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 instead. Nominations involving exactly one file where the desired outcome is deletion will be summarily closed and moved.

How to nominate[edit]

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

  • For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO.
  • Before nominating a file, please first make sure that you are in the right place. If your nomination concerns exactly one file and your desired outcome is deletion, please use WP:FFD instead.
  • 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



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)

Raanjhanaa (soundtrack)[edit]

deleted via Ffd. --Peripitus (Talk) 08:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This page 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)

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

Bad Reputation (Joan Jett song)[edit]

image orphaned and deleted. --Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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)

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]

Two are fine per Masem. No action required. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This article seems to contain too many 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)

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

File: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)


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".[3] 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]

there is a more recent version (first edition), which is more than just shapes. This the original question does not apply. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:Florence Green.jpg[edit]

Looks like this can be closed now. File is removed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This file is 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)

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


No longer on multiple pages, no more action needed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this copyrightable? 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)

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

File: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)
  • Unless someone has an argument for keeping this image that doesn't involve unkindness, I (or, presumably, some other administrator) will close it as delete. An icon for a DLL is not a "logo" in the same sense that, say, the Microsoft logo is a part of its corporate branding. There needs to be an argument for how use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8. --B (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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: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 [4], [5]. 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)

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)

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 ([6]) (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)


Issue has been resolved, non-free files removed from page. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#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)

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

File: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)

A widely used exemption to WP:NFC#UULP is when it is essentially impossible to snap a photograph. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_20#File:BostonSuspect2.jpg. (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Mokhtar Belmokhtar.png[edit]

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

A widely used exemption to WP:NFC#UULP is when it is essentially impossible to snap a photograph. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_20#File:BostonSuspect2.jpg. (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (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: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 [7]. 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)


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 [8] (keep)... I'm not sure how this is any different...   JaJaWa |talk  03:29, 21 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)
Having followed the SVG's source (both as it is today and two days after the given accessdate), I only see a GIF. As for the NFCC-9 infraction, I think it was envisaged that the SVG would replace the PNG, not co-exist with it. Perhaps @User:Trlkly can shed some light on the subject? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the SVG replaces the GIF, and I could have sworn I edited the original page. There is no rule saying we have to get the SVG from an official source, and most of the SVGs we have aren't from official sources. We decided a long time ago to convert rasters to SVG if possible, as long as they maintain the quality of the original, are not unnecessarily detailed, and are rendered at a low resolution. We are not supposed to use autotrace on logos because it can reduce the quality, but I used no tracing (automated or otherwise) in the making of this SVG.
I found an official version of different year (2001) already on wiki and used that to create 2000 and 2002 (by moving the pre-existing numbers), as per the tag that asked for an SVG replacement. Both the SVG I used and the raster should be referenced on the page, as I would have copied the source from the 2001 upload along with that of the GIF used for reference (on exactly where to place the altered graphic). I've been doing this sort of WikiGnome work for years, and I must have just forgotten to mark the GIF for deletion this time. I'm surprised it wasn't automatically flagged since the GIF was unused.
Also, please do not rely on the automated notification system to get my attention. I respond best to requests on my talk page, which always send me an email. This allows me in on all fair use deletion requests, since you are supposed to contact the uploader (and Twinkle does it automatically.) As busy as I've been with my grandpa's funeral, I might not have gotten on WP for a while. — trlkly 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The rule may not be formalized, but in past discussions and considering non-free if we have no assurance that the SVG originated directly from the ownership of the entity it represents, it's a huge copyright problem as you have both the copyright of the original logo and the copyright of the SVG (which may or may not be a true copyright but the case law is not clear on this). To avoid that, we do not allow non-free SVGs unless we can verify that it (the actual vector work) are the original work of the entity that holds their copyright. If this can't be verified, the SVG must be deleted and replaced with a low-resolution PNG or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


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 [9] from flickr that is CC-BY, perfect for our use. (more can be found here: [10] ) --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.[11] 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)
@Stefan2: Thank you for the clarification. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 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)

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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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 [14]) 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)
  • @Stefan2 and Masem: This image is very similar to File:European Commission Logo.gif, which we are claiming is PD-ineligible. Do you have an opinion? My initial inclination is that Commons is wrong and File:European Commission Logo.gif should be deleted from there and (possibly) moved to here under a claim of fair use if appropriate. I have nominated a related logo File:Europarl logo.svg for deletion at Commons, which seems to clearly pass the threshold of originality with flying colors. --B (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that logo is in the PD. It would fail the test in something like the UK where "sweat of the brow" is used as the test. It probably should not be hosted at commons, by my understanding. Note the details on the commons page about the restrictions of usage of File:Flag of Europe.svg (which I will assume has been vetted in detail at commons due to its high usage), and this is more complicated than this. It might be a question to pose to Commons. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: So far, the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europarl logo.svg seems to be more of an exercise in WP:ILIKEIT than a serious discussion of its copyright status. The one thing I would point out, though, is that File:Council of the European Union.svg and File:European Commission Logo.gif are more geometric in their design, whereas File:Europarl logo.svg has rigid edges on its lines and curves that are artistic, not simply mathematical. So I wouldn't yell+scream too loudly if the answer was that File:Europarl logo.svg is copyrighted but File:Council of the European Union.svg and File:European Commission Logo.gif are PD-ineligible. My opinion, though, is that all three should be treated as copyrighted (I'm just less certain of the latter two.) --B (talk) 20:55, 8 April 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: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)

Cruel Summer (song)[edit]

This article contains unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We would normally not use coverart for the other covers. However, I could argue that one cover from the original Ace of Base cover would be okay given the popularity/notability of that cover alone. But not all three, and none of the additional coverarts are needed/appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Destiny Evans[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: only one picture is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, don't see a need for the character as a child. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Helen Desha Beamer.jpg[edit]

This image fails NFC as replaceable. The image itself may even be prior to 1924 as the subject was 42 years of age at that date and this could well be the subject in the Edwardian period of about 1912 at the age of 30. At any rate, images of the subject in the public domain exist and would be just as encyclopedic in value.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We would need to have the existing PD images identified to be able to call this replaceable - Keep in mind that pictures published before 1923 could be copyrighted if the author was known in some cases. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
We actually have not had that requirement before but simply point out that such free images are available. Cool lets just keep this. I call this passing the mustard. I will refer back to this discussion if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The point is that in this case, since we know a new free image cannot be made today, then to say it is freely replaceable, a free replacement must be clearly identified or a situation where a free image is surely to exist (which is not a certainty in this case). If there are free images that you are aware of, just provide the link to them and this fails NFCC#1 with no question. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
And to clarify, I went to do a google search on this person, but there was no immediately clear obvious free images. That's why we need a link to one to affirm it is available. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You are making very little sense at this point based on past reviews and discussion here. I already did a Google search and there are indeed many images of the subject that are indeed in the public domain because of age. They do not need to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons to know they are available to upload. I will not link anything to prove this is fails NFC. I will leave it, as I am leaving the other images that have been placed into the public domain that I am aware were not actually published until 1995 and also have the possibility of copyright from the photographer. Having the image benefits Wikipedia and those searching for the person and subject even if the fair use fails our own policies. Legally it is not endangering the foundation or the uploaders as far as I can see and I am willing to just let it go and agree with you based simply on that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For public domain, we need proof that the image - even if it was clearly taken before 1923 in the US - was published before 1923, to mark it PD. It is completely possible that if an image was created before 1923 and published in 1978-2002 would be in copyright until 2047 at worst. If any of those images via google search are shown postiviely to have been published before 1923 in the US, then yes, we have a free image and that should be used to replace the others. If we cannot safely proof their pre-1923 publication or another condition that would make them PD, then we have to assume they are not free, meaning that the above image is fine as it since there is no clear/possible free replacement for it. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes...said as much, but my point is...this isn't commons. We are only concerned with the fact that there are public domain images available or not and you are asking for a demonstration. I'm saying...that's OK. I'm happy to leave it as it is and not prove the public domain status if that is all it takes to keep it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"[S]ince we know a new free image cannot be made today" No, we don't know that. We know neither of us are going to attempt to do it, not that it isn't possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
My Google search for images of this subject labeled for reuse shows two images right off the bat, but hey...I don't think that demonstrates anything but a Google search.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The first four images on a google image search for me, excluding the Wikipedia hit, have no publication history. We cannot assume these were published before 1923 simply due to what her lifespan was and her apparent age in the photo. We're not commons, but we also work on the principle of assuming the worst - that files are non-free unless proven otherwise. And when I speak of "a free image cannot be made today", I mean no one can go photograph her since she has long since passed away. Acquiring a free one as to be uploaded onto WP, that's what we need to figure out, and for that we need to be sure that the images are clearly in the public domain. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:David Brewster Grand Staircase and Furnace.jpg[edit]

There are 4 images on the David Brewster BLP, all contain his works. The quantity should be minimal to satisfy fair use. (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The image of him painting is off commons, and the issue there might be if the painting itself in shot is within de minimus. That's an issue to deal with there. The other three of his paintings only, while we'd allow for one or two representative examples of a painter's work if the paintings aren't individually notable, three might be too much particularly without any specific discussion of any work. I'd argue of the three non-free, really only one (the one in portrait mode) is needed, but I could see reasonable justification for two. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Gary Sanchez Productions logo.png[edit]

