Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media files without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page.

Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

Note that this page should be used for:

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

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

How to nominate[edit]

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

  • For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO.
  • For media files, such as images, sounds and movies, add the {{Non-free review}} template to the file's page. If your question is about the selection of non-free files for an article, post a message on the talk page linking here.
  • 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.

Notes[edit]

  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

Contents

Last Christmas[edit]

I don't think that we need nine different covers. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the song covers appear notable, so the additional covers are over excessive. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez .jpg[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#10c and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. In the EXIF, it says "CNS file photo". What exactly is CNS? Is CNS one organisation of the kind which is mentioned in WP:NFC#UUI §7? Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CNS appears to be http://www.catholicnews.com , a newspaper/website, but not a press agency, so no NFCC#2 issues. Agreed that only one use can be justified (on the page about that person). --MASEM (t) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Total Drama (season 5) episodes[edit]

See WP:NFCC#3a: we don't need need two pictures of similar islands here. I'm not convinced that we even need one image, as referring to Total Drama Island (which contains one of the images) should be sufficient. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that both images are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Football Association of Malaysia crest.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §19: the teams are sub-entities of the Football Association of Malaysia. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed on the main organization article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:University of Pittsburgh Seal (official).svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 on multiple pages. This should only be used in University of Pittsburgh. Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed on the mains school article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The logo is only justifiable for the main article, because the other articles cover subdivisions and campuses of the same institution. Green Giant (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Indy Lights[edit]

The two extra logos are not needed here. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See no discussion of such historic logos, so appropriate to remove. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes" (David Bowie song)[edit]

I'm not convinced that the two extra covers are needed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Aussie cover definitely is not needed. The X Factor is near the edge, but for now for me would fail as the single is just at the cusp of its own notability. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:San Antonio Spurs.svg[edit]

Used twice in the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The overall article San Antonio Spurs has historical logo problems. I see no justification for any of the logos in the history section. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that some of the images in the article San Antonio Spurs are listed at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:TheTrainLine.png[edit]

Incorrect non-free claim: this is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed it. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Now incorrectly tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. You also removed the source information and description from the FUR template. Please don't do that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew logo.gif[edit]

Seems to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So why bring it up here? I've changed it, it's obvious PD-logo. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Now incorrectly tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. You also removed the source information and description from the FUR template. Please don't do that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Daniel Defense Logo.gif[edit]

This is {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Obvious PD-logo, fixed. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You also removed the source information and description from the FUR template. Please don't do that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

20th-century Western painting#Neue Sachlichkeit, Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism[edit]

