Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg

The file has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:13, 12 March 2013 (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.

File violates NFCC#8 ("Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."), NFCC#4 (has no previous publication) and NFCC#3b, the image currently is 3,246 × 2,111 pixels which doesn't count as minimal use. The NFCC#8 violation is that the image shows a group of unrecognisable people on a location that could frankly be anywhere. It doesn't add zilch to the understanding of the subject, an island, or even to the understanding that Americans lived there. Fram (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a reasonable possibility that the copyright for this image has expired, if the image had been published roughly at the time it was taken. However, if the publication was the first publication of this image ever (which seems likely), then the image might still be copyrighted. The image can also be found at here, which seems to be the source specified in the image rationale. If that was the first publication, then it would be important to know under which license the image on Familypedia is. The image page over there doesn't contain any statement about the license. This seems to imply that users submitting images retain the copyright to those images. If Familypedia is the first publication of the image, then it seems the image is still under copyright, in which case the use in Isla de la Juventud violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that this file also is being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 29#File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg where no one has been able to prove that the image has been published. The one who uploaded wikia:familypedia:File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg seems to be the same person as the one who uploaded the image to Wikipedia, but there is no evidence that he is the copyright holder. It is possibly that everyone on the photo got a copy of the photo and the photo does not necessarily come from the photographer's heirs. It might also come from the heirs of one or more of the people on the photo. The photo is sourced to "the collection of J. T. Narrin", implying that the uploader to Wikia isn't the copyright holder. Looks like a family photo which could easily have remained in a drawer without being published for ages. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the image should be speedily deleted. I am not really sure whether WP:CSD#F7 really applies here or not. Maybe it should be tagged with {{subst:dfu}} per the 4th bullet point under F7. If not, then it should be removed from Isla de la Juventud per WP:NFCCE for violating both NFCC#4 and 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:53, 31 January 2013 (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:Krungthep Mahanakhon sample.ogg

Not sure how this should be decided, so I'm seeking others' opinions; thank you. (Note: I removed the file from the article. It used to be here.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Original comment by me:[1]

I believe the use of this audio clip in the Bangkok article fails WP:NFCC #8. The primary subject being discussed is neither the song nor the artist, but the name of the city which is featured in the song. The lack of this file will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. --Paul_012 (talk)

Response by Sam:[2]

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:NFCC that restricts use of a non-free samples to just articles about the work that has been sampled. I believe that it meets the criteria #8: :"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Contextual significance means that the sample makes a contribution in the context in which it is being used. The Bangkok article has an entire section devoted to explain how unusual the full name of the city of Bankok is, and the song is very relevant and helps the reader understand the subject better. If not unique, it is very, very unusual for a songs lyric to consist IN ITS ENTIRETY of just the name of a place. That is all that the songs lyric contains, repeated over and over and over, and it is the song that is responsible for most of the occupants being able to remember the name of their city. So the name of the city, the name of the song, and the song itself are all connected, and best discussed where it is.

It seems as though you would not object to the sample being in an article about the song. I don't know if there is really any need to write an article just about the song. There is not much more to say about it than has been said in the article about Bangkok. If in the future, it was to have its own article, then the use of the sample could be moved there and the song could be linked from the Bangkok article. I don't think it should matter either way. I find both uses acceptable and don't understand how it would be acceptable in one use and not in the other.

I don't claim to be an expert on fair use, and I tend to be liberal in my interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, so I willing to discuss this further and perhaps see how my interpretation is in error. If there is some relevant guideline or discussion that explains your objections in more detail, I'd like to see it. But for now, I think the tag should be removed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Stanfield Wells.jpg

Delete under CSD F5 as an unused fair use image. If someone can prove it was published and wants it undeleted just contact me (or any other administrator willing to undelete if I'm not about). James086 ^Talk 19:10, 15 March 2013 (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 use of the image in 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team violates NFCC#10c and possibly 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image caption at 1909 Michigan Wolverines football team#Letter winners states the photo was taken in 1910. Given that according to File:Copyright term.svg (see also [3]) the duration of copyright protection would be 64 years, it seems to be PD (assuming US copyright law applies). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be PD. Since the Copyright Act of 1909 applies to that image, copyright term would be 28 years plus an additional renewal of another 28 years once, so PD since at least 1966. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two mistakes in your arguments. First, the copyright term depends on the year of first publication, not on the year of photography. There is no evidence that the photo has been published. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia upload might be the first publication ever. If that is the case, then the image needs to comply with Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished. Secondly, the second copyright term was extended. A few copyright acts which were passed between 1962 and 1976 extended the second term to 47 years for works published since 1904 (or something). Another copyright act was passed in 1998 which extended the second term to 67 years for works published since 1923. If the photo was published in 1909, then it is in the public domain, but if it was first published much later, or if it hasn't been published at all, then it may still be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the information at File:Stanfield Wells.jpg#Summary the photo is from the Wells Family Archive, which I guess is a private collection, so it seems likely that the image has indeed never been published. If that is the case, then for the image to be usable with Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished we need to know when the author died. If that is unknown, then I think it cannot be used as it clearly doesn't meet one of the other two conditions. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is in a private collection doesn't mean it hasn't been published. Most images in that era were done by professional photographers, especially those done for schools for team/school shots (just like today). Since that image was HIGHLY likely done by a professional photographer (given the angle, setting, lighting, posing, etc) and then given/sold to the family. As such, that IS publishing it and PD-1923 applies in spades. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, how is selling a photograph to someone publication? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The pre-1978 definition is very confusing. If I've understood things correctly, it is publication if the work is offered to the general public. It is unclear if the work is offered to the general public if just one copy is sold to the person ordering the photo to be taken. This has been discussed elsewhere a few times, and as far as I've understood, the answer is that no one knows how a US court would decide in this situation. Anyway, there is no information about the conditions under which the photo was taken, so we can't tell if this was taken by a commercial photographer or not, or whether it remained hidden in the photographer's home forever. Thus, we should treat the image as unpublished unless more information is found. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  - If we treat it as unpublished, then its use on Wikipedia violates NFCC#4, in which case the image should be deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, this seems to possibly violate NFCC#1 since there is this free image on Commons. It seems to be from another year, so I am not sure whether it is a suitable replacement or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Move to commons as PD 1923. I just replaced the image in both articles with the commons one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If the image hasn't been published, then it cannot be in the public domain. Unless we have a prove this has been published, it should be deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Or unless we have a proof that the copyright holder waived its rights in the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:36, 13 February 2013 (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.