Does this meet NFCC #4? It was sent through OTRS (#2015011410017784) from a verifiable address, but it's not on the website. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly based on the other logos of the website and the production company, just the placement is off. I can't see the ticket to know the details, but if it is sent from a person that legally represents the company and assures the logo is okay, then we should be fine. (That is, it's not an exact previous publication but it is clearly the same thing and not a significant misrepresentation of it). --MASEM (t) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


File:Mrigayaa.jpg was uploaded by the same user under the non-free criteria. Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely fails criterion #3(a) of WP:NFCCP Vensatry (ping) 11:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Jonas Brothers concert tours[edit]

It would seem that the non-free pictures only should be in the articles about the individual tours (where such articles exist) but not in this list article. Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The ones that have images in this appear to not have articles, but my first impression on reading is that they could have individual articles from a notability standpoint. It would make more sense to create the indiviudal articles for these to have the images there. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lint voor Verwonding[edit]

The article does not seem to need two pictures of certificates. One or zero should be fine. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

These may possibly be free - if not from age from being primarily text elements. I'm not 100% sure though. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Why? Text is copyrighted too. {{Db-g12}} is routinely placed on pages which contain unfree text. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, true, forgot about that. But still, age might come into play at least the one with a 1922 stamp (the 1923 is questionable). --MASEM (t) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I overlooked the year. According to c:COM:CRT#South Africa, government works are protected for 50 years from publication, so both should be fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Might be good to get a check to see if they can go on commons, then. (And for clarity if it is the case both are non-free, yes, we only need one; if one is free and the other not, only the free one should be used). --MASEM (t) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Both certificates are out of copyright in South Africa ({{PD-South-Africa}}) and the US ({{PD-URAA}}), so we should move them to Commons. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Myki logo 2014.jpeg[edit]

Would this logo be below the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US? (According to Commons, Australia has a very low TOO, so the logo may likely be copyrighted in Australia. At the same time, from what one understands, the US has a much higher TOO.) --Elegie (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it is used on Myki as fair use to identify an organisation, with what I believe to be a valid fair use rationale statement, and meets WP:LOGO. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The usage of the Myki logo in the Myki article seems legitimate regardless of whether the logo is copyrightable in the US or not. At the same time, the logo seems to be of simple design (text, though in a somewhat unusual font, over a solid rectangle) and if the logo is in fact ineligible for copyright in the US (even if it is copyrighted in Australia) then it would seem useful to document that aspect of the logo. --Elegie (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
More specifically, would this logo be a case of {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? --Elegie (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


User:Hammersoft has deleted Hu Van Es's iconic photo from the end of the Vietnam War from both the Vietnam War and Operation Frequent Wind pages. My understanding is that this image satisfies the non-free content policy and is properly attributed and so should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • With respect, no it doesn't satisfy the policy. I grant the image is iconic. There's no question of that, so much so that there is an article about the image. However, the Wikimedia Foundation stipulated in their Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007 that use of non-free materials must be kept to a minimum. As further explained at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6, the use of a non-free image should not be done if an article about that image exists. Instead, a description of the image and a link to its article should be made. In this case, we have an article about the image located at 22 Gia Long Street, which is an otherwise nondescript building that would have no fame but for the event for which it was photographed. This image showed up on my watchlist today when User:DragonflyDC(pinging to this discussion) added a rationale for use on the article for the creator of the image, Hubert van Es. As I noted in the edit summary, as with Stephen Curry (creator of the famous Afghan Girl image), using the image on the creator's article isn't supported when an article exists about that image, per the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6 notation above. I removed this image from Operation Frequent Wind, Vietnam War and Hubert van Es and have considered removing it from Fall of Saigon for the same reason. We have plenty of other images available to depict the Fall of Saigon without delving into non-free images. Granted, none are as iconic. That is not relevant in these cases. Witness the use of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R77767, Berlin, Rotarmisten Unter den Linden.jpg instead of File:Reichstag flag original.jpg as the main infobox image at Battle of Berlin. There was considerable discussion on that decision quite some time ago, with consensus concluding removal of the iconic image in lieu of the free image. This removal of usage follows the same pattern, and again is described at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6; we have an article about the image, so deprecating use elsewhere in favor of linking to the article about the image is the standard to help comply with the Foundation's dictum regarding minimizing the use of non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hammersoft is correct here - the image is fine on the page about the building, and likely on the Fall of Saigon page, but that's pretty much it for minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The 22 Gia Long Street page was created as a fork out of Operation Frequent Wind, presumably in order to get the image featured somewhere on Wikipedia. The whole In Popular Culture section on the Operation Frequent Wind page essentially revolves around the photo because it is the iconic image of the Fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War and has given rise to comparisons and parody ever since, it would be bizarre to have the section without the photo. The photo should feature on Operation Frequent Wind (the underlying event) and Hubert van Es (the creator), while 22 Gia Long Street should be deleted if the photo is removed.Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We have an article about the image at 22 Gia Long Street. It would be inappropriate, under our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline, to have the image hosted on a variety of other pages when there is already an article about the image. If 22 Gia Long Street were deleted, it might be appropriate for the image to be on Operation Frequent Wind (might). It would not be appropriate for it to be on the creator's page regardless. There are many examples of this restricted usage throughout the project. Mention of the image in other articles with a link to the hosting page is the appropriate way to manage this sort of situation. This is how we do it, per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. If you'd like to see item #6 removed from that list, the appropriate place to start a discussion would be WT:NFC. But, given that we are required to keep non-free image usage to a minimum, it is unlikely such a discussion would result in removing that unacceptable use example. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can only describe the policy as ridiculous in the context of iconic images. Where an event gives rise to an iconic image it is so closely associated with that event that it should feature on the event page. A separate page may be warranted where there is a large amount of additional information that becomes a story in itself, such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but does it really help anyone to have a fork to a completely unknown title 22 Gia Long Street that contains no additional information other than the iconic image itself? Anyone wanting to find that photo will probably think "helicopter on a roof in Saigon", which isn't an immediate or logical path to 22 Gia Long St. Similarly for Hu Van Es, it is his most famous photo and it doesn't even feature on a page about him? The same obviously applies for Joe Rosenthal. Where is the policy that says that?Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Because a wikilink to the page with the photo is completely fine for referencing photos without introducing another non-free use on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You've been pointed to the policies from which Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6 descended. We are required to minimize non-free image use, per the Foundation resolution previously linked. If you want to place the 22 Gia Long Street for deletion because it is "unknown", feel free. It might be more appropriate for the article to be named after the photo itself, but I don't know under what name the photo is typically referred to. Some data analysis of searches might be useful in this case. Regardless, the image does feature prominently (in the infobox) of Fall of Saigon, the subject for which it is most likely most iconic. Speculation, but if you ask a hundred people on the street what "Operation Frequent Wind" (OFW) was and you would probably get a lot of blank stares, and no right answers. Show them the picture being discussed here, and you'd probably get a few right answers about the Fall of Saigon, but likely get no right answers about OFW. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm a bit of a student of war history, though more so of WWII than any other war. Still, I've studied the Vietnam War, read the book (not seen the series on which it is based) Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War, and multiple other books having to do with that war. While I was long ago familiar with the helicopter on the roof image, I never heard of 22 Gia Long Street until I came to Wikipedia. I note that in Google search, I got 1007 results for (in quotes) "22 Gia Long Street". I got 43,000 results for (again in quotes) "Helicopter on the roof". I think perhaps the article is misnamed, as the property isn't famous. It's the image that is famous. Compare that Mount Suribachi does not have the flag raising image (though I grant it is independently famous), but we do have the flag raising image on its own article, under a name that most people would recognize as being associated with that image. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Who Wants To Die For Art?.tiff[edit]

The image is purely an illustration at Jessicka. There is no mention of this piece other than a mention at Jessicka#Discography (which may even be referring to an album). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:BIT.TRIP BEAT gameplay.gif[edit]

This 91-frame GIF has serious issues with minimality WP:NFCC#3. I believe a single screenshot would just as well serve the encyclopedic purpose of this image. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

CH Sevilla[edit]

The article doesn't need the historical photographs, or at least not all of them. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One would be reasonable as the club no longer exists but agreed not 4. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

FIle: Taylor Swift - Today Was a Fairytale.png[edit]

Image is an album cover that has proper permission to be used in Today Was a Fairytale. The file usage section of the same image, however, shows that it's also being used in this userbox. I'm assuming that "elsewhere on Wikipedia" in WP:NFCCP includes userboxes, sandboxes, etc., right? Moreover, WP:UB#Remove all fair-use images from userboxes states that such images are never acceptable on user pages and in such cases an {{Images on userboxes}} template may be added to inform the UB's creator of relevant Wikipolicy. The wording on the template seems to imply it is being added after the image is removed. So, I have two questions: (1) Is this kind of thing a violation per NFCCP#8, #9 and #10c? and (2) What is the best way to proceed in this particular case? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a violation of NFCC#9 (can't be used outside mainspace), and the best way is simply to remove or comment out the image as I have already done. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. Is "commenting out" as you did preferred to simply removing the file altogether? Just curious. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The page is to be modified so that the image no longer is displayed. How to do this modification is up to the person doing the modification. A fast way to remove files is to use Twinkle's unlink feature, which moves the file name to HTML comments. If the file only is used outside the article namespace, an alternative option is to tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F5, which will result in the issue being automatically resolved when the file is deleted one week later. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Stefan2 for clarifying things for me. - 02:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Mullah Abdul Rauf.jpg[edit]