The section contains some free images, so it is clear that free images of this kind exist. The non-free images should therefore be removed from the section for violation of WP:NFCC#1. The section additionally violates WP:NFG (non-free images are used in a gallery), WP:NFCC#3a (there are too many non-free images) and WP:NFCC#8 (there is no sourced critical discussion about all of the images). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree generally with you, though because that era does cross the period where works would and would not be in copyright, I can see having a few examples that are non-free if they "fill out" the space properly. The problem stems from the fact that there's too many images period (free and non-free) on that page; the galleries completely unnecessary given each period has more discussion in a separate article, which if done right would reduce non-free appropriately. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is WP:NFC#UUI §6 which implies that you should link to articles about paintings instead of including dozens of them. Some of the paintings have articles, for example Guernica (painting). It should be possible to find sufficiently many paintings which have their own articles so that use of non-free images can be avoided completely in this section by simply linking to those articles. Even linking to the articles about painters should do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm removing 3 images - Guernica stays - established after long discussion - this is one of the most important paintings of the 20th century and belongs in the article...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is still no tangible evidence that the article Guernica (painting) doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Until such evidence has been provided, the image has to be assumed to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It was agreed and determined that Guernica remain included in the article. See the discussion here: [1]...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreements should be honored; and there is this discussion from 2008 as well:[2]...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, consensus can change, however, I have not yet reviewed these previous discussions in detail yet for this case. Just that even thought it was discussed before, the situation might have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are currently eight images in that gallery. I don't see that as an issue right now. I think there is an evolution in style at this point in history that you can see very well demonstrated on this page. One almost doesn't even have to read, but scroll to get a quick education on changing styles for this period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Three of the eight paintings in the gallery are non-free, and that's a problem. The apparent justification for their inclusion is becuase the painter's name or the school is mentioned in the text but not the painting itself. (This is where Guernica should be fine , it's discussed in depth). I'm not expecting paragraphs on each painting, but a sourced statement like "X's Y is an example of (school)", so that we know other sources have identified that properly and thus making sense to represent at this higher-level article. One has to remember that subarticle can go into more details on specifics, and what's surprising is that some of them don't, for example Neue_Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) has all of two painting images in it. This is where one have more freedom to include more non-free to describe the movement in more detail. This is an example of how the structure of the articles needs to be fixed to keep using all the examples but use them in the best, most specific places rather than front-loading the high-level articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see where much of what you say makes sense, however I am still not clear what is the exact problem with the NF images are, even having three. Please be specific as I think you may have a point, just that I am not seeing it right now. Is it your point that there is a more suitable location for the NF images and that this page is not it or that the amount alone is just wrong? The last sentence is a bit confusing to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For the most part, that is a good summary. Guernica is talked about and seems appropriate, but the others are not identified as critical examples of these types of styles. As notable works, or major examples of the specific artists, there's a better location for these to clearly be had for meeting NFCC#8 contextual significant, and only the most significant examples should bubble up to the higher level articles (for example Dali's Persistence of Memory is clearly one of those as a prime example of surrealism so not only would NFC of it own its own article and on Dali's, but it can clearly be shown as the ur example of Surrealism, and would be a good representation of that on the overall History of Painting article. The 3 non-frees in this case, I don't see that type of importance given. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the 3 NF images yesterday - Max Beckmann, Stuart Davis And Georgia O'Keeffe and all remaining images are PD, with the exception of the Picasso. If I re-add those artists I will certainly include detailed written descriptives giving context as to why they are included...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of micronations[edit]

All of the non-free files violate WP:NFCC#10c and should be removed from the page per WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, none of the flags are necessary at all on this page. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pale Shelter[edit]

Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Because of two different recordings? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Violation of WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFTABLE. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to see the seals of the various corps/divisions in the table. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, in this case. The tables are simple and have little content and seem to almost be made to show the non free badges/seals.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:WilliamsMedicalSuppliesLogo.jpg[edit]

Doesn't look copyrightable. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, essentially just letters and lines. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Smallmalogo.jpg[edit]

Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Typefaces except for the vertical line and the 'A', which together probably don't push above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that A as possibly having enough originality as it seems to be an eagle with clawed feet...but again, it is so simple it could be consider geometric shapes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The "A" stands out but it is too simple a design to be considered original. Green Giant (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Ripped GregKot bookcover.jpg[edit]

Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably...not sure. Could be simple typeface and geometric shapes but it is a little small to tell if there is any real design elements in it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Without the 'handwriting' style letters almost certainly ineligible for US copyright in my opinion. If the handwriting is regarded as an artistic element, that might push it above TOO as I don't think the writing could be considered de minimis on this cover. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Milly Dowler.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Murder of Milly Dowler. Fails WP:NFCC#9. Potentially sourced to Press Association, but the source is unclear, so might violate WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Images of people almost never pass due to replaceable with a free image and I am not seeing any reason to see differently here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe this is a family photo which was provided to the press when she went missing, so unless there is evidence of a transfer of rights I think the copyright probably belongs to her parents. There will never be a free image unless her family decide to release more family photos of her. The photo is appropriate for the article about her murder but nowhere else. Green Giant (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:JMicron logo resized.jpg[edit]

Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple typefaces and geometric shapes. Not copyrightable.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Gen Con logo.svg[edit]