Multiple images at Nude (art)

Article edited as suggested, also no comments here for a month. FigureArtist (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2013 (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 entire article has been reformatted so that images directly relate to text, rather than being in galleries. This change came as a result of making the Modern and Contemporary sections comment directly on the two images. This made those sections out of balance, so I revised all; and added a new Issues section to supplement the History.

These two non free images

are in a gallery at Nude (art) but not the subject of critical commentary, for which they must be seen for said commentary to be understood (i.e. NFCC #8). I have removed them twice and twice been reverted. In my hopes to bring these art articles in full compliance with the NFCC, I request a review of the use of these two images in the above linked articles (neither file will require deletion in the event they are removed from the article in question, as they are used elsewhere). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Nude is a genre of art (not merely a subject) which has spanned the entire history of art from cave paintings to the present. Art objects are unique, and cannot be expressed in words. I added the two images to complete the article's coverage of the topic with regard to two of the more important periods in modern art, the DeKooning for Abstract Expressionism and the Freud for Post-Modern, and there is specific mention in the final section of how these works fit into the history of the genre. Thus, inclusion "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".FigureArtist (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Woman III, we should follow WP:NFC where it says: "Unacceptable use: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" because the article Woman III exists. The rationale here is an extension of the idea of substanitally adding. It cannot substantially add where the alternative is to link to a page with the image on that gives additional information. In other words, there is too little between [(a) and (b) added for clarity only] (a) a body of text describing the image and linking to a page all about it and (b) all that with the addition of the image itself to justify the non-free work. it should also be removed from many if it all its other uses. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I note this is also true of Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, which we also have an article about. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The effect of this interpretation would be that there would be no modern images in many articles on genres, periods, and movements in art. Any work used in such articles would be likely sufficiently noteworthy as to have either its own article or a section in the artist's article, as these do. Yet the discussion a works significance compared to other works is greatly enhanced by having those images on the same page, not merely links. If the current text in an article is too thin for a fair use rationale, the solution is to add to the text, not delete the image.FigureArtist (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The text already asserts that the nude art form has diminished in modern times, and ergo just because it exists we don't need to illustrate it. At the same time, the selected images themselves have no discussion in the text. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the images in context, I see no gain in understanding that is not already present from all the other examples (free) already given. The only one that might be possible would be Woman III on the concept of abstract nude art, but there's no discussion on that at all to indiciate it is a major facet of that field. Ergo, they are absolutely unnecessary. (I know in similar discussions from History of Painting, that we can't readily talk about contemporary art without non-free galleries so there's some acceptance there, but here, there's nothing to distinguish the newer works from the older ones, we can demonstrate the art of nude works in the 20th-21st century with existing free works.) --MASEM (t) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone thinks the DeKooning and Freud are not significantly different than the other images, we are not looking at the same thing. I am trying to make the point (based mainly on the cited reference) that the nude has undergone significant shifts in interpretation and popularity in the 20th century, but has not disappeared. I cannot do that if history ends 70 years ago. I also do not understand the continued insistence that the works are not discussed, since they are. Perhaps a single reference is not sufficient, but I do not need more precisely because the images are there, and cannot be described in words.FigureArtist (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nude art is nude art. The only points that I'm seeing that might be of discussion for images for modern era nude art is the abstract movement, and nudes of heavier-set models. On the former, why not use Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (which is free and Picasso, and ergo a perfect abstract demonstration)? Sure, its 1907, but there's very little difference between it and the 1953 Woman III in showing abstract nude art. This leaves the question of "Benefits..." but given that the style, on a broad "history of nude art" stroke, is not very different from previous works, the only real difference is the use of an obese woman, but that really doesn't help the reader understand the article any further. I appreciate that you are worried about works spanning the "era", but if free, older examples do the same job to illustrate the broad trends of non-free newer ones, we go with the free versions. (Consider in History of Painting where there are breakdowns of newer trends that fully exist within the period where we would have to consider most works likely copyrighted , eg post 1923 - there no free media could ever replace the non-free.) --MASEM (t) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a Cubist is equivalent to an Abstract Expressionist separated by almost fifty years, and that 'Benefits Manager' is just a fat nude is exactly the limited understanding that this article is intended to correct. The statement "Nude art is nude art" indicates that this lesson is lost upon you. I see that the images have been removed again. Is this the practice when discussions are ongoing? Content is created by those that understand the topic of the article. Having those that do not understand remove content for other reasons is frustrating. FigureArtist (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, editors shouldn't be edit warring over inclusion - NFCC#8 enforcement is not a justification to edit war. (I'm not doing it, obviously). As to the point, the article doesn't explain these differences. To my non-art-history eye, abstract is abstract. I'm sure the specific details between the schools of art are important, but there's no statement to this relevance here. As this is meant as a survey page - where I believe a spot check shows most of the images have stand alone articles on them - it shouldn't be a matter of being academically correct if to the untrained eye, one image looks like another. Now if it is academically important that we should not mix up nude art done in the cubist style, and nude art done in the Expressionist style, then we're going to need more sourced text to support that, otherwise, a free image in the basic genre is suitable. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Or we're going to need editor consensus that what the images show is important, per the discussion three above. Jheald (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to note where UUI#6 came from. (Diff from August '07). The context was of an article like Bombing of Guernica that referred in a small subsection to the famous painting Guernica by Picasso. In that case, even though the painting is now perhaps the single most recalled thing about the topic, it was tangential to the historical account of what happened, which was perhaps the main focus the article, and so it made sense to discuss it separately. And I think this motivation can still be detected in the intermediate language of UUI#6 "to illustrate an article section about the image", before it was further smoothed to the present "to illustrate an article passage about the image" -- the idea being that this is a small section of the article specifically about this image, in the context of an article really not about art at all.
I see the present case as slightly different, in that what the article is trying to do is present a self-contained survey of the art down to the present time. Here, it seems to me that showing how artists who have been shaped by modern movements in art have responded to the subject of the nude in the light of that is very valuable to produce a properly balanced and rounded-out article -- so it's not a single stray section we're talking about that deals with something really quite severable from the main topic of the article; rather it's directly part of the main topic of the article, and to presenting it in a balanced way that is valuable to reader understanding.
So in this case, I think it does make sense to use our freedom to set UUI#6 to one side as guidance, and instead cleave to the policy, and consider that these two images do add something of particular qualitative value to the understanding conveyed by the article as a whole. Jheald (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue this under (strictly) UUI#6 but instead NFCC#1; my point is that there "modern" (as defined by the section breakouts of this article) examples of nude art that are free that show the points discussed in the text; it is just that they aren't from the latter half of the 20th century. The article makes no point how over the last 100+ years how the style of article has changed, just that the popularity of it has waned. The free examples (and suggested free replacements under NFCC#1) do a good job to represent the trends of the modern period of nude art. If there was a clear case where some post-1923 nude art style was significantly different from the pre-1923 works, then, hey, let's add the non-free necessary to support it, but that's not really a clear line supported by the text. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a paragraph that briefly compares several works of modern art and basically says "look at the difference". Several untrained eyes are saying there is no difference, but without any citation, which makes it an opinion.WP:NOR My text has a citation "Paint Made Flesh" by Mark Scala, which describes the changes in the art world regarding the human figure during the past 70 years, most of which could be lumped together as abstract. Frankly, that book has very little text because it is profusely illustrated. Images are part of the content of the article, so to remove content supported by even one citation in favor of content, or the lack thereof, that has no citation would also appear to violate WP:NPOV.FigureArtist (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that WP:NOR applies strictly to text on article pages, rather than discussions like this one, where editors are expected to bring their overall general knowledge, common sense, and gut instincts to bear -- though facts and citations and research and authoritative views can certainly shape them. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NOR does apply here in that WPians cannot introduce "discussion" on a non-free image that provides commentary and critique without a source, as that would be original research. EG, not done here, but one cannot say "Woman III for example is barely more than a rough line-art sketch but is still considered a work of nude art." without a source that provides that analysis. I think the sources are available to expand discussion based on titles, but I don't know for sure. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well to be more precise, they could say it here, but saying it in the article probably wouldn't last long.