I can't find any specific reference to this image being the actual person who was killed. It's a screen capture from a video that does not seem to be related. It was taken from a BBC News article and the caption reads: "This group of former Taliban fighters pledged allegiance to IS in Pakistan last month." Individual who died was an Afghani who died in Afghanistan, not Pakistan. The BBC makes no claim that that the individual in the video is the Abdul Rauf reported killed. Seems to be used by the BBC because they had no image of Abdul Rauf, just as general reference to ISIS spreading in Afghanistan/Pakistan. — Wikimandia (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Four pages of a brochure, one claimed to be free and three claimed to be unfree. All four obviously have the same copyright status. If unfree, all four seem to violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9. I'm not sure if we have the entire brochure, so there might be a copyright notice which isn't visible on the scans. On the other hand, {{PD-US-not renewed}} probably applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:640px-5x16 - Felina PROMO 5.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for educational purposes but for decoration. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

South Park infobox images[edit]

All of the following fails WP:NFCC#8: they are not used for educational purposes but for decoration. I've looked through every article and a few use screencaps for discussion of how the episode was made and technical details that fall under fair use. Most of them are just superfluous. Note that many of these were listed at WP:FFD but it was recommended that I bring them here instead. If anyone thinks that an image is fulfilling a fair use purpose, please single it out below. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TVIMAGE, episode infobox images must be of a scene that is the subject of critical discussion of the show. As such, these should all be deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(Note that I see a few cases with secondary uses like the Guitar Hero one, but that still applies to stripping the image from episode article while other uses are valid). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum These need to be discussed individually in separate sections as the outcome depends on individual aspects of the respective articles. Also, as the only outcomes are "keep" and "delete", this should be at FFD, not here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • FFD pushed the discussion to here even when they were open individually. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Then the matter should be taken to WP:DRV instead. This is the wrong forum; these images belong in individual sections at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I posted at WP:DRV. Lots of redtape on this one, eh. Not very efficient. --Gaff (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I posted these at FFD and was told to take them here. This is ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • As noted above, this was posted by me at WP:DRV (here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review.23South_Park_infobox_images_.28closed.29). Rough consensus as I see it, piecing together now three separate discussions, is that posting these in bulk for deletion in bulk is not just going to work. Some reviewers have found files that should not be deleted based on the criteria provided. They each need to be evaluated separately. I cannot imagine that any admin is going to be willing to delete these as a bulk order, so propose this discussion be closed. --Gaff (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems plain to me that the issue isn't about the merits of keeping or deleting individual messages, but the interpretation of NFCC, and there's a bigger, more general discussion better served at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Mosmof (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for such a discussion – the situation is crystal-clear. There has been (or was) a long-standing practice shared between editors in a certain muddy corner of Wikipedia, of uploading screenshot images for TV shows as a matter of routine, without individual thought and with boilerplate rationales, in the mistaken belief that there was a wholesale allowance of one such picture per article. And there has been a stable, actionable and crystal-clear consensus among all knowledgeable editors for many years that this practice is wrong. This consensus has been demonstrated in hundreds and hundreds of prior decisions, on FFD, on NFCR, in speedy-deletion processes and elsewhere. No need to rehash it in a policy discussion again: what we have here is not a policy disagreement, but merely a backlog in enforcement. The long-standing consensus is that these should be brought to FFD in moderately-sized batches, or be tagged for speedy as lacking rationales if the FURs if the cases are obvious and the FURs are blatantly void of content. Koavf's batch from last month may have been a bit bigger than manageable, so just re-nominate them in somewhat smaller batches now. Fut.Perf. 09:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For details, see Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Archive 6#Non-free images of a specific television episode.
The batch size usually depends on how much time someone has to nominate files for deletion. If someone has a lot of time to nominate files for deletion on a particular date, this results on a big batch on that date, whereas there might not be a single file nominated on other dates. I don't think that it is possible to change how much time specific users are able to spend on Wikipedia on a specific day. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The Cars.jpg[edit]

I do not agree that this image is not replaceable. This is/was a very popular band and there should be free images available, although it might take some work to get a release through OTRS. Gaff (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As the original band broke up in 1988, it is not reasonable to expect a free image of a otherwise defunct group. There might exist free images or ones that could be licensed free, but we have no expectations on that factor. As such this image is acceptable. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Afree image can easily be obtained by simply requesting that somebody donate it. This band was epic. Led Zeppelin broke up a long time ago and we have free images of them. Asking around for donations is how I get images of mammals for my Good Articles. There are images out that that can readily be obtained if somebody gets off their arse and does the leg work of asking. Why is it okay to steal or borrow without permission? --Gaff (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
NFC's determination of freeness does not have any expectations of third parties. Yes, the band was likely well-photographed during their run, but we cannot guarentee that any of the people that hold these images are WPian editors. We have zero expectations that these people will be willing to release their photos as free images. We should try, of course, but the chance is not 100%, as it would be for a currently active band where a WPian can go and get a free pic. And we do allow this under US Fair Use law. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:NYCRR binder.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#8. Thoughts? HiDrNick! 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is arguably the identifying cover of a notable book and thus meets NFCI#1. However, and I can't determine this immediately, if the seal image on the cover is PD (it might be, but I can't tell), then just an image of the cover itself (not a photograph of the binder) would be free as a combination of text and PD imagery. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the coat of arms of New York. Int21h (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(Which was made in the 1800s) Then a 2D image of the front of the binder would be a free replacement cover image for the article. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Space (TV channel)[edit]

This page contains too many unfree logos. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg[edit]

To be honest, this is more a macro question about how WP:NFCC#8 applies to magazine covers. Here, the cover design isn't discussed in context, so with a strict reading of WP:NFCC, it's not essential and doesn't belong.

The question is whether the cover is necessary to illustrate how much of a national media story this game was. My thinking is that you can simply mention that it was an SI cover story and link to articles mentioning the cover. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The cover is appeared to be used to illustrate the point that the game was considered an upset by the media. To that end, unless the image of the cover itself is of significant discussion it is unnecessary to show that point via an image when there are numerous sources that are used to express that point. This fails NFCC#8 clearly. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Indian uprising-small.jpg[edit]

Same as the previously nominated File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg. While the cover is mentioned, my interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 is that it doesn't require seeing the cover to understand that Sports Illustrated (and other media) hyped the Indians to be contenders and a "cover jinx" ensued. A (cited) mention would get that information across. Mosmof (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

While the cover itself is mentioned in text and sourced, it is not necessary to see the cover to understand the larger point - that SI had predicted the Indians would take that season via a more in-depth story, and that failed to take place. So this is a failure of NFCC#1 - that the point can be explained via free text instead of illustrated. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Law & Order[edit]

Do we really need all of these cast pictures? Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. One cast photo, which I would pull from press materials (such as this one: [15]) would be better. Just because the cast has had significant rotation does not mean more non-free can be used, particularly as we are talking a show without significant makeup/special effects that mask the actors behind character (eg we can use actor photos to cover other principle actors that have been part of the show if they aren't in the sole cast shot). --MASEM (t) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Chase logo 2007.svg[edit]

This image is tagged as fair use, but seems to make use of only text and simple geographic shapes. I believe it should be PD-ineligible, but would like to get a second opinion before doing so. B (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That version would be. I know their newer logo includes gradients on the shapes and that makes it questionable, but this is well inside PDtext limits. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
They have gradients on some of their cards ... but right now, this moment, the logo at the top of looks like the logo we have here, except that the color is off a bit. --B (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is whether the SVG version is copyrightable as computer software. The logo itself is not copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The svg was created by someone drawing in inkscape (I looked) - it's not actual source code that someone typed out. Computer software is only copyrighted to the extent that it embodies the programmer's original expression and there is no original expression involved in an SVG being generated automatically from a non-copyrightable logo. --B (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
At its heart, SVG is a programming language, but tools like Inkscape and Illustrator make it easy to "create" that code graphically. As such, its copyright falls comparably to HTML - which is in an iffy area where there's no real case law. To play it safe, we do want SVG images that have free graphics to be have been freely created by an editor. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
In order to be copyrightable, there has to be something creative. There is nothing creative that occurs by using an automated code-generation tool. --B (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
But how can you tell the difference between code generated automatically from a vectoring program, and one assembled by a user manually (which is completely possible for very simple graphics)? It's the same way you can't tell the diff between the HTML output written by hand and written from a WYSIWYG program. Mind you, courts have stated that in cases of where there is 100% objective computer translation, no new copyright can be generated, but there is a range of case law, without conclusive nature, of how this applies to hypertext language that applies to HTML, XML, and SVG. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
1. If you look at the file in Notepad, it says it was saved by Inkscape and the uploader says in his upload summary, "Converted to SVG by User:Closeapple using PDF2SVG (also described at [16]) and given 1% internal margin using ...". So I'm guessing/assuming that he used PDF2SVG to convert it and then maybe cropped it in Inkscape or something? Either way, it's clear that it was converted by an automated process, not handwritten by a human - a cursory inspection of the SVG makes that obvious. 2. Even if it were handwritten by a human, it is only copyrightable to the extent that it is creative. If I write a "hello world" program that incorporates no creativity, it is not copyrightable. Now, if my "hello world" program was a really cool example of obfuscated programming, then that is probably copyrightable. But a simple algorithm that involves no creativity is not copyrightable. --B (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Support for {{PD-logo}}. (Well, PD-ineligible is a generalized version.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The color purple oprah winfrey.jpg[edit]

