using it as the only image of Bachmann in the Lutz Bachmann article is of poor taste. The article already mentions - twice - that he dressed as Adolf Hitler, I don't see how adding an image will increase the reader's understanding of the related material. It's disproportionate and goes against WP:NPOV. -- (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Supplement to my previous comment above. The reason the photo sparked outrage is because it is considered to be offensive/vulgar/distasteful. In my opinion the textual description is sufficient, because omission of the image does not cause the article to be less informative. Therefore, per WP:MoS/Images#Offensive images and WP:GFFENSE), I believe the image should be removed from the Lutz Bachmann article. -- (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think that applies here. For better or worse, that image is what the article subject is best known for, particularly outside Germany. It's natural for people to want to look at the image to judge what they think of it. For that purpose, text is not a full substitute.
There could be an argument for removing it as a general BLP consideration. Having resigned, perhaps Bachmann is entitled to enough respect for his privacy that we don't use the image (particularly since there are no others in the article). I'm not sure whether I would actually support that or not, but I think arguing that the image is trivial and/or uninformative is a non-starter. Formerip (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
From an NFCR POV, the image is not needed on the organization page - the controversy was with the person, not the organization, so unneeded there. From an NFC POV the image is unnecessary. He is a living person so a free image can be taken, and we don't need a photo to show him dressed as Hitler, to understand that a photo of him dressed as Hitler lead to a controversy around his position. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The person and his political organization are primarily known (especially internationally) for this particular unique historic photograph. No other photograph can replace it. We are talking about the front pages of just about every major German language newspaper and just about all significant coverage in international media relating to the person and to the organization. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's doubtful to claim it is an "historic" photo. Further, a replacement for non-free does not have to be another image - saying this pose had a photo of himself looking like Hitler is sufficiently equal. The existance (or more specifically the public availability) of that image is critical, yes, but not the image itself. And while the person is/was the head of that organization, it is improper to tie the controversy of one person to the organization. It likely needs to be mentioned, but even if this photo was used on the person's page, it should absolutely be not used on the organization's page. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I find your claim that the person (and his organization) is (are) "primarily known" for the photograph dubious. The photo was in the media because the person in the photo and his organization had already become well-known internationally as a result of their public demonstrations (marches). He's primarily known for being the (now former) de facto leader of PEGIDA, not because of the photograph. As the organizer and regular speaker of PEGIDA. Also, in my opinion, in a historical perspective, adding the image in addition to the textual description is giving too much emphasis on - overvaluing - a recent event. -- (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Critical" or "historic" is too high a bar here. For our purposes, the photo should be excluded only if it contains little or no information that can't be captured by the text. But it's an image that's highly important to the article, because it is what the subject is best known for. Whether or not it counts as offensive, whether it was meant as a tribute to Hitler or a bad-taste joke and so on and so forth are all things that it is reasonable for a non-prurient reader to want to know. To provide that information, nothing else beats having the actual photo in the article. Formerip (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"A headshot of Bachmann with a fake Hilter moustache and hair combed like Hitler". There, that's a free text replacement. (And as a living person, a free image of Bachmann is possible). It is not the visual merits (or lack thereof here) that is important or the subject of discussion, simply that there's a visual record of this guy looking like Hitler, which created controversy leading to him stepping down. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
To add "nothing else beats having the actual photo in the article" is not the mindset a free content encyclopedia can work with, keeping in mind we are a tertiary source and that we know other sources will readily have that photo to be seen. It is not critical to have that photo to understand that a publication of that photo would cause a stir. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Masem, policy does not require the image to be "critical", just more than trivially useful, which it unarguably is, having been at the centre of a significant social/media/socialmedia event, which readers are entitled to be interested in. To demand a higher standard than policy requires is to offend against NOTCENSORED. It can't be properly replaced by text any more than any image on WP. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#8 requires that the addition of the image significant helps the reader's understanding of the topic (which it arguably does here), and its omission significantly harms the reader's understanding of the topic; this latter test is where it fails, as we can say "a published photo of Bachmann looking like Hitler led to a controversy"; the image of the photo is not needed to understand that at all. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That text isn't sufficient to capture it. For a start, it didn't simply lead to a controversy, it also lead to an enormous increase in Bachmann's public profile and to his resignation. Was that a predictable outcome or an overreaction? How will it seem from the perspective of 10 years' time? How much of the acres of commentary about the image appears fair when you consider what the image actually looked like? Does Bachmann's explanation of the circumstances of the photo make sense? These are all perfectly legitimate questions for someone to expect Wikipedia to provide help with, and removing the image would significantly impede the reader in that respect. If the whole episode were tangential to the article, then you might have a point, but it isn't. At the same time, not that policy requires one, but there is no appreciable upside to removing the image. Formerip (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The upside is that we maintain the free content mission that we are tasked with doing by the Foundation, minimizing the use of non-free where it is not needed. All the factors you explain about future understanding do not require seeing the photo, only being aware of the existence of the photo, adding the fact that at the time this person was a leader of a neo-nazi anti-Islamic group. It doesn't take much to connect the dots to understand that just the mere public existence of that photo is going to set up a chain of politically-charged events; seeing the photo is not required. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Masem, please pause and allow this to sink in: "require" is not the correct standard. It's over-zealous. The photo is not required in order to make understanding of the topic possible, but its presence in the article would substantially help many readers. That's all that policy demands. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#8 is pretty clear on requiring understanding. It's a two-pronged test for this reason. Give me any non-free image that is even slightly related to a given topic, and I can absolutely show the image improving understanding, but its the second part of NFCC#8, omission harming understanding, that will nearly always fail for images like this. And it's not just policies, you have the Foundation's resolution that specifically says that non-free images of living persons are nearly always inappropriate for a free content work. Remember, we aren't the last resource on the Internet - we're a tertiary source, so if someone really needs to see this picture, the numerous sources we have will help document that. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it important what he looked like; a shaved mustache is a lot different then a Nazi uniform, which shows more camp and less commitment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg[edit]