Is this copyrightable? Note that it is an SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. No it is not. Use of a typefaces and geometric shapes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Where does the SVG come from? The comment suggests the SVG source is copyrighted and so this might be a violation of WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe the summary states that the original file was not an SVG and that the uploader had to convert it using adobe photshop: "The image was originally provided in EPS form, but was converted to SVG using Adobe Illustrator 10.". So the vector art is copyright of the uploader here on Wikipedia I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
EPS to SVG is a fundamental conversion akin to simple calculation or a strict 2D reproduction and thus you cannot claim copyright on the final work. The original logo is clearly PD-text and thus the final is PD-text. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Could the SVG source be copyrighted by the uploader? I assumed copyright in the SVG source is independent of the copyright in the work, no. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If they did a straight EPS (which is a human-readable machine language) to SVG (also a human-readable machine language) with a conversion tool from Illustrator, there's no way they can claim copyright on the source since they did no work at all. It is possible (however case law is not firm on this!) that the SVG code of an SVG file is a separate copyright from the image it produces, and if this was the case that the user created their own SVG file, they would need to make sure they put the SVG code as a free license even if the image it created was non-free. Here, because the initial logo is free, there is zero reason for use to have anything non-free related to this. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Good question and good reply. I had not thought to check to see if the meta data could even tell whether this was done with automation or was a hand made SVG file. Excellent points for future reference! (if the meta data can show this)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Filmfarevyjayanthi.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 criteria as not importance/relevance is provided. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No discussion at all of the importance of the cover (the article already has a representative cover for use), remove. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:FilmfareDev1963.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 criteria as not importance/relevance is provided. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No discussion at all of the importance of the cover (the article already has a representative cover for use), remove. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:RCA cap badge.jpg[edit]

The file had been removed by me from 26th Field Artillery Regiment (Canada) here. It was restored by Kprtqrf06 without explanation, and more important, without providing a rationale here. Currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in six articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove from all but Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery; no rationale for the others and per logo use, wouldn't be appropriate in those articles as well --MASEM (t) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song)[edit]

There is more than one cover for English version. George Ho (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lauren Barnigan cover song would be notable on its own (though as per our convention cover songs are kept with the original save in unique cases), so this cover is fine. The cover of the other covered version is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You mean the 2004 remix? --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, specifically, the cover of the 2004 remix is not needed, but her early recording's cover is fine. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Bible adventures.jpg[edit]

In Nintendo Entertainment System, the image is used to illustrate the different visual appearance of unlicensed games. In this role, the image is replaceable by a free image with the non-free label blurred or blacked out. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the usage in Wisdom Tree is problematic for the same reasons. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, the usage in Bible Adventures is problematic under WP:NFCC#3, the non-free cover art already appears in the article. To illustrate the different colors of cartridges, the label could be blacked out or blurred to create a free image, which can serve as a replacement under WP:NFCC#1.

Additionally, I nominate File:Bibleadv.gif since it has the same problems, in addition to a missing non-free use rationale in Bible Adventures. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Except...the artwork is indeed copyrightable, therefore just blurring the label would not make it a free image.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes it would - plenty of free images are made by blurring out non-essential, copyrighted parts. But there's another option too. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
To show bootlegged/unlicensed NES games which had radically different cards, a picture of the game mostly on it's side - the label still in shot but very askew, could be made and in that situation the cover art would be not a problem in a de minimus manner (the cart shape is not copyrighted), so a free image of this cart can be taken. Yes the cart is rare but not impossibly so. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Clothespin-oldenberg.jpg[edit]