There are lots of free media of Oprah Winfrey: this image is not adding much educational to the article on her. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dude Ranch (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:When Good Kids Go Bad, Modern Family.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Phil on Wire (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Door to door (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Boys' Night (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Caught in the Act (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bixby's Back (Modern Family).jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is another infobox TV image which has very little if any educational value. This particular image or scene is not discussed critically and seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the content of this article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Internet dog.jpg[edit]

Nowhere near enough to "low resolution, making it unsuitable for further use" as claimed, and resolution low enough would be below our standards, since, as the article says "Steiner has earned over US $50,000 from its reprinting". So this just walks all over his commercial opportunities. Also, it is not an excerpt of a work, but the entirety of the work discussed in the article On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It's not fair use if you print an entire work. Finally, it's helpful but not necessary, I wrote I say it's spinach without using the cartoon and so can you -- "The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor" is plenty sufficient. It's not like there's artistic discussion of how the artist uses light and shadow or whatever. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The image is fine. Yes, we should be aware there are commercial opportunities for the work, which sets a higher bar for inclusion, but does not automatically eliminate it from use. It is of a low-enough resolution that any smaller would make the text unreadable (and well under a 0.1M side) - the full size image is at least 1500x1500 so this is a reasonable resize [17]. In particular, the image is the subject of the article of discussion - the image itself is notable and commented on per the sources in the article. So there's no issues here - we are using a fair-use size version of the image in conjunction with sourced discussion specifically about the image. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It does automatically eliminate it from use in this case. Here we have a project to where we forbid ourselves to use images of absolutely no conceivable commercial value made by some unknown person in 1932, and we're going to stick a knife in this guy's actual real revenue stream? A takedown order by Steiner would be absolutely justified IMO; whether it would be successful I don't know, but maybe. The image in its current resolution is plenty good enough for someone to use to make T-shirts, cards, or whatnot, paying Steiner $0. And as I say, it's not necessary -- it's an extremely simple drawing not the Mona Lisa, and "The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor" is plenty info, and if not add a couple more sentences describing the dogs in more detail if you think that's useful. As I say, I did it and so you you all. I'm not a fanatic about free use and just uploaded several fair-use pics, but c'mon. This is the most egregious violation of the policy WP:NFCCP #2 ("Respect for commercial opportunities: Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.") I've ever seen. It's straight-up theft. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
300px is nowhere close for commercial use applications. It's also comparable to notable pieces of art that are valued at much higher prices too that we have imagery of. Again, key is that the image itself is the subject of discussion of the article so not illustrating it makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem. I have to also point out that we have WP:NFCI#8, which states "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate." The cartoon and the phrase it spawned are the subject of sourced commentary, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to note, I checked with a few people in the printing industry. If you want a poster or a tee-shirt of any sellable quality, the art at minimum has to be 150 dpi. That means this image, at best, would only come out 2 inches on printed works. That's not a commercial opportunity. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no sourced commentary. Sourced commentary on a drawing would be stuff like this:
  • "The artist's use of 'found elements', as shown in this example, would later influence Higgins and Ruger in their development of 'Non-Art Art' in the 1930s."[1]
  • "This work, from the artist's 'Sno-Cone Period', shows his developing use use of lines and crosshatching to create the illusion of nausea"[2][3]
  • "Most critics have called Smith a neo-impressionist[4][5] but Wilkins called Girl With A Hat (shown left) an indication that he had 'a sneaky desire to be a illustrator for Marvel Comics'"[6]
while sourced commentary would not be stuff like this:
  • "Here's a picture of some dogs a guy drew. Sucks the be him cos we stole it cos we can (he's just some guy and we're one of the world's largest websites, you know), and it makes the page prettier. We're not 'supposed' to do that by our own 'rules', but as a practical matter we can do whatever we want, kbye!"[citation needed]
which is in essence what we're doing. Give me an argument, any kind of argument, that the unfree picture in any way, shape, or form adds to the content of the article beyond a purely and entirely decorative function. No one has done so because there is no such argument. OK fine you can't put it on a T-shirt, you can put it on your for-profit website or for-sale stickers or whatnot. We need to not be doing this, and it's a slap in the face to those editors (like me) who sweat it out not to do this, and do without decorative, layout-enhancing elements for our articles when we can't find free ones. I personally don't care, and would personally be fine with an "anything goes" approach to using images glommed from the web, but I've been told that the Foundation wants the Wikipedia to be free for downstream use to the extent reasonably possible, which I don't care about but they do, and if we're going to do this we need to have a much larger discussion about changing the rules generally. It's no good to have rules that aren't actually followed. Herostratus (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is sourced commentary about the image (the entire article in fact). We don't require the commentary to be about the visual elements of the image when considering exceptions of NFCC#2, but that the image itself is specific of discussion (in this case, why it was made, and the impact it has had). And again, the image fits our size reduction rules - 300px is nowhere near any size that significant commercial opportunity can be made. (And also add that the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes that are failures of commercial opportunity). This fits the rules as NFCC has intended. --MASEM (t) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Can this be confirmed to be correct: "the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes that are failures of commercial opportunity". Does that really automatically mean that the cartoonist or their publisher have no valid claims for protection of commercial rights, because somebody put it up on Twitter? Just because somebody else stole it, it is now a free for all? Out of curiosity, are there other New Yorker cartoons used on articles on WP? I have not found any of Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons put up in articles, though have not done an exhaustive search. These cartoons continue to have commercial opportunity long after they are published, since the New Yorker publishes them as prints to be framed and in "best of" type publications ofen enough (there is a book of them on my bedside table). --Gaff (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not free for all, but the point that is critical here is that we aren't providing the image at a size that has significant commercial value (again, with today's printing capabilities, this would be tiny on any medium is it printed on to be of any quality) - in addition to the fact we are using it in a manner that would meet US Fair Use defense laws. Note this only applies to this use on the article about the adage/comic. We would not allow this image on a page about, say, online anonymity even though it represents that concept well. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as the resolution consideration: Since this is such a simple black and white cartoon, taking a lower resolution copy such as this, blowing it up, then filling it in with black ink would be incredibly trivial with even the most rudimentary xerox machine and an inkpen, so I am not buying that argument. For a complicated detailed color image, that might be valid. --Gaff (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
However, we as in WP are not doing that. If a user took our image (for some reason instead of the higher res ones out there) and blew it up and filled in and then sold that, that person would be violating the fair use law (Our disclaimers note that the reuse of non-free media still must follow legal requirements for your country, and this would be a violation). It would not be our problem. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by this nomination. Though I'd probably be in favor of completely abolishing all fair use (except possibly for corporate logos), this image seems to be the poster child for acceptable under our current policies. It's an image of the cartoon in an article about that very cartoon. NFCC#2 is not relevant here - this isn't the kind of image that it's talking about. (It's not as though the image is super-secret and you would, if not for Wikipedia, be forced to contact the cartoonist directly for a copy.) The kind of thing where #2 would be relevant is if we were, say, attempting to use a photo from istockphoto or Getty Images under (an obviously inappropriate) claim of fair use. Our use of such a photo would deprive the istockphoto or Getty photographer of their rightful royalties - we would be using the photo for exactly the kind of thing that they make their living selling the photo for. That just isn't the case here. --B (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused now: how is a cartoonist working for the New Yorker is somehow different that a photographer working for Getty?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talkcontribs)
The difference isn't what - it's how. It is NOT a problem to use a Getty photo or similar IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE PHOTO ITSELF. For example, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an historic photo and we are using it to illustrate sourced commentary on the photo itself, not as a stock photo for an article about flags. In the past, we have had debates about photos from war zones where embedded journalists took photos that would certainly enhance our coverage of the topic, but where the photo itself is not iconic or historic. In such an absurd claim of fair use, our use (using the photo to illustrate the subject of the photo) is exactly the commercial purpose for which the journalist is selling their photo. For the cartoon in question, it is fine to use this cartoon to illustrate sourced discussion ABOUT THE CARTOON ITSELF. It is not fine to use this cartoon to illustrate dogs in general. --B (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that an analogy is drawn from from the Rosenthal AP Iwo Jima image, for which WP has obtained permsission noted on the file page: "Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press." That letter of permssion has either been deleted or is was never added and I don't see an OTRS report. But... if such permission were validly granted, for use of the images with an attribution license, then could it be used to illustrate an article about flags in general? This is getting off topic of the internet dogs, so more of a question for future reference and understanding. --Gaff (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept files on the basis of a "Wikipedia-only" permission or permission to use non-commercially or anything like that. So while we certainly appreciate that permission, we are only going to use the image if we could have (both legally and in accordance with our own fair use policy) used the image even if we did not have permission.[18][19][3] --B (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting these pipermail links. They add context towards understanding license policies and especially fair use. I already knew about acceptable free licenses (CC BY-SA and the like), since I have had to work pretty hard getting releases for images needed for articles on obscure small mammals. I still think Fair Use is abused quite often, as a path of least resistance, because sending out requests and asking permission is more work than just uploading and slapping a fair use template on it. Ethically, and certainly in terms of improving WP's reputation, it may be the better course to just ask for permission and go through OTRS. --Gaff (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