File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This discussion was first listed here, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 January 10#File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg. That was not the right place. If you look at File talk:Elsinore Theatre.jpg you'll see that this image was uploaded as {{NoRightsReserved}} by a new user not familiar with wikipedia. They contacted the image owner and got permission, just not in the correct manner. I have reached out to the theater, and copied OTRS to try and resolve what the original intent was of the image's donor. The image is currently in use and is of a better quality than the free images currently available. This just needs some time to resolve. --evrik (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As this file is unfree, it can't be on Wikipedia as it violates WP:NFCC#1. However, the file has already been tagged with {{subst:rfu}}, so the section on this page is unnecessary. It used to be marked as a free image, but a user decided to change the copyright tag to an unfree one and close the PUF section, thereby presumably speeding up the deletion process. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ummm no, you listed the file for deletion stating that the permission wasn't good enough. So, I changed it. However, a permission was clearly given, but it's unclear that the original uploader knew what they were doing or that they filed the permission with OTRS. So, we can change the permission back to the original permission and go back and argue it on the other page. Also you're now driving an edit war. Why not give this time to work itself out ... oh, probably because working things out and being patient is HARD, so hard. So instead of trying to hurry a decision and driving an edit war ... just leave it be for a few days. --evrik (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

San Diego Flash[edit]

This article contains too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, particularly with how minor the changes the logo have been, do not need the historical logos at all. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:The Walking Dead, The Grove still.jpg[edit]

This WP:NFCC#4 file has permission to be used on The Grove (The Walking Dead) per WP:NFCC#7. It is, however, also being used on the pages Carol Peletier and Lizzie and Mika Samuels. WP:NFCCE states that "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." so I am assuming it is OK, at least for the time being, to remove the file from the article's that it does not have explicit permission to be used, until said permission have been provided per WP:NFCC#10. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine for the episode page (give or take but it's far less an issue), and not for the character pages. While that episode was defining moments for both characters, we don't need to see the image to understand that factor. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Masem. I'm asuming that means it's OK to remove the image in question from the other pages, right? Which reason do you think I should give? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#10c failure to start (there's no rational given for the character pages), but also that in general would fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. I have removed the image from the two character pages and left a note on each page's talk page linking to this discussion. Hopefully, that will answer any questions other editors may have. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:RKHS shield.png[edit]

This file violates WP:NFCC#9 as disambiguation pages are not articles according to the wording in WP:NFCC#9. However, I'm not sure if the article really is supposed to be a disambiguation page, so I'm not sure how to best solve this violation. Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Assume best case, and this file still would need to be deleted. It's copyrighted material, doesn't substantially increase anyone's understanding about the high school in question, and no reasonable person would argue that the identification argument would apply to an obscure coat-of-arms for a high school.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also note that the file is used on three pages, but it only has a fair use rationale for the disambiguation page where it isn't permitted in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think someone made the page on the middle school to distinguish it from the main school and then created this mess of pages and image. Logo is only valid on the higher school page, and the middle school page should be moved back into that. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Medal Display/ZAR/doc[edit]

This page violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Grey's Anatomy Season One DVD Cover (cropped).jpg[edit]