I don't think expanding the text of the article is probably a good way to go. At the moment it is tight, and well-balanced. Neither of those two qualities should be jeopardised. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All that I'm asking for is probably a sentence's worth of additional text, some replacing existing text. Again, for the abstract nude art, the line "which can hardly be called nudes", could be replaced with a mention the deconstruction in cases like Woman III. Not a whole dissertation, but just tighter language to make understand that "oh, I see why the two abstact works are considered different approaches to nude art" - which increases comprehension and thus meeting NFCC#8 cleanly. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can only give a personal response, but I think it does add something important to the balance of the article, to show two particularly high-profile examples of how the nude has been addressed in the post-war modern art period, and by a recent contemporary artist particularly celebrated for his work in this area, both doing things that really would not have been done at any other time. I think it is particularly valuable to show a work that has been done now, or almost now. I also think Woman III is valuable, in that the degree of stylization goes much further beyond what you see in Les Demoiselles d'Avignon or the Modigliani nude, and is much more alienating, yet also raw. So I think these two images are both contributing something very distinctive to the survey, that I think even the most general reader probably does pick something up from, that they wouldn't without them. Jheald (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

More importantly compared to the above case of the comic artist, we cannot just drop in non-free use without any context to them and let the reader decide their contextual significance, per NFCC#8. We're missing any discussion to suggest that "post-war" (I'll use 1923 since that's usually the line where copyright is an issue) that approach to nude art was different than before. Mind you, in just double checking the article, I see "The Rejection of Beauty in Twentieth-century Art" listed as a reference, but not cited. This, just on title alone, would be the type of thing to mention support for art on unidealized body types and thus fully justifying the "Benefits..." image.

But again a lot relies on NFCC#1, of free equivalent. As long as one agrees that Picasso's version is showing abstract nude art - as described - just as the Woman III does, then the free version should be used over the non-free. That said, again, looking at the text, there's this line "which can hardly be called nudes", a sourced line from Scala's work, which might be expanded on to explain to better explain the deconstruction while still being consider nude art. If that were the case, I'd consider that sufficient justification to include Woman III along side the Picasso, to show a couple different abstract styles. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is what we as the community of editors thinks adds significantly to reader understanding. There's no requirement for things to have to be spelled out in the article in an utterly Lord Privy Seal style. Pointers in the article can be a good thing (sometimes), but they are not strictly required. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For free images there's certainly no requirement, though we do ask editors to avoid excessive addition or images with little relevance. Non-free media purposely requires more consideration as in the case here, and image must show relevance to the article, most often determined by direct discussion of the image in question. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I will go back to Scala to expand the text, since he specifically addresses both the post-WWII era and the Post-Modern. Also "Rejection of Beauty" but I did not cite that because it is pure artspeak, so my interpretation of the details, beyond the statement that the nude, but not beauty, is alive and well in the 21st century, would be suspect. This article needs the help of an art historian, which I am not, just an artist. However I have been in a gallery of Lucien Freud's work, and entire floor of DeKooning's work, both at MOMA.FigureArtist (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It does sound like you can write (again, not more than a sentence or so) to better justify the non-frees, so on good faith it makes sense to keep them. (Note that I did restore the images - just because they are nom'ed here at NFCR doesn't mean we should remove them, as sometimes it is necessary to see in context.) And as a note if you are able to do that, I would definitely add the above Picasso , since you've got two lines of gallery and some more spots you can fill up to balance. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. 5 fit nicely across 1 line on my laptop, and I quite like the 3+2 on my tablet rather than a regimented 3x2 grid. Also, fewer images probably focus the mind more on the ones that are there. But I'm happy to leave it to FigureArtist's call :-) Jheald (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I'm getting 4 across. Yeah, leave at discretion on good faith improvements to text. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FigureArtist appears to be ignoring the possibility of getting an OTRS ticket for works in the style discussed here. I've already left an example at the article's talk page. If he were to get at least one work released under OTRS, (s)he could get cake and eat it too. As for how the images are used, the article needs specific commentary for which the lack of these images would be detrimental to ones understanding. Remember that many people are not visual learners, so just saying "This is Cubist", "This is Dadaist", "This is impressionist", "This is postmodernist" is not enough for people to see the significance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unless we're sure the copyright owner will be willing to make an image free under OTRS (which we can only base on past uploads), obtaining a free image in this manner is not considered as a typically available option under NFCC#1. Yes, it is a nice option to try and great if we can get it, but we typically assume that this is not a consideration. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not know what OTRS was until now; I have only been editing since Oct 2012. Read some pages, not sure how it applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs)

Copyright owners can email a special mailing list with specific language that allows them to grant free license rights to their images. Many smaller copyright owners have no problem doing this, but larger ones will be very protective of their work. Hence, it's not really an option unless we know in the past the same copyright holder has released material under free licenses before. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

More or less as Masem says above. You'd be surprised at what people will donate. Anything from self-portraits by notable artists to video-game screenshots to product images to whole albums. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that all that is needed is a consensus that the article needs the images under fair use. Some already think it does, and I have made some simple edits that may sway others. If verbiage is needed equivalent to the other articles that currently use these images, it is certainly possible.FigureArtist (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not fair use, but our non-free content policy (which is purposely stricter than fair use), but that's the general idea. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting there, but right now the use of the image does not seem detrimental (after all, readers can just click the links). Perhaps more context could make it more in-line with the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2013 (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:Brigade SM insignia SADF.jpg

Violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I think you are being a bit pedantic and petty. The only reason for using a gallery is to improve the look and feel. removed from gallery - now it doesn't violate WP:NFG Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:WO of the Navy SADF insignia.jpg

Violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I think you are being a bit pedantic and petty. The only reason for using a gallery is to improve the look and feel. removed from gallery - now it doesn't violate WP:NFG Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:SA Navy midshipman.jpg

Violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't give up do you Stefan. This rank insignia is similar to all the others that you nominated for deletion and that were marked as keep. At the time the concensus was that the use of the images in the table was acceptable. Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

in case you have forgotten - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_September_3#File:SA_Army_General_rank.jpg Gbawden (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely: look at that discussion. Absolutely no one provided a valid reason according to any policy to keep the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect, it doesn't matter if it violates WP:NFG. NFG has no standing in regards to rank articles; it's been superseded by overwhelming weight of editors who have refused to accept it on rank articles, and therefore forms a silent consensus that NFG does not apply there. Plenty of examples abound; Australian Army officer rank insignia, Canadian Forces ranks and insignia, Orders, decorations, and medals of the Philippines, Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America, ... I could go on for a while here. The same situation exists with currency articles; Banknotes of the Australian dollar, Coins of Madagascar, Singapore dollar, etc. NFG applies in all cases except where it doesn't apply because editors don't want it to apply and are willing to push the issue and insult those who try to apply NFG, this thread being a case example. It's high time we got rid of WP:NFG. It's just creating drama and resulting in no reduction in non-free image use. So why have it? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Cmd Sgt Major SADF insignia.jpg

Violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I think you are being a bit pedantic and petty. The only reason for using a gallery is to improve the look and feel. I will remove the gallery Gbawden (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:NFG issue in South African military ranks, it also violates NFCC#10c in that article, as the image is clearly not used as the "primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question". -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Plinkoseason37.jpg

This file does not meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (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 image is used in List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Plinko. I'm not sure if this image is needed, but the board is mentioned very little, unless I missed something. Maybe the rules are simple to explain, but execution is different? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an image where we could get a free, simplified rendition of the Plinko board (that itself is not copyrighted) if it needs to be explained. The non-free is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, this use fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But there are no replicas of this board. It is a sculpture made for Plinko players only. How can we have access to taking a picture of the Plinko board? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If a picture is necessary, it is easy to demonstrate with a user-made, non-photograph, computer drawn layout of the board; its not a "sculpture" in that it has a utility value to it, though the specific decorations on it would be a problem; hence a computer-drawn recreation of the board would be sufficient to show the pin layouts. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one could make a schematic representation of the board that would serve the same purpose (or could do it even better, maybe). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Question - if someone made a schematic drawing, wouldn't it be a derivative work and also copyrighted? I truly don't know how that "derivative" thing works, but in that case it wouldn't be possible to offer a free replacement and replacing this image would offer no benefit. Diego (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That depends on whether the board layout is creative enough to be copyrightable. I'd guess that the whole board seen in the screencap is indeed copyrighted (since I'd guess an owner of the show would try to prevent recreation of the show by someone else using the same game elements). One problem with this screenshot is also that we might be dealing with several different copyrighted elements: the game board layout and the television show, which might both be covered by separate copyrights. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:29, 27 December 2012 (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:1953 Grand Rapids Chicks.jpg

Both usages are not in compliance with WP:NFCC#10c Werieth (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (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.

Use in 1953 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season and Grand Rapids Chicks violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I see no evidence that this is copyrighted (requires a (C) in that era). Showing what they dressed like is viable in that article as long as no other free photos exist. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The source link is dead. Anyway, any {{PD-US-no notice}} claims must be backed up with evidence that the publication really didn't contain a copyright notice. Alternatively, you could try searching renewal records to see if the publication is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Wayback Machine has an archive of the page at here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:00, 16 March 2013 (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:Italia's Got Talent logo.jpg

resolution too high for NFC and is replaceable Werieth (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (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 resolution is too high to qualify as fair use, per NFCC #3b. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can tag oversized images with {{non-free reduce}} which puts it into a maintenance category. It's a fixable problem...but that said, checking the use of the logo elsewhere, the depth of the 3d itself is not important, and if you take the text alone, it would fail threshold of originality, and thus this potentially fails the free replacement test NFCC#1. Someone can make an equivalent SVG of the logo for use. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged and a reduced version supplied, and I deleted the old versions. I'll leave this open for others to resolve the issue of WP:THRESHOLD and therefore replaceability by a free version. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is it does not meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. It would be great if someone could crop the image and make the TV station logo in the lower right go away, too. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review this version to see if I understood correctly what you were asking for. Senator2029 “let's talk” 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The crop is good, but the image is too large at the resolution uploaded (per NFCC#3a). It needs to be reduced by about 1/4th in each direction (eg about 320x180 px). --MASEM (t) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (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:Osaka 2008 Olympic bid logo.svg

fails both NFTABLE, and NFCC#3 as it is also used on Osaka bid for the 2008 Summer Olympics Werieth (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2013 (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:NFG in Bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure about this one. It might be below the threshold of originality, since it's essentially some simple geometric shapes and typefaces. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:25, 2 February 2013 (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:NFCE-Uniform-WAS2.PNG

image is replaceable Werieth (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2013 (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.

Use in two articles violates NFCC#10c. Possibly violates NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a complex logo on the helmet, so the image might not be replaceable. However, one could argue that the logo only is de minimis and that the main focus is on the utilitarian clothes. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Still the image violates NFCC#1 then, as in that case it is clearly possible to create a free alternative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fma12. It seems that these are based on a freely licensed image and that the differences likely are below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. I'm not seeing anything here that meets the threshold of originality. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fma12 closed as delete, although with a strange reason: "uncontested DR" although it was clearly contested. Anyway, the image is easily replaced by a free image and it seems much safer to do so instead of claiming that something isn't copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (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:Wolfpack Uniform.jpg

tagged as replaceable, removed from articles without rationales Werieth (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in two articles violates NFCC#10c. Possibly violates NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See my argument in #File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS2.PNG above about complex logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

see above
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fma12 closed as delete, although with a strange reason: "uncontested DR" although it was clearly contested. Anyway, the image is easily replaced by a free image and it seems much safer to do so instead of claiming that something isn't copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (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:Seal of the General National Congress of Libya.png

File fails 10c, uses removed Werieth (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2013 (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.