OK, to summarize a few points:

  • The claim is made that the image can't be printed more than 2 inches high and therefore has no significant commercial application. Assuming the 2 inches thing is true (I do assume that) this would limit the commercial applications but not sufficiently eliminate them for an image that, after all, is a significant revenue stream for this guy ($50,000 and counting). You could still use the image on your for-profit website, or in various other commercial ways. Cartoonists don't drive Cadillacs and this guy lucked into a windfall so let's not screw him.
  • The point that "the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes" and that this might matter is not only a terrible argument, but such a terrible argument that, to my mind, it colors all the other person's posts. It's hard for me take this person's other arguments seriously after that.
  • No one has made the argument that using the image is useful and necessary rather than purely decorative. No one has made that argument because they can't: no such argument is possible. Some hand-waving in the general direction "Well, the article is about the image, so therefore ipso facto prima facie we can show the image, q. e. d." is not an argument. It is just hand-waving. If you're talking about how the Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile has been discussed through time, you might very well need to show that smile to aid the reader's understanding of the subject. Here? We do not need to show the image. There is nothing in the image that is important beyond what can be described in a single sentence, or two or three if you feel its necessary. If we needed to describe how some physical aspect of the picture mattered -- "the relationship of the dogs, a larger dark one looming above a smaller whiter one, symbolizes the 'dark' forces of the internet subsuming the more benign ones, while the almost leering aspect of the dark dog calls to mind the sexual demimonde possibly referenced in his words[1]" -- that'd be different. But we don't.
  • Delete. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There is the argument that a verbal description of the comic would work sufficiently for the reader. If we were talking on an article about internet anonymousity, we would certainly take that approach. But the comic itself is notable, and when a non-free image itself is notable, it completely fits NFC requirements and the Foundation requirements, even if the image is one that has commercial opportunities. Take even something like Campbell's Soup Cans, which are all still under copyright and commercially reprinted. The paintings are the subject of discussion, but there's not much on the visuals about it, and the labeling alone (if one took the label off the can) would be within PDText, so we could take a picture of the can freely and use that. But we don't, obviously, because we're talking about that image. This is clearly an encyclopedic, not decorative, use of a notable image. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm still completely befuddled that this image is even remotely controversial and I thought I was one of the worst anti-fair-use (insert pejorative) here.
      1. Point #1 is an utter absurdity on every level and I'm not even sure where to begin. The image exists on websites other than Wikipedia, so it's not like we're making something available that would not otherwise be obtainable without paying him. Our purpose in using the image is for critical commentary on the image itself - not because we're looking for a funny cartoon to illustrate an article on internet culture, so our use does not at all compete with the type of use from which he is profiting, namely, licensing to people who are looking for a funny cartoon to illustrate an article on internet culture.
      2. Regarding point #2, pointing out the availability of the image is NOT a justification for fair use, rather, it is a response to the claim that our use of this image costs the copyright holder money (NFCC#2). What are the ways that our use of copyrighted content could cost the copyright holder money? Well, I can only think of two: (1) if our use constitutes fair use, would that completely eliminate his ability to sell the image? In other words, if we could claim "fair use" of some random news media photo, why would anyone ever pay for a news media photo again when they could just claim fair use? (2) you would normally have to pay the copyright holder to see it, but we're showing it to you for free. For example, if we included a clip of the best part of Metallica's Enter Sandman, now you don't need to buy the song. Or if there was a book called top 100 cool facts about Star Trek and we printed all 100 of the facts in our article, now you don't need to buy the book. The point of mentioning the image's prevalence on the internet is to explain that this is NOT the case.
      3. Regarding point #3, this view is out of sync with our normal practices. If we have an article about a modern {painting, cartoon, etc}, we show a picture of that {painting, cartoon, etc}. What cartoon is the article talking about? Why, it's talking about the cartoon depicted here.
      As I have said, I'm completely befuddled that this is even controversial at all. --B (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I too don't see the issue here also. This image is a great example of acceptable fair use on Wikipedia, for the same reasons we host the lead image of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bhutia girl with Tibetan ancestry.jpg[edit]

Why is a photograph of this age listed as unfree? Does the uploader mean that the photograph wasn't published immediately? For example, maybe the uploader means that it was first published after 2002 and that Th. Paar died after 1944? If so, the image would seem to violate WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably need to get more information on the source of this image that the uploader used. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proximate source is here. The same original author is credited here by the national library of Australia around the same date. The original author is Theodor Paar who was an active photographer in the late 19th century (at least from the 1870 to the 1890s). From what I can see this image is convincingly {{PD-India}} - Peripitus (Talk) 10:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:SilmarillionBook LR.jpg[edit]

There is already one cover in Silmarillion--I don't see why we need a second one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


Is this necessary? I don't see how this improves readers' understanding (NFCC #8). I understand for books with actual covers, but this is more of a technical report, and one that most people don't often encounter. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If this was non-free, I would agree. However, this can be categorized as a free image due to PD-text (The ISO and IEC logos are both too simple for copyright, both at commons it appears). --MASEM (t) 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an awful lot of text. Is it copyrightable? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Very little of that text is "creative" (boilerplate ownership details, etc.) , so would be fine, I believe, but let me ask our resident text copyvio expert. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Anon124: According to MoonRiddenGirl [20] we'd be hard press to call that text creative and thus copyrightable but if it were just prose, we'd attempt to summarize instead. As it is an image, we can tag it PD-text, but should include an additional notice on the file page that we (Wikipedia) believe the text is insufficiently creative to be copyrightable, but that reusers of the work should consider their local copyright laws before reusing. Also, I would make sure this is marked as not to be transferred to Commons, as the PD-text nature likely only extends through the US and similar threshold-of-originality countries. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Plan au sol de la brasserie de Jean Talon en 1686.png[edit]

If this is from 1686, it wouldn't be copyright, it would be public domain, would it not? kelapstick(bainuu) 12:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I have updated the licencing, and will tag. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Is this copyrightable? Fails WP:NFCC#10c if so. Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Indiana Pacers[edit]

This page appears to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Lega Basket Serie A[edit]

This page seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sencer Sarı[edit]

The non-free pictures fail WP:FREER. Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

BC Zepter Vienna[edit]

This article seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual Studio[edit]

File:VSWebDes.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:ClassDiagram.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:VisualStudioOnline-Dashboard.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I am more or less indifferent to whether or not we should have multiple screenshots for various different aspects of Visual Studio. But these tiny screenshots are in no way remotely helpful to any reader anywhere. A screenshot that actually showcases some aspect of the program might meet WP:NFCC#8 by providing you with useful information. But a tiny screenshot where you can't make out any words or anything going on certainly does not. Reducing a resolution to a web-resolution shot makes sense when it's a photograph or a video game or something like that. When it's a picture of mostly text, I'm not sure that it makes sense. If it's decided that the images would otherwise meet WP:NFCC#8, we could crop them or we could resize the Visual Studio window to maybe 640x480 and retake the screenshot, then resize it down to 320x240, which would still meet our desire to have only web-resolution screenshots, but would at least make it readable. (I have all versions of Visual Studio on my computer from 2005 to 2013 and I can take any screenshot requested.) --B (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You probably mean WP:NFCC#8, not WP:NFCC#9. The purpose of the use in the article is apparently to display images which are 220×159 pixels. Other potential uses, such as viewing the files on the file information page or in the Media namespace, are irrelevant to NFCC, so it is not a problem if we reduce these further to 220×159 pixels; the article will still contain the same information. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Correct, yes, I meant NFCC#8 and have fixed my nomination to reflect that. The images, as they are, right now, this moment, both in the article and on the image description pages, are completely illegible so they could not possibly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. So if there are three options: (1) do nothing, (2) delete the images, (3) upload legible versions of the images, then #1 is definitely my third choice and I don't have a strong preference between #2 and #3. While I certainly understand your point about the resolution, now that Wikipedia's default behavior is that clicking on an image is to show a larger version of that image without navigating you away from the article, I don't know that it's a true statement any more that the purpose of a non-free image is to be rendered at the resolution it shows up as in the article. But in any event, if #3 were chosen, we could make the image so it is legible in the article itself, without clicking on it. If you have a 1080p monitor and you take a screenshot of the entire screen, then reduce it to be 200-300 pixels wide, that's going to be completely illegible. But if you resize the window to something smaller, then take a screenshot of that and only reduce it by half or so, it's legible and potentially contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. --B (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The only screenshot of the three that really is needed is the class diagram one, and that's fine at the size as it shows the "visual" nature of this aspect of the program. The other is effectively a syntax-aware text editor, and a random clip dumping ground. Both which can be explained with text. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi. Sadly, these shots are too small to be useful. Generally, screenshots in Wikipedia the number one victims of scrutiny by madness! (Second place goes to admins in RfA.) If they were of higher resolution, I could put them to good uses. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Strawberry Lane[edit]

There seem to be too many cast pictures in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the third cast picture seems more appropriate to the article, the other two are just excessive. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Photo of a bottle of hot sauce used in the articles Sriracha sauce and Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods). Uses a non-free rationale, but lists the source as Wikipedia Commons and the author as c:User:Ttony21 who has no record of the file in his user contributions. It looks like the file was deleted from Commons by either c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sriracha hot chilli sauce.jpg or c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sriracha_"Rooster_Sauce".jpg and I'm not sure how that affects its non-free usage rationale for Wikipedia since the file no longer has an author or a source (WP:NFCC#4).