This page violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Baby I.ogg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Frivolous use with no indication of why this sample is important to a reader's understanding of the song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The rationale could be better to explain why it is needed but this is a fixable thing - the article does discuss the musical style of the song so a song clip can be seen as a reasonably use here. Also, this should be discussed at FFD since deletion is the only option if this is not kept. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - What is the problem? What is the difference? There is sufficient info on the song's composition to support a sample. You need to see files for some Good articles. You may refer File:Rihanna and Jay-Z - Umbrella.ogg or File:Katy Perry - Birthday.ogg. This is a perfectly good file. MaRAno FAN 09:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Also File:CarolPeletier.jpg, File:360px-AbeS5BPortrait.png and File:360px-EugeneS5BPortrait.png

Are these files acceptable per WP:NFCC#4? They are all taken from "The Walking Dead Wiki" which describes itself as "a collaborative website for the continuing story of the survival horror, The Walking Dead, that anyone can edit." They were all uploaded to the above website, but none of their respective source pages contain any licensing information that I could find. I'm not sure that just because these images were uploaded to "The Walking Dead Wiki" they are covered under the "The Walking Dead Wiki's" CC-BY-SA license since the site's licensing page says "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file. If you are uploading files to Wikia, you should cite the source of the file, attribute the authors, and note any copyright information, where applicable. Individual communities may elaborate upon and refine requirements for file uploads." It seems to me that there's no way to verify the copyright information for the files from their source pages. Isn't such verification needed for NFFC#4? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that they are crops of screenshots from the show - while the wikia is not the "owner" of the copyright, it is clear what the true source is. The rationale should be improved to show that these come from the AMC show, but they are not otherwise "wrong" to require any removal or the like. They are properly marked non-free, and do no seem to try to use the CC-BY license. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Masem. No problems then. How should the rationales be improved? Just change the "Author or copyright owner" for each file to AMC? FWIW, I did a google image search and it looks like all of the above files, except for "", are originally from this AMC blog page. Does that matter in any way? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, to be clear , the episode the screen shot is taken from should be ID'd, and the copyright should be to the show's production/distrubtion channel (this being AMC Studios). The link to the wikia of the original source is fine, but the addition of the episode would allow anyone else to verify the raw source of the image. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I kind of understand, but are "File:360px-CarlS5BPortrait.png", "File:360px-AbeS5BPortrait.png and "File:360px-EugeneS5BPortrait.png" screenshots for sure? The AMC blog page says they are "character portraits" with credit given as "Photo by Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC". My guess is that someone just copied them from the AMC page and just pasted them into the "The Walking Dead Wiki". - Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
They would still be fine if they are charater portraits from AMC, but then in such cases it would be better to use the link to the more official source for that. --MASEM (t) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks Masem. Just a few more questions.

  1. Can anyone fix the rationale or does it have to be done by the uploader?
  2. Is it OK to link to the AMC slide show page for those character portraits or does each file have to be linked to an individual page?
  3. Should the "Author or copyright owner" be listed as "Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC"?
  4. Should the "Description" for each file be changed?
  5. What should be given as "Date"?
  6. Is it OK to use these NFCC files if other NFCC files are being used in the same article per Wp:NFCC#3a? NFCC files for the comic book character are being used in Carl Grimes, Eugene Porter and Abraham Ford.

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can fix the rationale in good faith (as this would be). Links to AMC are good, the copyright change would be good, you could update the description to mention what the image is (the character portrait from the show's official site), date would be the best guess of when it was taken, but if you can't nail down, I would put a best guess as to the earliest year the photo could have been made. The last part there is no simple answer, but it is generally fair in this situation (a character common to comic (original work) and series) that if the comic image is the lead/infobox image, the show photo is fair to include if there is critical discussion of the character/actor in that role for the series. But note this is very subjective and could be reviewed later. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help and suggestions Masem. Face-smile.svg - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jetboil burner bottom.JPG[edit]

File:Jetboil burner bottom.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
Also nominating File:Jetboil-Joule.jpg, File:Jetboil helios.jpg and File:Fluxring.jpg for the exact same reason.
  • All of these are images are owned by the camping retailer as shown in each description. Unknown author.

Fails WP:NFCCP#1: Products are not limited or historical, or no longer manufactured. Any owner of these products can take the same images. Fails WP:NFCCP#6 & 8: Images of lots of products are not needed to describe the company Jetboil. Article contains excessive images, and advert-like material. So delete per WP:FUC. Otterathome (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Image owned by the manufacturer as shown in description. Unknown author. Fails WP:NFCCP#1: Products are not limited or historical, or no longer manufactured. Any owner of these products can take the same images. Article contains excessive images, and advert-like material. So delete per WP:FUC.--Otterathome (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Otterathome (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)