Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 3
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
December 27
Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg
Is this fair use? It's from a news source.
- It is orphaned now, so I have tagged it as such and it will most likely be deleted shortly.-Andrew c [talk] 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
February 16, 2008
Image:Taegukgi movie.jpg, Image:Brotherhood UK DVD cover.jpg
The (original) Korean poster is already in the article, is it absolutely necessary that we have the other releases' cover art? Even Harry Potter articles don't have US and UK covers (I'm sure there was a big stink over it), and excess covers provide no more information. ALTON .ıl 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
February 18, 2008
Image:Phantom.jpg
- Message has been left at WT:Non-free content to enlist comments from third-party editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcobbola (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Phantom of the Opera poster image is being used for The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) and Her Majesty's Theatre. Only use in Her Majesty's Theatre is contested. Per poster licensing tag, fair use is allowed
To provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration.
Her Majesty's Theatre is an article on the structure itself, not the opera or poster. Further, existing prose pertinent to the opera does not constitute "critical commentary". Additionally, per WP:NFCC#8:
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.
Our knowledge of the topic, Her Majesty's Theatre, is not significantly increased by the presence of the poster. Our understanding that the opera has had a substancial run time at the theatre would not be harmed by the image's exclusion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The last section of the article, Her Majesty's Theatre is largely devoted to a discussion of the historic long-run of the musical The Phantom of the Opera at the theatre since 1986. This is the second longest run of any musical at a theatre in history. The use of the iconic logo of the musical next to this discussion adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the article. Her Majesty's Theatre has been devoted to showing this one work of theatre for more than two decades, and it is still playing at the theatre. It would be strange to see an article about the theatre without an image related to the musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please note Ssilvers has 109 edits (3 minor) to Her Majesty's Theatre article (second highest of all editors). Neutral, third-party input would be appreciated. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image is just decorating the page. It doesn't further illustrate the longevity of it's run or show any points described in the prose of the article. While it may be valid to say that there is a close association with that theatre and that musical, that is not to say that the use of the image is covered by our WP:FU policy here on wikipedia. -Andrew c [talk] 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with ЭLСОВВОLД, the image is unnecessary to increas[ing] readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#8) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, this image is unacceptable fair use for the article Her Majesty's Theatre. Even if Phantom's run at the theatre is discussed, the image does not depict "the Phantom's run at the theatre". If you could find an image of a Phantom poster that is customized for this particular theatre (with dates, stars, etc.) I think you could make a case for fair use. --Laser brain (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- [Conflicted] Hi (242 edits/46 minor, so, yes involved - but one still has an opinion). The piece was written with this French Renaissance style theatre in mind, with its interior modelled on that of a French opera house. The opera and the building are interlinked in terms of both the setting and the plot of the opera. The image is essentially the logo of this theatre's production, which has been exported around the world and also been filmed.
- I have removed the image while this discussion takes place. I am interested as, in general, I thought it was acceptable to use poster images that advertised events in an article on that location. The image is both low resolution and does not harm the interests of the copyright holder, which I thought would be the prime consideration. Should I go down to the theatre and take a high resolution photo of the same poster, in situ and describe it as a detail of the exterior of the theatre; would that be an acceptable image? (I think the conflicted poster has answered that question, although in this production stars are considered fungible. Performances have been at 7:30 for 22 years, with matinees on Sat and Thu. This is not a touring production. Kbthompson (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have now found an image Image:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG, that seems to have a less controversial Non-free use justification. I'd still appreciate any further opinions on the original image, as it does affect illustration of many articles. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Maybe it would help to step back and analyze the relationship between the two; Phantom was written for the theatre; the theatre was not built for Phantom. Your comments would, therefore, be perfectly valid for inclusion of an image of the theatre on the opera page, but the converse just doesn’t work. It’s the same reason we can’t put a Dole logo on the Pineapple article. Fair use simply doesn’t recognize the relevance of a strong symbiotic relationship. Low resolution and interests of the copyright holder are two of many checks, all of which are of equal necessity and importance. Snapping a photo of the poster on the theatre would be considered a derivative work and subject to the same requirements. How about an image of people queued to see the show? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I always have this problem with wiki-copyright issues. Items that would represent 'fair comment' in both an academic and a journalistic context seem not to apply here. UK copyright law would not regard an image taken of something on public display as either derivative, nor copyright. All rights to the derivative image are lost by placing it in a public place. Similarly, you cannot copyright a person's likeness. Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you are going to go down there and take photos, could you get a better one than Image:HerMajestysTheatre.png? Ideally, one in better light, without a person in the picture, and including the whole building but without the perspective problems. You could also do a close-up of the front entrance (the bottom quarter of that picture) - the posters on display there would be part of the shot. Maybe too much a part of the shot, but might still be OK. As for illustrating the long-running nature of the production, a tasteful photo of a collection of programmes from the first run through to the present day would be nice (spread out as a fan for example). As you are not focusing on any one particular programme, you might be able to avoid copyright issues, or at least justify it with a rationale. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Though really, as an article about the building, the ideal way to illustrate the long production run would be a photo of the building at various times throughout the 22 years. Maybe old newspaper archives might have pictures from opening nights from past years? You have an artwork from 1867 and one from 2005. Are there no other pictures available from 1897 onwards? See here for examples. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- As User:Woody noted on User:SandyGeorgia's talk page, the image "adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors [named in the accompanying text] in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like" in situ, so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've brought my concerns regarding the new image to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get a fresh start, as we've now strayed from Phantom.jpg, the topic here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
February 21, 2008
Image:KaraTur_Box_Set_Cover.jpg
Hi, I uploaded this image some long time ago, and have since retired from active editing. Recently there's been a boilerplate message left claiming there was no rationale. This is untrue, but in the event there's some real concern not being articulate, I'd like somebody else to put their eyes on it and if possible fix things for me so I can stay retired. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rationale concerns seem justified. See WP:RAT for the elements that must be included. I'm not familiar with the topic, so I’m not qualified to write a FUR, as it needs to articulate the importance/significance of the image’s contribution to the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, what are those concerns and elements? I don't see anything missing. And it's the cover of the book (or rather, the box containing the books, though that cover is also the cover of one of the books), and I think it's pretty standard to use the cover of a book, in the article for the purpose of identification. What is the problem here? I looked at several feature articles for books, and most of them had comparable rationales. Some used a template, but others did not. But it was being claimed there was no rationale, which doesn't help. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The concerns are whatever brought you to this page. Elements are outlined on WP:RAT; replaceability, for example, is one that is missing. The fastest, easiest way to solve this is to fill out and apply the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. FA articles have, historically, not been always been thoroughly checked for FU compliance and changes could have been made after promotion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- What brought me to this page was an inaccurate boilerplate message claiming there was no rationale. There was a rationale when that plate was added. Been there for quite some time. So....obviously that can't be a correct concern on its face, can it? I removed it, but it was re-added with no communication to address specific concerns. So in the interest of seeking further input, I asked the person adding it to explain, and brought it up here. Now as to replacability, I don't know that that's a concern, since nothing has been said to me about it. It's a scan of a box cover. Do I have to spell out that for purposes of identifying the product it's not replaceable with another image? I've added a line saying there is no other image to serve the same purpose. Is this acceptable? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The concerns are whatever brought you to this page. Elements are outlined on WP:RAT; replaceability, for example, is one that is missing. The fastest, easiest way to solve this is to fill out and apply the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. FA articles have, historically, not been always been thoroughly checked for FU compliance and changes could have been made after promotion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, what are those concerns and elements? I don't see anything missing. And it's the cover of the book (or rather, the box containing the books, though that cover is also the cover of one of the books), and I think it's pretty standard to use the cover of a book, in the article for the purpose of identification. What is the problem here? I looked at several feature articles for books, and most of them had comparable rationales. Some used a template, but others did not. But it was being claimed there was no rationale, which doesn't help. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Rationale for book cover featuring a photograph of Valerie Plume reads:
- The webpage for the book at its publisher's website Simon Says (cited in External links in the article on the book) features this book cover; it appears to be within fair use to post the image of the book cover in Wikipedia articles discussing the book and in the infobox in Valerie Plame, an article in which the book is discussed. The website features a notice of copyright to Simon and Schuster. Further information about the book is in the article on the book and in Valerie Plame in a section on the book. No specific photographer is credited for the image used in the book cover on the Simon and Schuster website. (The same cover image is being used in sites like Amazon.com and other book publishers sites in featured information about the book.) The webpage features the following notice: "Copyright ©1997 - 2007, Simon & Schuster, Inc. ... All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form." The book was published on October 22, 2007, and thus its promotional cover photograph is "Copyright © 2007 Simon & Schuster, Inc." as provided in the caption.