Moreover, the article "Sriracha sauce" is general article about Sriracha sauce and not a particular brand of Sriracha sauce. The article is already using a free file File:Siracha sauce.jpg so not sure why a non-free image is needed at all per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. Despite this claim to the contrary, the file seems only directly relevant to "Siracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)" since this as an article about the actual sauce being pictured. Lastly, I'm also concerned about the size of the image in "Siracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)". It's seems a little big to me per WP:IMGSIZE, but maybe that something better off discussing on the article's talk page. Anyway, thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture is not appropriate in either article - we have the Huy Fong Foods logo standalone on the company's page, so we don't need the bottle in either page indicated at all. If the bottle was turned away to hide most of the label, that would be a reasonable picture to include to show this.--MASEM (t) 22:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. What's the best way to proceed? WP:FFD or WP:CSD#Files? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
FFD. failures of things like NFCC#8 which while seemingly obvious in this case should be taken to FFD in case someone presents a fair argument to keep. CSD should only be for clearly unnecessary non-frees (such as a clear free replacement, etc.) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, I removed the file from Sriracha sauce. Please re-add or fix if my edit was inappropriate. I am not sure how to proceed with Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods). Do you think the picture should be removed from there as well and replaced with File:Huy Fong Foods logo.gif? If the file is also removed from that article, it will not satisfy WP:NFCC#7. Should it then be nominated for deletion via "FFD"? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there's really no allowance for the use of a non-free logo of a brand name on a specific product page (if the product had its own logo, that might be something, but that's not the case here). But the fair route at that point would be to nominate at FFD just in case someone argues that the file should be kept. (Arguably you could just tag it with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} but that's usually considered inappropriate to remove and then tag orphan if the use is not a CSD-type problem. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
OK Masem. Understand about using the log as a replacement. Which rationale should be used then to remove it from "Sriracha hot sauce (Huy Fong Foods)"? Couldn't it be argued that the image is helps the reader understand the context better per WP:NFCC#8? Removing if from "Sriracha sauce" seemed pretty straight forward since there's already two other "free" images being used and the article was not about this particular brand of hot sauce. Not so sure in the second case. Are you aware of any similar examples I can use for reference? Finally, a procedural question: Should the image be removed before nominating it via FFD? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Arguably yes, even though from a NFC standpoint, there's almost no rationale to justify the use of the image by NFCC#8, but NFCC#8 is not a allowance for speedy deletion or delayed deletion. And no, you should not remove the image from the last page while at FFD, only to be within process. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks Masem. Should I return the image to "Sriracha Sauce" then for procedural reasons before I go to FFD? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can keep it off, though if you are doing the FFD, maybe explain it was also used at that article before. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Asian-five-nations-logo 5808 SQ MEDIUM.jpg[edit]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U[edit]

This seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a. A game made for two different platforms only needs a cover image of one of the editions. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

One or the other, but not both. While the artwork is "different" the style and approach is equivalent so both aren't needed. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jewish culture#Comics, cartoons and animation[edit]

Violation of WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. We don't need to see images of works of Jewish creators to understand that there were comics created by those of Jewish descent. Free images would be fine, but not non-free for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This article has to be one of the worst examples of fair use overuse I have seen in years. --B (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of what is there now. Would anyone like to make a case that any of these is used transformatively?

It looks like even the ones that aren't in galleries are just used decoratively. --B (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In every case, the non-free is decorative, where a free image of the actual creator would be more appropriate for inclusion in a article on the people of Jewish faith that are creative contributors. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Aurora community channel.svg[edit]

If unfree, then this logo violates WP:NFCC#3a as an extra logo, but I'm not sure if it is copyrightable in the first place. Opinions? Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the shape in the "O" is sufficiently simple (for how we catalog things normally) but would like a second opinion for that. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with calling this PD. Take a look at a larger rendering. One of the examples Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States gives is that when this not copyrightable Car Credit City logo gets a little decoration added to it, it is copyrightable. This Aurora logo looks to be similar in complication so I'm not comfortable with claiming that it's ineligible for copyright. (I agree that it should be deleted as an extra logo.) --B (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree w/ B. Shape in "O" likely nudges this past TOO. As such, and as there is already another logo w/ identifies the subject, this file needs to be deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Iraq - Mawtini (Vocal).ogg[edit]

Description not properly filled in, I doubt it is applicable - TheChampionMan1234 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a national anthem so a sample might be appropriate but not a 3min 20sec sample. This has to be trimmed down significantly. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Also, the youtube page provided as the source provides no evidence that this recording is owned by the Government of Iraq. - TheChampionMan1234 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips, samples "should not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter..." I also believe the bit rate for non-free audio must be at or below 64 kpbs -- this one is at 79. Levdr1lp / talk 08:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sega Studios[edit]

All of the non-free files on this page violate WP:NFCC#8 and sometimes also WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That article needs a severe overall, period, but yes, all the logos are inappropriately used. (If they split the article on the notable sub-studios, of which I'm pretty sure a few can be spun out like Sonic Team, the logos would be fine on those sub-pages.) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Without question there are entirely too many non-free files, but as Masem points out, some of the division logos could be used if/when split-articles are created. Levdr1lp / talk 07:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


PD-Text. Levdr1lp / talk 06:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:KDollar Logo.jpg[edit]

PD-Text. Levdr1lp / talk 06:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WYCL old non-free logos[edit]

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Old non-free logos for radio station WYCL. Both represent former brands for a small market daytime-only AM radio station, neither of which lasted more than a year or two. Levdr1lp / talk 07:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:WKRP Bailey and Andy.jpg[edit]

This screenshot from WKRP in Cincinnati is used in four different articles. In Jan Smithers, it is used in the infobox to show what this living person looks like. Clearly invalid. In Andy Travis and Bailey Quarters (both fictional characters), it is used in the infobox, which is probably okay. In WKRP in Cincinnati, it is used, along with two other screenshots to show the main characters. I'm less thrilled about this usage. B (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for "Jan Smithers". She's still alive, so it is possible for somebody somewhere to take a picture of her. It can be also argued that it fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a for "WKRP in Cincinnati" since it shows only 5 of the main cast members (there's no screenshots of Tim Reid, Gordon Jump or Frank Bonner) and it would probably be best to replace these screenshots with a non-free image of the entire cast if such an image is deemed essential to the article. Perhaps one of these would work?- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the screenshot from "Jan Smithers" since it clearly should not be used there. FWIW, usage also failed WP:NFCC#10c since no non-free use rationale was provided for use in "Jan Smithers". Will wait the outcome of this discussion before deciding if the same needs to be done for "WKRP" article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Tagged as a fair use screenshot from Foolish Wives, a 1922 American movie. Am I missing a reason that this isn't PD? B (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Computer generated clear quartz.png[edit]

Non free, no credible rationale for such use.

Photographs of real quartz are available. We don't need a non-free generated artwork of it.