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Coat of arms of Libya. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure this one isn't eligible for copyright (just letters and a circle). Buffs (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The logo is one of "official documents such as texts of laws, decrees, regulations, international agreements, legal judgements and various official documents". See File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg. --Marianian^(talk) 02:53, 23 March 2013 (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:ZambiaFA.png

File fails 10c, uses removed Werieth (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (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 fails WP:NFCC#10c in 3 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs be determined whether those three teams use that logo as their official logo. If that is the case, then valid rationales for those three uses should be added. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's the official logo of the Football Association of Zambia (where it's not currently used). It's also commonly used by/for all of the national teams, see e.g. [4][5][6]. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2012 (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:RASIGS.gif

Removed from article Werieth (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in 109th Signals Squadron violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:44, 21 October 2012 (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:31st Mechanized Brigade Emblem Greece.jpg

Removed from non-complaint articles Werieth (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in 12th Mechanized Infantry Division (Greece) and IV Army Corps (Greece) violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:52, 21 October 2012 (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:7th Mechanized Brigade Emblem Greece.jpg

Removed from non-complaint articles Werieth (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in 12th Mechanized Infantry Division (Greece) and IV Army Corps (Greece) violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:59, 21 October 2012 (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:Magritte TheSonOfMan.jpg revert nom

reverted Werieth (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2013 (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 2009 color-corrected version was overwritten in July with a dull, oxidized snapshot of a damaged print, at enormously oversized resolution given the lack of focus, with a rather mocking upload description. It looks like a brag of ownership of a print, really, heedless of its obvious shamefully decrepit condition. The penciled inscription was not sealed, fixed, or otherwise protected. I'm nominating this for reversion to the 2009 version, but came here to seek consensus about it. --Lexein (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Discuss? Am I in the wrong discussion area for this? --Lexein (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is usually followed only by people wanting to delete NFC images, so don't expect much quality discussion. I agree that the latest overwrite is a terrible version of too low quality even for NFC criteria. But I'm confused as to which image has the right colors - there's a July 2012 version that claims accurate colors and includes a colorchecker. If those colors are right this seems to be the preferred version, but it should be downscaled to about 1/4 of its current resolution. But if you're sure the 2009 colors are the right ones, go ahead and restore that (they certainly look more natural). Diego (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The color issue is thorny. I think we should err on the side of verifiability, as recorded on gallery and museum websites. The painting, and prints, when new, and as reproduced worldwide, are fairly bright (white shirt, pinkish cloud hues). A private collector may insist that their copy is truer: all a color reference proves is that their (apparently non-archival, damaged) copy has faded. I've reverted to the 2009 copy, and reduced to 100k pixels. --Lexein (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2012 (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:FranceTV-2011.svg

#9 and 10 issues have been resolved Werieth (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2013 (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 listed as unfree. If that is correct, then the image violates at least WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c at some places. However, I'm not sure if the image is complex enough to be protected by copyright in the first place. The SVG source code could maybe be protected as a computer program (i.e. literary work). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the unfree part is correct. The color boxes have enough detail and use of gradients to make them creative (additionally, Commons states that while France follows common law TOO, its bar is much lower for originality).

That said, this is being used in a template.

That said, from the webpage of the system, just the text words are also a logo of the system and thus to get this into compliance, the SVG needs to strip out the boxes at the top and just use the plain text part at the bottom (clearly uncopyrightable). --MASEM (t) 14:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about the French TOO. If it is ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in France, it can be tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. That said, I'm not sure if this is simple enough for US TOO either. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I would still argue it fails TOO in the US as well. But as I note, just the text part is still used as a logo and thus all that is needed is to strip it down to that, make the resulting SVG free, and everything is good. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, to a point: we don't consider any copyright with respect to the underlying SVG "code" when it is offered by the people that own the mark/image. I do think we actually have some hard-to-recreate non-free SVG logos pulled directly from the trademark owner which we do use (since resolution is meaningless w.r.t. SVGs and NFCC#3a). But here at worst, the text part of the logo is an easy SVG to be remade if any issues come up. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 5 January 2013 (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:Alan Freed WJW-AM promotional photo.jpg

Looks like this has been fixed, only use is in the article about the person Werieth (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2013 (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 violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG in the article Disc jockey. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I could possibly understand if Freed was credited with being the first DJ to use a non-free image of him as part of the history (but even then that's a tenacious use), but being listed as only an example of notable DJs would not elevate the need to illustrate him with a non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Alan Freed is a *significant* part of DJ history. He was the center of the payola scandal in the late 50s, when "DJ" was defined as a person who announced and played records on a radio station. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The text does not give any sense of this, even if he was the first to be called that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He's also widely believed to have coined the phrase "rock and roll" [7]. But you're right, the article needs a lot of work. I may split off "radio DJ" into a separate article in order to avoid the history of the term being overshadowed by the more recent "club DJ" phenomenon. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not doubting his importance, though even if you split off a "radio DJ" article (a reasonable suggestion), I'd still make sure it is clear (as I believe is the case) that Freed is credits as creating the concept of the modern radio DJ, and I think there may be justification for it there. But you will need more than just a sentence or so for that. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice. Unwatching this page now, but feel free to comment at the article Talk if need be. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (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:Will Shade.jpg

No longer used on that page Werieth (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2013 (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 violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in the article Washtub bass. Additionally, it violates WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear violation. We have free images already to demonstrate the instrument, no need for a non-free here. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And the user has piles of non-free violation warnings on their talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2013 (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:30th Mechanized Brigade Emblem Greece.jpg

Removed Werieth (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in 16th Mechanized Infantry Division (Greece) violates WP:NFCC#10c. Use in IV Army Corps (Greece) violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:MOSFLAG as well. No need to use for id on the page when it has its own article where it is used on. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. These little icons are horrid. Jheald (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (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:Jim Reeves.jpg

removed from offending articles Werieth (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2013 (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.

No separate non-free use rationales for the uses in He'll Have to Go and Jim Reeves, therefore violating NFCC#10c in those two articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a rationale for Jim Reeves, as its use there is obviously appropriate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This image appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in the articles Country music and He'll Have to Go. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (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:Junta swearing-in ceremony.jpg‎

Deleted. --George Ho (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2013 (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.

I have been advised by B that this is a better forum to elicit opinions regarding the compliance of this file with NFCC. For historical reasons I link to the previous nomination of this file at the now closed discussion at FFD where it includes the comments made by B. FWIW, I have no quarrel with B's well-made points and if this file must be deleted so be it. I am here because I want to find out if there is anything I can do to save this file from deletion, including finding sources which attest to the importance of the ceremony it depicts and If I get lucky perhaps some commentary on the importance of the picture itself, although the latter cannot be guaranteed. Thank you for your advice.