User:Wittylama changed {{PD-US-no notice}} into {{Non-free 3D art}}. Unclear why. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This image was taken in 2009. The PD tag was incorrectly places as it is trying to refer to the sculpture that is the subject of the image. I've been creating this article in the last couple of days List of works by Oldenburg and van Bruggen so I've been looking at all their artworks. I note that most of his public sculptures are located in the USA and all are still copyrighted. Therefore, Freedom of Panorama rules apply... Since the US doesn't have FoP for public art, this image needs to claim Fair Use to be used in the specific article about the sculpture that it represents - Clothespin (Oldenburg). If you look at the file page's history you'll see that it originally had a Fair Use rationale but it was lost along the way when a different version of the file was uploaded [3]
I note that another, equivalent article, of a different sculpture by the same artist that is also in the USA uses Fair Use for its lead image (see Typewriter Eraser, Scale X). However the image in a third article Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks doesn't, and should. If you're ok with it, I'll change the license on that 'lipstick' to Fair Use too. Wittylama 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Photographs of fixed art in the US are not covered by freedom of panorama. This was installed in 1976 so one has to prove that there was no copyright resigstered for the work to assure it has fallen out into PD. (If there was, it's copyright for 95 years from '76). So the switch to the non-free tag is proper until we can verify the lack of copyright notice. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The artist most certainly did claim copyright in the work (official website, for example) - and still does, aggressively so (see this successful DMCA takedown notice to the WMF). On the basis of your comment Masem I will also go ahead and place a Fair Use tag on File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg which is in exactly the same circumstances.
Relatedly, you might be interested in a deletion notice I've just put on this image File:San Francisco - Rincon Park.jpg (and implied requested deletion for the other two similar images in the same category]] as it falls under the same FoP rules but has been put on Commons where non-free media is not allowed. I would appreciate your commenting there too. Wittylama 16:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Especially if lawyers for the original artist are fighting copyright claims, we should not presume just due to their installation dates and apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted. Better to play it safe with tagging non-free until we can clearly assert that they should be PD. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The clothespin sculpture has a copyright record from June 1976 (GP112935, see online database), the fair-use tag appears to be necessary here. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've now updated File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to have the same Fair Use rational - to illustrate the article about the artwork it features. As to your point that there is an "apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted", I don't know how the sculptor could assert their copyright any more strongly. What makes you think they have not? Wittylama 16:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend adding that copyright registration number if we know it exists to the file page. (I do not know if we have a template for that and if we don't we should have one and encourage editors to use it for such works). --MASEM (t) 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter if copyright was registered or not. The only thing to find out is whether there was a copyright notice there before 1978. I assume that both User:Slowking4 and User:Missvain checked this before uploading the image. Additionally, there used to be a link to SIRIS which mentions no inscription, but User:Wittylama removed that link for some reason. If no inscription is mentioned in SIRIS, then there is usually none there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the notice was there when the sculpture was installed 1976 but was removed at some point after 1977, then the image is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Because the route to show the slim chance this is free requires working very tightly within what is required in copyright law, and that we know that the agencies representing the copyright holder are legal hawks, then it is better for us to assume non-free unless we have the crystal clear evidence that it absolutely is in the public domain. It does not sound like we have this, so let's treat is as non-free. The image still can be used (the sculpture notable) but just limited pretty much to that page. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - the balance of probabilities strongly suggests that this this file is non-free even though there is an obscure reason why it might be possible that it is. Furthermore, as mentioned, the fact that lawyers representing the artist have previously (successfully) filed DMCA takedowns for other images on Commons means that the artist definitely cares about this topic. Using the consensus reached here I also changed File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to Fair Use (diff) as it an equivalent situation. However, Stefan2 reverted this change (diff) citing a debate about this image in 2013 which was seeking overt proof that the artist claimed copyright on the work. The decision back then was to leave the file as a free image, not a Fair Use one. I would like to challenge that decision and re-open the discussion. Can that be done here? Wittylama 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If you dispute the previous PUF closure, consider starting a new PUF discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading that PUF, I believe that was closed wrong. We are always to take the extremely careful route of not assuming free unless proof is given, and the fact whether there was a copyright notice installed alongside the work to start was never resolved in that discussion. The close to keep as free is inappropriate for our stance and how we treat other works. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've taken your advice Stefan2 and created a new PUF discussion for the lipstick image at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_August_28. Sincerely, Wittylama 14:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. I would suggest you leave it as a non-free use, but, I can't confirm the a copyright on this work as I live no where near Philadelphia and won't be there anytime soon and wasn't able to be "that close" to the work as I was in the past with other pieces. I'm not familiar with him copyrighting his work directly on each piece. Oldenburg did copyright all of his work, though, or at least, his estate claims it. We have been had hiccups with his works on Commons before, as you can see with this email between his estate and WMF [4]. However, 99.5% of the time SIRIS database and the SOS! evaluations DO mention it. I think we should ping User:RichardMcCoy, one of my public art colleagues about this if you are still concerned. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:SAU Athletics logo.png[edit]

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

File:Central Junior A.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's fine on the make CCHJ page, and it might be okay on the one season page where the new logo was introduced, but not on the rest of the pages. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Disney Channel. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only appropriate on the one page. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. - Fma12 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vodafone logo.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, excessive use. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:RPN9-9TV 2014 logo.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Syd.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a failure there. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:One More Try.jpg[edit]

If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: [5] which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen[edit]

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png[edit]

See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. There was a "C" too much. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SL Benfica logo.svg[edit]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FC Porto.svg[edit]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Viasat Sport (Sweden)[edit]

Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FedEx Cup.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:England, Half English.jpg[edit]

Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

University of Sydney logos[edit]

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Monster (song)[edit]

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Henderson's Boys[edit]

There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)