If this is significant as a piece of CGI artwork specifically (that's possible, especially as it's quite early raytracing work) then that would have to be claimed separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Get Up! (Yuma Nakayama song)[edit]

This page contains too many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


I originally uploaded this SVG image after downloading an EPS version of the Motel 6 logo from and then converting that version to SVG. Given further study and consideration, however, it appears that vector images of non-free logos that are uploaded to Wikipedia should be vector versions that came from the logo's copyright holder and not from a source such as where the vectorization of a logo may have been done by a third party. If that is the case, then it may be useful for someone to find a vector version of the Motel 6 logo that was produced by Motel 6's owner or the logo designer, or to replace the image with a low resolution PNG version. (As a side note, there is the question as to whether this logo is a case of PD-text, though the border on the 6 may make that problematic.) --Elegie (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Vectorization can be a copyrightable act in and of itself, but the underlying image is pretty clearly PD-Text. Note File:Best Western logo.svg which was declared PD-text by the US Copyright Office in File:Best Western Logo.pdf this letter. In particular, that stylized W is a lot more complex then the border on the 6.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Shetland.jpg[edit]

File is being used in two (three?) separate articles and seems like it's a candidate for non-free use, but no appropriate specific non-free rationale for each use seems to have been provided so it looks like it fails WP:NFCC#10c for each use. What is the best course of action in such a case? Remove the images from the articles? Tag the file with {{di-no fair use rationale}}? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the above also applies to File:Orkney_Islands_Arms.jpg - Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Both images violate WP:NFCC#1: freely licensed replacements could be created from the same blazon. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Stefan. There are quite a few similar files found at Category:Coat of arms images which are licensed as "non-free". What should generaly should be done with respect to coats of arms licensed as non-free and more specifically for the two files referred to above? FFD? - Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Solar System objects by size[edit]

The page no longer contains non-free files. Maybe quarry:query/2939 can be used for finding other similar problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The non-free files violate WP:NFCC#8 and sometimes also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • One of the outcomes of the declining participation in Wikipedia is that articles with significant amounts of inappropriate content under WP:NFCC are not being patrolled for such violations. This is one of them. The use here is obviously inappropriate, and should just be removed without having to bring such violations here (not that I fault you Stefan2). Such uses are becoming the norm because of Wikipedia's intransigence in developing less random user dependent means to maintain the project against such violations. This particular article has been the scene of multiple removals of non-free content ([21][22][23][24][25][26]), yet here we are discussing whether the images should be there. But, no matter. Afterall, it's ok to add non-free images here when "the picture is cool!!!1". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, I have always enjoyed your use of irony. If you don't use link classifier, it's really helpful for this sort of thing, by bordering fair use images in red, it makes them easier to pick out when they are used incorrectly. And yes, many times these things should just be removed, without the discussion here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • See this please. I think I took care of most of these, in one case there is even a free image (although poor quality) available... --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know what link classifier is? Anyway, thanks for removing them. But, they will be restored. They have been for many years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Balangoda Ananda Maiterya Thero.jpg[edit]

This file is only used in the Notable alumni section of Ananda College which I don't believe qualifies for WP:NFCC. obi2canibetalk contr 13:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Both uses of this file (in Ananda College#Notable alumni and Buddhism in Sri Lanka) violate WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. If @SWR2.9: continues add the image to the articles I will take it to WP:ANI.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero, who was a leading personality of Theravada Buddhism in the twentieth century, wrote many books on Buddhism, meditation and languages. Some of his books are considered as text books for students. This rare photograph which was taken while he was involved in literary work increases the value of the section Survey of writings in the article. Since Balangoda Ananda Maitreya thero died in 1998, using this file in English Wikipedia under fair-use is acceptable in my view. -- SWR2.9 (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We do allow a non-free image of a deceased, notable person to illustrate their article and no question a non-free is fine here, but there are two images now on Thero's page, where only one is needed. One of these should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have seen the presence of two non-free images elsewhere in English Wikipedia, used in the same article to illustrate different sections. Anyway if it is a 'must' to keep only one non-free image in a page, this file should not be deleted because it has a rare historic value in it. This file is also the older file which was in the main page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero for sometime, before it was replaced by a different non- free photograph by another wikipedian. --SWR2.9 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are articles where more than one non-free image is being used, but that does not necessarily mean that doing so in this particular case is correct. Also, Wikipedia is not really a place for storing non-free images per WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Editors who feel the file has rare historic value can download it to their own computers for safe keeping or find somewhere more suitable to store the file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: All the rules, policies and guidelines in Wikipedia are universal, aren't they? If some rule is applicable to a one page those policies are also applicable to the page of venerable Thero too, because Wikipedia doesn't have a different set of guidelines and policies for the people of different religions and areas of the world. WP:NFCC#7 is not violated by this file because it is used in at least one article and WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable here since the Thero is a notable person and this file is used to illustrate his literary works. Editors surely can keep files which don't have any encyclopedic value in their personal storage by download it to their own computers for safe keeping, but if any file has an encyclopedic value in it, Wikipedia is the place to use it especially if you are a wikipedian. --SWR2.9 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you find articles where multiple non-free images are being incorrectly used per Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy, then you can (1) discuss them here, (2) discuss them on the article's talk page, or (3) be bold and remove the image yourself per WP:NFCCE. The fact that multiple non-free images are be being used in other articles does not automatically mean that this image can also be used in multiple articles. Wikipedia can be edited by pretty much anyone. Images are uploaded and added to articles all the time and sometimes good-faith mistakes are made. When those mistakes are discovered, they are usually corrected whenever possible. Knowingly repeating the mistakes of others, however, is not really helpful to building an encyclopedia because it just creates more problems that need to be cleaned up later. This discussion is not about Thero's notability; It is about whether the image in question satisfies the all 10 criteria for non-free image use. WP:NFCC#7 says that all non-free images need to be used in at least one Wikipedia article. Images which do not satisfy this requirement are generally considered to be "orphans" and are tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 due to copyright concerns. There may be certain exceptions to this, but I don't think they apply in this case (I could be wrong). Wikipedia is not an media repository like Wikipedia Commons so images that are not being used in articles are either moved to Commons when it is acceptable to do so or deleted when it is not. Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia each have their own rules and Commons only accepts free media, so moving is not an option for this file. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I have said earlier, using this file in the page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero does not violate the criteria of fair-use of non free files in English Wikipedia as it add value to the page. This file is also not an orphan because it was and still in use in wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, I am not interested in counting the number of non-free files used in a single wikipedia page and taking action to remove them, as you have suggested to me because;
1. There is no specific strict rule in wikipedia to limit the number of fair use images to a maximum of one in a single page. (the number of fair-use images in some pages counts more than 2)
2. My aim in Wikipedia is to cover the areas of Sri Lankan and Theravada Buddhism which are not covered well enough at the moment, rather than deleting fair-use images which add value to any article of any field. (Interests of different wikipedians are not the same)
There is no point in repeating the same opinions again and again. In my view, using this file in the page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero, does not violate the fair-use policy of English wikipedia for sure. Thank you. -- SWR2.9 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
NFC is not a policy you can willfully ignore, our goal on WP is to promote free content and minimize reliance on non-free content. NFCC#3a requires the minimum amount of NFC be used to still understand a topic, so having two images of the same person looking otherwise the same is inappropriate because only one is needed to see who this person was. What others pages do has no bearing here. You can use this image on that page, but only if you remove File:Agga Maha Pandita Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thera.jpg from that article. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As it is the case with most pages use more than one non-free image in en wikipedia, NFCC#3a is not violated by this image too, because it is used to illustrate Thero's literary contributions, rather than identifying him in this page. --SWR2.9 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it illustrating this? It is the same person, possibly older than the photo, otherwise doing nothing out of the ordinary. The reader's understanding of who Thera is not diminished by the removal of one of the two images (If both were removed, yes, we would harm that, hence why one is okay). And we don't care that other pages use two or more images; each use of non-free is evaluated separate and in conjunction of what page it is used on, ignoring all else. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. I don't think image is acceptable to use in either Ananda College#Notable alumni or the infobox of Buddhism in Sri Lanka per WP:NFCC#8 as well as perhaps WP:NFG and No. 1 of WP:NFLISTS. I can understand the reasons for wanting to use it in Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero#Survey of writings, but the problem, in that case, seems to be with WP:NFCC#3a. Are File:Agga Maha Pandita Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thera.jpg and File:Balangoda_Ananda_Maiterya_Thero.jpg pictures of the same person? They look like the same person, but the file names are slightly different. If they are the same person, then they essentially provide the same information and both are not needed in my opinion. One of them can be used per No. 10 of WP:NFCI, but not both. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Given the views expressed here I have nominated this file for deletion.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Angie Watts.jpg[edit]

File is a screenshot from the TV series The Eastenders. It is being used in the character page Angie Watts and Wimbledon Manor House. It seems to have an appropriate rationale for use in "Angie Potts", but does not have any rationale at all for "Wimbledon Manor House" per WP:NFCC#10c. In addition, the image also does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 for "Wimbeldon Manor House". The article mentions Anita Dobson who played "Angie Watts" but using a screenshot of her character as substitute for the real person seems inappropriate for anything other than "Annie Watts". Just for reference, I have previously removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" per "WP:NFCC#10c" and WP:NFCCE; but this removal was questioned by editor Roganjosh3. Therefore, I am discussing this new image here first so that others may comment as to whether it satisfies WP:NFCCP and to avoid appearing to be acting inappropriately. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments deemed inappropriate and to fix punctuation - 05:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)]