I also add the previous rationale, copied from FFD for convenience. (I did not copy B's reply here because I don't know if he would have agreed to my copying them here).

Previous rationale at FFD

I am the original uploader of this file. The file has all the appropriate fair use rationales on its page. But somehow a user keeps removing this file from the articles concerned stating that the file does not satisfy NFCC. I have tried to communicate with the user on their talkpage telling him on 6 February 2013:

Please understand the historic significance of the picture you are reverting. This is not a mere "junta picture". It is the picture of the junta being approved by the king. It set the tone for all later developments in Greece including the abolition of the monarchy. Put it up for deletion if you wish to let other persons express their opinions but do not remove it from the article as being "redundant". It definitely is not. Thank you.

but I got no answer. Instead, on 2 March 2013, almost a month after I contacted them on their talkpage, they removed the file from the article again. I do not think that pictures such as this which depict important historical events should be removed by edit-warring and without discussion by the wider community. So, although I am the original uploader, I am bringing it here so that we can have a proper discussion and gather the opinion of the wider comunity. I think this picture has valid fair use rationales for the articles it is included in, and it is also a historic document illustrating an important turning point in Greek History which changed the political landscape of the country due to the swearing in of the junta by the king which was perceived as a very negative event for the monarchy. As a matter of principle I would like to have a discussion before this image is deleted, if it must, instead of summarily removing it from the articles involved without discussion and based on the opinion of just one editor. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked into the history of the photo? From the look of it and your comment in the fair use rationale that this photo was featured in numerous Greek and international papers, I suspect that this was a photo released by the Greek government for publication, not something taken by a news service photographer. That would likely have an effect on the photo's copyright status. Cckerberos (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have looked into the copyright status but I haven't been able to find the original source. Even the old newspaper copies are not retrievable online. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 11 March 2013 (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:SEC-Uniform-AU.png

Deleted. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2013 (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.

Tagged as non-free and violating NFCC#10c in three articles. Possibly violates NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly replaceable with a free drawing of the same clothes. Tagged {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I'm reading the image, it's already created by a user? Thus we need to have that user re-affirm a free license and change that appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The image violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#6 and in some articles also WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. However, if the original uploader adds a free licence, then it can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2013 (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:BonScottDaysOnTheGreen.jpg

File has been deleted Werieth (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2013 (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 photo was taken from a website where copies of it are for sale. It should be removed immediately as there was no permission sought or gained for its use on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree my friend. That photo is being soled on canvas size blown up copies. I think this falls under fair use since we list the author's name, have the source, date of photo, and we even have to company's logo in the bottom right hand corner. It's not like we are selling it or stealing it, we are just using it for information and educational purposes. As you can see below, it is fair use when used for educational and informational purposes which is exactly what we are doing!

"While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use: the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive); the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity); the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work." - Copyright Act of 1976.Pollack man34 (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand image policy on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that Bon Scott already has a public domain image (File:Grenoble79 01.jpg) further down the page. This indicates that the image pretty blatantly violates WP:NFCC (which is the standard for use on non-free content on Wikipedia) #1 and #3a. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole category of free images of him on Commons: Commons:Category:Bon Scott. Any non-free images uploaded to Wikipedia should be deleted for violating WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2013 (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:Kukrit Pramoj.jpg

Removed Werieth (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in List of Prime Ministers of Thailand violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know when the image was first published. If it is still subject to copyright protection, then the use in List of Prime Ministers of Thailand has to go. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:47, 15 February 2013 (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:Sanya Dharmasakti.jpg

Removed Werieth (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in List of Prime Ministers of Thailand violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Sourced to Thai Wikipedia where it is claimed to be {{PD-TH-exempt}}, although I'm not sure how to verify this claim. The licence only seems to apply to text, and this isn't text, but maybe it includes illustrations in certain government decisions and the like. No idea if it comes from a government decision or similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2013 (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:Portland State Vikings Logo.svg

10c issue resloved Werieth (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2013 (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.

Use in Portland State Vikings football violates WP:NFCC#10c. Might not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is too original to be claimed as uncopyrightable. Since it appears to be the logo that all of PSU's collegate teams use, it is reasonable it can be used on the football team's main page - though it certainly does need a rationale for that, but that should be easily fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 11 March 2013 (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:Supermarine Walrus N.19.jpg

Tagged as replaceable Werieth (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2013 (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.

Appears to be taken from a book, is being claimed under some kind of fair-use reasoning. More generally, could someone just keep an eye on the contributions of User:Rocketrosy? (S)he has been putting a lot of work into the article on United States Naval Air Station, Wexford, Ireland but is still learning her/his way around Wiki licencing - for instance I've suggested an OTRS request for File:Edward-T-Garvey.jpg.jpg and File:Victor-Herbster.jpg could do with one too. Le Deluge (talk# 16:28, 11 March 2013 #UTC#

Given the number of free pics of the Walrus plane #on its article# I can't see the need for this non-free here. Delete. --MASEM ###User Talk:Masem|t### 16:34, 11 March 2013 #UTC#

Irish Supermarine Walrus N2301 N#19

I am not trying to lean my way around any licensing whatsoever. The two pictures Edward Garvey and Victor Herbster are my property - What do you want me to do for licensing? Where is it that I apply for licensing because 1 - Victor Herbster is a picture I personally - a picture of a picture with full authority from the United States Naval Academy. I will apply for my own licensing as I am abolutely certain it will be granted for both!

There is not a number of Supermarine Walrus planes with the Irish flag on it as it is an Irish Aircraft, actually the only one is THIS ONE. It is not English, it is not American, it was the property of Ireland when it crashed in 1939 and towed to the former NAS Wexford. There was so little information available about this base before I started this site. There was one paragraph with incorrect information. Who monitors the accuracy of information being placed here? Why am I being harrashed about photographs that I absolutely have a right to share. I would call someone - but the mulitude of random messages is ineffective and I am not doing this for personal gain - simply sharing the relationship between two countries - USA - Ireland - unfortunately during the time of British Occupation, or at least until the Irish Emergency.

Thanks - please write directly to me so I can see what exactly you are referring to. Rocketrosy_2013-March-11_1658_PM-EST

12-March-2013 Wydawnictwo Stratusbooks will be in contact with me today and i with you. Vmurphy / rocketrosy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrosy (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (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:The Persistence of Memory.jpg

Reduced resolution to match that used on USC's website NE Ent 23:12, 31 March 2013 (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 use of this file in 1931 in art violates WP:NFCC#10c. Also fails WP:NFC#UUI#6. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the use of this file in 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting violates WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dali is his most important work and an icon of Surrealism; it is needed particularly at 20th-century art, Western painting and History of painting. It no longer violates WP:NFG.

Okay, lets look at the current uses case by case:

20th-century Western painting - not necessary, wikilink to The Persistence of Memory is sufficient, especially in an era where most browsers support tabbed browsing. The purpose of the image (showing Dalí's style of drawing melting shapes) can be described by words and if necessary, a wikilink to The Persistence of Memory can be put there
20th-century art - clear violation of NFCC#8. No specific reference to the image in the text, purely decorative use
History of painting - the fact that "liquid shapes become the trademark of Dalí" is easily described by words and can be understood without seeing an actual example, for the interested reader, a wikilink to the article of the image can be provided
Salvador Dalí - there is explicit sourced commentary about the image discussing specific aspects of the image, so that use seems okay, purpose could be stated more explicit in the rationale for this use
Spanish art - there is sourced commentary explicitly referring to specific aspects of the image, so seems appropriate, rationale should be made more explicit
Surrealism - only reference to the image is the statement "Liquid shapes became the trademark of Dalí, particularly in his The Persistence of Memory, which features the image of watches that sag as if they were melting." That fact is easily understandable without seeing the actual image
The Persistence of Memory - article about that image, image definitely appropriate
Western painting - unnecessary, the statement that the painting "features the image of watches that sag as if they are melting. Evocations of time and its compelling mystery and absurdity" is understandable without seeing the actual image

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The painting is Dali's most important work and it is needed to be seen - (visual art needs to be seen) at the History of painting, Surrealism, Western painting, 20th-century Western painting, Salvador Dali, and The Persistence of Memory...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? If there is not something I am missing, the section in History of painting#Dada and Surrealism referring to the image is the following:

"1931 marked a year when several Surrealist painters produced works which marked turning points in their stylistic evolution: in one example (see gallery above) liquid shapes become the trademark of Dalí, particularly in his The Persistence of Memory, which features the image of watches that sag as if they are melting. Evocations of time and its compelling mystery and absurdity. The characteristics of this style - a combination of the depictive, the abstract, and the psychological - came to stand for the alienation which many people felt in the modernist period, combined with the sense of reaching more deeply into the psyche, to be "made whole with one's individuality."

I can get the point of that section (that the painting marked a turning point in Dali's stylistic evolution, that liquid shapes became a trademark of his works, that the image features depictions of melting watches) even without seeing the actual image. Even though the painting is a piece of visual art, that doesn't mean a work discussing the image (in this case the article History of painting) must visually depict that image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm only making references the article History of painting, but the same issues are also relevant to other articles. I see several problems:

There are way too many images. Check WP:TOO LONG!#Technical issues. Older computers and mobile phones don't like huge pages. I've had my mobile phone web browser crashing when trying to read oversized newspaper websites, and it takes forever to download all of the images if you use a dial-up connection or are accessing the Internet using a mobile phone at a place where you only have access to 2G signals. To make it easier for less powerful systems to access the page, I would favour removing most of the images. If you need more examples, you could click on links to more specialised articles: Prehistoric art, Chinese painting et cetera. Compare with the corresponding Spanish article, es:Historia de la pintura, where there are much fewer images. The policy on Spanish Wikipedia is that no files may be hosted locally but that all files have to be hosted on Commons, so no fair use is permitted. However, even if you look at the ancient sections, you will find that there are still very few images. For example, the English article has eight examples of prehistoric cave paintings, whereas the Spanish article only has one.
WP:NFCC#1: you shouldn't use non-free files if free files are available, and in most cases there are alternative images which are in the public domain and can be used instead of the copyrighted images.

20th-century visual art needs to be seen and the imagery after 1923 tends to require Fair use; visual art - requires being visual; as pd images become available they are being put into the articles, except in the case where specific paintings need to be specifically represented...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3a: the article uses more non-free images than I feel would be necessary. For example, WP:NFG says that non-free images usually shouldn't be used in galleries, and there is also WP:NFLISTS §4: if the non-free image is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, for example in an article about the painting, it is preferred to link to that article instead of repeating the image.

To a large degree these images are necessary and common sense indicates this is the best and most intelligent and most economical way to present the images...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8: you shouldn't use non-free files unless removal of the file would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. I would still understand what surrealism means even if a few images were to be deleted from the section. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While you are clearly more educated and brighter than most of our readers; there are many who actually benefit from actually seeing the images...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There is simply no way this is copyright 2007. Try 1931 or so. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Source, please. Dalí lived in Spain in 1931. If the painting was first published in Spain, then the copyright was restored by URAA and then the painting is copyrighted for 95 years since publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In many of these articles the image is not used just to illustrate the image itself but the whole Surrealist period. Thus the criterion of WP:NFC#UUI#6 where the image could be replaced with a link doesn't hold, as the visuals are still required to represent the characteristics of the whole movement.

Of course WP:NFCC#8 must be respected; uses like the gallery at 20th-century_art are out of question. But Wikipedia:NFCC#3a doesn't require us to delete repeated uses if each one is in context and serves an illustrative, educational purpose. "Conveying the same information with words" has never been part of WP:NFCC; what's important is that the reader can understand the visual characteristics of the image in the place where they are discussed. With this in mind, this is my evaluation of uses:

Surrealism#Golden_age: good use. The importance of Dali's work to this period of surrealism is clear from the text, and liquid shapes are discussed in the context of two different authors - so showing some liquid shapes does significantly improve understanding. (Here Wikipedia:NFCC#3a means that showing images from the two authors would be too much).
Salvador Dalí#1929 to World War II: maybe. The text does not only describe the image but the role that soft watches represent in the philosophy of time. But the visuals are not as important as in the other articles.
Spanish_art#20th_Century: good use. It's not used just to describe the image but to represent the work of Dalí as a whole, a central artist in Spanish painting. Understanding of the 20th century period wouldn't be same without it.
20th-century art: remove. Although the image is iconic, it's not properly placed in context in this article.
20th-century_Western_painting#Dada_and_Surrealism: good use, described as "some of the most widely recognized images of the movement" and illustrating the characteristics of art in this period ("to expose psychological truth by stripping ordinary objects of their normal significance...") and a turning point in Dali's work. This is more than just a description of the image.
Western_painting#Dada_and_Surrealism: same as before. It's illustrating the late period and not only Dalí's work but also Tanguy's and Magritte's.
History_of_painting#Dada_and_Surrealism: same as before. It's shown in contrast to Miró's abstract Surrealism.