Yes, this removal from the Manor House article is appropriate. Character images are nearly often used without any specific discussion of the character's appearance or commentary about it, so unless these additional discussions exist, non-free character images are generally limited to use to identify a character that has a standalone notable page. Use on a show's page is generally not allowed. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Masem. Is there any way the image can be "saved" for that particular article by adding a non-free use rationale or is removal the only option? I am asking this because the first I time I removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" I was told it was vandalism and that I should have discussed it beforehand. I thought removing such images was acceptable per WP:NFCCE, but I will refrain from unilaterally doing so in the future if it is considered to be vandalism or otherwise inappropriate.
With respect to "Angie Watts", I have also been told that it was inappropriate for me to bring up the image for discussion because it shows poor judgement and may be interpreted as being done out of malice/retribution. That was not my rationale at all, but if it is inappropriate for me to remove the image or even further discuss it, then please let me know and I will refrain from doing so. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
One could technically add a rational for the use of the image on the Wimbledon Manor House page which would meet NFCC#10c, but NFCC#8 would still be an issue. And since this is a second use where the first use is generally okay, this board is the right board to discuss it. And while there can potentially be seen as issues of biting back, NFC always must be dealt with when there are problems, so it's arguably okay to do that here. But keep in mind that consistently going after images of a specific user or the like might be seen in the larger picture as being a battleground mentality, but that's not an issue we deal with here. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood Masem. Thanks for the feedback. It was not trying to "go after the images of any specific editor", but I will avoid editing that particular page any further so as to not give the wrong impression. I will leave it up to others to remove the image if such a thing is deemed necessary. What is the best thing to do when coming across a non-free image being used in an article without the proper non-free rationale? Simply adding a rationale just for the sake of adding a rationale does not seem appropriate. Is there a template that should be used to tag the image or article to indicate that a problem exists which needs (immediate) attention? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"I have previously removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" per "WP:NFCC#10c" and WP:NFCCE, but this removal was questioned by editor Roganjosh3".That is a blatant and total lie. Your own talk page proves that. You removed the picture on the basis that it had no fair use rationale, I replaced it on the basis that it was out of copyright anyway which you accepted, this was done without any debate any questioning or any comment. At no point did you A)even give me the opportunity to discuss it, before you removed it B)I did not question your deletion. C)You have then entered a discussion accusing me of all sorts of nonsense about indirect criticism, which is tantamount to trolling bearing in mind its inappropriateness on that file and on that discussion and at that juncture. D)You are asking here about appropriate action yet in your diatribe response on the first image possibly unfree page, you show no such meekness in expressing your certainty over the rules. E)I am horrified that after you have deleted dozens of the same ilk images for the same reason, you now have the barefaced cheek to ask how to do the job properly. Isn't that something you should have found out before you went on your deletion spree? Your attempt to start a deletion on this image at this juncture bearing in mind the atmosphere and debate over the other image at this present moment in time, is nothing short of deliberately inflamatory and provocative and more than likely motivated by malice and retribution. You also seem to be trying to elicit sympathy and consequently recruitment of others against me, with the use of a totally different tone to the one you have used towards me on the other discussion. I ask you now to desist your persecution of me or this will become a very serious matter.Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless of anything else, and any past discussions, a non-free image of a living person can never be used to illustrate an article about a house that they lived in. As such I have removed the image of Angie Watts from the article about the house.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me, where exactly here does it show that I questioned your removal of the coat of arms???????

File:GE Turboencabulator pg 1.jpg[edit]

Also affected: File:GE Turboencabulator pg 2.jpg.

Any chance that this was renewed 28 years after it was published? Seems unlikely to me. Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We'd need to check the affirmed publication, the GE Handbook (based on the linked source page). Yes, unlikely but we need to affirm that. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Tagged for CSD as freely replaceable. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The subject of the photo is still alive and there could be a free image available or made. Additionally, this image is watermarked. I don't see how we can keep this image or use it in the infobox of the subject's article. Dismas|(talk) 04:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:AA Logo.GIF[edit]

Is it acceptable to use the logo of the AA cycling team in articles about specific articles about individual seasons? I removed the image from 2011 AA season and 2012 AA season because the file did not have a separate, specific nfu rationale for either article. I can add the rationale, and then re-add the image to the articles if that's all that is needed to comply with the NFCCP.

In addition to the logo, there is also File:AA jersey 2011.jpg being used in all three of the aforementioned articles even though it only has a nfu rationale for "AA". Once again, I can create the nfu rationales for the other two articles, but the logo and jersey convey essentially the same information so I am not sure if this OK per WP:NFCC#3a. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be used for individual seasons per WP:NFC#UUI#14. It's fine to illustrate the article on the team, but not their individual seasons. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. What about the jersey file? Is this also acceptable for the team page, but unacceptable for the individual season pages? Does the same reasoning also apply to logos of sports organizations? Is it, for example, acceptable to use File:A-League NYL logo.png in National Youth League (Australia), but not acceptable to use in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League? I originally removed the file from the season page because it did not have a nfu rationale. Earlier today, I created a nfu rationale and re-added the file to the season page. Should I now go back and undo my undo per "WP:NFC#UUI#14"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, yes, these are all poor re-uses of logos. The one allowance we do make is that if a new logo/jersey/whatever is used in a particular season, it is fine to include that new logo on that season (presuming that the change is discussed in text). --MASEM (t) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


First question, is it actually non-free? The description says it was adopted in 1929, in which case it might be public domain. This flag is used in seven different articles and if it is subject to copyright protection, the only one in which it is at all appropriate is Charlotte, North Carolina. B (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Elsie Estrada.JPEG[edit]

Image deleted under WP:CSD#F7 as replaceable fair use --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Non-free image of living person Wcam (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Removed from the one article it was in, tagged as {{rfu}} and {{orfud}}. Uploader notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:TV2 logo 1980s.svg[edit]

Any thoughts on whether this is copyrightable? The similar File:TV1 logo 1980s.svg is tagged as not copyrightable. Both are used in Template:SVT Nyheter and so in some way the disconnect needs to be resolved. If they are copyrightable, they need to be removed from the template. If they are not copyrightable, then this image description page needs to be updated accordingly. B (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@B: Ineligible for copyright protection in the United States in my opinion, since the logo only consists of simple geometric shapes, i.e. three colored lines. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg[edit]

I would like more views on whether this meets WP:NFCC in all the articles in which it is used. Specifically I am concerned with respect for commercial opportunities, and whether the image actually adds to readers' understanding. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You could try and describe the picture and how it fits into an iconic scene in Dr. No as prose, but it would be rambling, disputed, non-neutral and steer dangerously close to soft porn. What commercial opportunities do you think are being exploited here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Images like this wikipedia should make agreements with the film producers over and be able to freely use. The image is very important to the reader's understanding and it's a scaled down one at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that the image already has an article devoted to it at White bikini of Ursula Andress, references to the image would need to be made via links to that article rather than display of the image itself. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. I've removed the image from Bond girl, replacing it with the free license image File:MuralBondGirls.png which was already on the article. I've removed two rationales from the image description page for articles where the image was not used (Bikini and History of the bikini) and for which a valid rationale could not be given, per NFC #6 above. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the only two places this image can be used is on the character's page and on the bikini page (though I would argue the latter could be merged into the former, but that's not the place for that). Links to the image from other articles are sufficient per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


Looking at the article, the cover doesn't seem necessarily to communicate to readers that the show made the cover of the magazine. Mosmof (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree; not required. Remove/Delete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Salt Of The Earth Poster.jpg[edit]

There is no discussion of the poster in the Jencks Act article, and the film isn't even discussed in the article. I've removed it once, for failing NFCC #8, but was reverted per A E Francis. Further feedback requested.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The poster provides context to the larger story of Jencks, the Jencks Act and his life. A E Francis (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • First, there's no rationale for it's inclusion at Jencks Act, which fails WP:NFCC #10c. Second, it fails WP:NFCC #8 in that the image on Jencks Act has no contextual significance. The cover is not discussed, much less in a meaningful way, and its omission does nothing to limit the user's understanding of the article. The article already links to Salt of the Earth (1954 film), where the image is clearly displayed in the infobox. I am removing the image from Jencks Act. Please do not restore it. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images in 2022 FIFA World Cup[edit]

This article contains too many non-free images of future stadiums which is probably unnecessary. --Wcam (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • All of the proposed stadium artist renderings need to go (and I'll likely remove them myself if I find time). Most of them fail WP:NFCC #10c, lacking a rationale for the use here, and the ones that do have a rationale saying the purpose is "illustration". If that's a sufficient rationale, we can use non-free images all over the place with no problems whatsoever. I.e., it's a vacuous rationale. More importantly, the stadium images all fail WP:NFG and also fail Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. The logo of the event, in the infobox, is fine and justified.--Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since all the stadiums have separate articles the images are appropriate on those separate pages but not on this one. Once the stadiums are constructed free images of them can be dropped into the world cup article, but not now. --MASEM (t)

I've removed the artist renderings of the future stadiums. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg[edit]

Non-free image of Franklin is being used in University of Cambridge#Notable alumni and academics. File does not have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. An appropriate nfur for the Cambridge article can be added, but I'm not quite sure if the file satisfies WP:NFCC#8 as well as possibly No. 4 of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFG. I'm interested in hearing what others think. For reference, a question about the non-free use of the file was asked at Talk:University of Cambridge#Rosalind Franklin. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It is just being used for decoration in University of Cambridge. The article mentions her, but the image is not referenced nor needed to understand they are referring to Rosalind Franklin. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hammersoft. I thought that was probably the case, but just wanted to know if other editors felt the same way. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)