Diego (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot that you also need to comply with WP:NFLISTS point 4. Also, you've got WP:NFCC#1. In many cases, there are works which are in the public domain, for example because the works are from the United States and the art gallery was open to the general public, didn't forbid photography and forgot to include a copyright notice. If there are public domain works, then those works should be used instead of the copyrighted works. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're using a weird definition of "list article" if you think you WP:NFLISTS applies here, which is about not having an image for each bulleted point in a list of independent items; these are articles about art history, not "collection of notable paintings in the 20th century". Each section in Spanish art, 20th-century Western painting, History of painting and Surrealism could work as a stand-alone notable article, so they're not just items in a list. Anyway, if this guideline does apply, point 2 (Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements) means that it is adequate to include this image at least for Surrealism, Salvador Dalí, Spanish art and Western painting.

As for WP:NFCC#1, those other works in the public domain are not singular key referents in the history of the Surrealism artistic movement; so they can't replace the current usage of The Persistence of Memory for the same encyclopedic purpose because they don't have the particular characteristics and influence that The Persistence of Memory had at its time, as reflected by context in the article. The reason WP:NFC allows non-free content at all is to include the particular images that are relevant to the topic they illustrate, i.e. it was meant to support exactly the use that we're discussing here. Negating that visual art articles need images of their key highlights is negating the intent and need of NFC. If these usages are found to be non-compliant with WP:NFC, it will change the meaning of the long-standing consensus supporting encyclopedic use of non-free content. Diego (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The article History of painting is a list of multiple artistic styles. Per WP:NFLISTS, you can't illustrate all sections, unless you can dig up free images to illustrate the sections with. In that case, unfree images shouldn't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think that the history of painting is more than a list of artistic styles, as those are inextricably interrelated; if not, the article should be rewritten to be more than that. In any case, WP:NFLISTS allows for duplicating the use of non-free images when they satisfy WP:NFCC -such as "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work"(!) and "An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article"(!!!!)- so your conclusion (that only free images should be used) is unsound. I'd adventure to say that people arguing for deleting this image are using more and more bizarre arguments to avoid complying with the spirit of WP:NFC, which is to illustrate topics that should be illustrated for better reader's comprehension. Diego (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2012 (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:Elephants dream (DVD cover).jpg

REMOVE

The image is used in Blender (software; it's clearly not going to improve the encyclopedia readers understanding the software. I've removed from article and will nominate for deletion.

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 film appears to be CC-BY-SA (see File:Elephants Dream.ogg) and the cover is presumably also CC-BY-SA. Does this qualify for {{PD-Art|cc-by-sa-2.5}} or are there too many 3D features for that? If the photographic aspects are copyrightable, then the image fails both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because the movie and all its assets within it are CC, doesn't necessarily mean the cover is, though it would helpful to see a direct link to the cover image; if it came from the blender people, yea, its probably CC-BY-SA, but it is possible that a third-party took up the image and made their own cover, acknowledging the CC-BY-SA but publishing it commercially otherwise (which is allowed). --MASEM (t) 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I confused? Doesn't SA mean 'share-alike' and all derivative works need the same licence? The cover is a photo made from the CC-BY-SA work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends. If the cover was released by the same people that created the film, they might have been released under a different non-free license; although I seriously doubt this is the case, since Elephants Dream was a project to showcase open software and content. If the cover was created by a different team from the CC-BY-SA film, then yes it would share its license and would be free content and wouldn't need to be included as WP:NFC. We don't know which one is the case without a source for the image.Diego (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If it was made by someone other than the one who made the film, then the one who made the image may also choose to violate the copyright of the film (and thus risk being fined for that). If the person who made this image chose to violate the copyright of the one who made the film, then the image doesn't need to be available under CC-BY-SA. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Earliest reference: "Elephants Dream Is The First HD DVD Title In Europe", August 14 2006, which mentions the CC, and links to imagion.de/elephantsdream. This links to earliest online HDDVD release page I found: hddvd.de. The press materials are here, specifically 3d package shot here. These seem to constitute plain old product publicity materials.

License page at Blender.org, license unchanged since then. It's all "(c) copyright 2006, Blender Foundation / Netherlands Media Art Institute / www.elephantsdream.org", but licensed "Creative Commons Attribution" (CC BY 2.5)

All links via archive.org, for that good old stuff. --Lexein (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it helps more than expected: "Excluded from the Creative Commons is: (...) the DVD cover (inlay) and DVD disc print". The image is non-free, and it's easy to replace with a free screenshot from the film because the text doesn't discuss the cover specifically. (Awesome archive-fu, btw). Diego (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent - I had missed that explicit text. Many eyes, etc. And I just noticed that even if imagion.de licensed their image freely, there are still elements in it (Dolby logo, imagion.de logo) that will likely never be "free". (updated) --Lexein (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion tag which was placed on this image. This particular deletion tag, {{db-f9}}, states: "This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as this file is copied from an unspecified source, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert fair use or make a credible assertion of permission." This does not appear to be the case: the source is linked and a fair use rationale is in place. All sorts of deletion rationales may apply for this image, but the speedy deletion tag used is not correct. Lexein pinged my talk page, so I figured I'd explain myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My fault. I tagged it as this thread has discovered that the cc-by licence specifically does not include the DVD cover. A replacement image could easily be made with a screen shot that is cc-by. I don't know about threshold of originality in the Dolby logo and others, but they may be able to be photoshopped in if they are public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Dolby surround.jpg Dolby logo is PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2013 (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:Yellow Pages Logo.png

REMOVED

It's unnecessary since the article has a photo of phonebooks with the logo on it anyway. NE Ent 17:37, 31 March 2013 (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.

Can a company logo for a specific city yellow pages be used in the general Yellow Pages article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, it probably depends if it is a free image or not since we already have a non-free there for the logo. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

~~It also depends if the logo is specifically discussed in the narrative.~~ Buffs (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFC#UUI §3. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are free images as the original yellow page image was not protected.--Spshu (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Image fails to meet the threshold of originality. original logo is not copyrighted or trademarked in the US, but is in Australia. [8]. The rest is simply letters. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This page mixes up trademark law with copyright law (stating that the logo is in the public domain because it isn't trademarked). The other page doesn't say anything about copyright at all. Anyway, the designer would probably have sued its competitors for copyright infringement if the logo were protected by copyright. It's not clear if the logo is below the threshold of originality or not, but note that it says that the logo is from 1961. US logos from that time are almost always in the public domain in the United States as they have almost always been published in an advertisement or something without a copyright notice. Of course, we need to find a publication without a copyright notice first in order to claim {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are 4 advertisement over the years.

LIFE April 1, 1957 page 3
Cincinnati Magazine April 1973 page 66
New York Magazine July 15, 1974 page 7
Cincinnati Magazine January 1982 page 103

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2012 (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.