I can't believe this rationale is sufficient to cover the use of the book cover to illustrate the biographical article Valerie Plame, even though it purports to be. Just because a rationale is written doesn't mean its use is justified. In fact there is a free image Image:Valerie Plame at Brown.jpg which should probably be put in Commons and which is used later in the article. I therefore can not see there is justification for use of the book cover to illustrate what Valerie Plume looks like in her infobox, especially since she is living and it is clearly possible to photograph her. Purgatorio (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly fair use in the book article, clearly not fair use in the biographical article as it is replaceable by a free image of Plame. --Pak21 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I should have emphasised in my original request for review that it is only the biographical article I was requesting a query for - not the image per se. Purgatorio (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That "free image" had been placed in the biographical article in a place where it is chronologically irrelevant; I added material relating to the context and moved the photo to a proper chronological section. As far as the infobox image, it pertains directly to material in the lead of the article (it is not only a "biographical" article but also one that discusses the book imaged in the book cover photo; there is a considerably-detailed section about this book in the biographical article; the book is central to the article. The image was previously also in the section on the book in this (biographical) article on the topic "Valerie Plame" (aka Valerie E. Wilson, aka Valerie Plame Wilson, the author of the book in the cover image). The photo is pertinent to the article and used within fair use due to the content of the article. (I hadn't seen the "free image" before, but I have seen it now, and thus I have moved it to a more appropriate place in the article on this subject. --NYScholar (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The book cover is fair use in the book article, not in the biographical article. Especially not in the infobox of that article since there is a free content image available. Garion96 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The "free content" image is already in the article elsewhere; it was misplaced in a non-related section by the user who introduced it earlier; now it is in opposite where the ref. to Brown U lecture occurs (in the section on the book); the image of the book cover can be used once in this article pertaining to direct mention of the book: that occurs opposite the infobox in the lead. This image used to be in the section on the book but it was deleted from that section only so that it would not appear twice in the same article. I don't see any improvement of the article in removing it from the infobox and putting the Brown U image there instead of where the Brown U already is. One also needs to keep in mind the entire article. There have been no earlier complaints about the image in the infobox after the fair use rationales were developed for each use (proper Wikipedia policy format). --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Before rendering opinions on the use of this image in this particular article, please examine the editing history and the talk pages pertaining to the article and the image. It has a history that needs consulting. These opinions should not be stated in a vacuum. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even after looking through the editing history and talk page for Valerie Plame, it's clear that this image can't be used in that article. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure. The article in question appears to have been edited to address the fair use concerns. There is a free photo in the infobox and a whole section with critical commentary on the book. -Nard 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
We have a disagreement at the featured article candidacy for the article Alpha Kappa Alpha on whether this image can be used in the article under fair use. The image is of a pamphlet called "Women in Medicine," which is #4 in a series published by Alpha Kappa Alpha. The series is discussed in the article, but this specific pamphlet is not. Can it be used under fair use? Thanks! 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been resolved. miranda 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This is listed as a work of the federal government, although it's also indicated as a Florida state senate image. I don't belive that it's a work of the federal government, but I do believe it's a work of the Florida state government. The question is, are works of the Florida state government public domain? Corvus cornixtalk 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. Some works of the California state government may be public domain (check the source website's copyright policy for details), and official acts of governments (laws and court decisions) are ineligible for copyright, but in general, works created by state governments are not. --Carnildo (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take a stand against m:copyright paranoia for U.S. state government works:
- "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and assembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." Henry H. Perritt, Jr., J.D. (1995) "Sources of Rights to Access Public Information" 4 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 179 (emphasis added.)
No U.S. state government has ever successfully enforced a copyright on any of their publications. They have never even tried. MB83 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where was I being paranoid? I asked two question: is the claim that this is a federal government work true, and if it is a state work, is the public domain claim true? That's all I wanted to know, I didn't come here to be insulted. Corvus cornixtalk 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry I offended you; no personal remark was meant. MB83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate the response. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry I offended you; no personal remark was meant. MB83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand there are a number of counter arguments avialible. For example it could be argued that state copyrights promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.Geni 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- That appears to be an essay by a law professor rather than a court opinion, and as such, has no legal force. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
According to commons:Template:PD-FLGov, this photograph falls under the definition of a public work and is in the public domain. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, {{PD-FLGov}} was depreciated here on the English Wikipedia and redirected to {{no license}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The rationale remains solid. It was redirected because, according to the edit summary, "in the few instances where this tag was used, it was consistently misapplied; we're better off without it (if and when a bona fide PD-FL image is found, it can be tagged as PD))". So, I guess, tag it as {{PD-because|[[:commons:Template:PD-FLGov]]}}. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image moved to Commons. Non-admin closure. -Nard 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Several images
Exiled Ambition (talk · contribs · count) and I disagree about whether a variety of images he's uploaded, relating to the Koei game Bladestorm are validly fair-use and/or replaceable fair-use in articles on the real-world personages represented (if that's the word) in the video game. The relevant images include File:HenryV.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:Richemont.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:PrinceEdward.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and File:Fastolf.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). My rationale for tagging them disputed fair-use was "Non-free image being used to illustrate <foo> but this is not the subject of the image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2, numbers 2, 7 and 8 for analogous unacceptable uses." There's currently no free image in the Fastolf article, but the other three do have free images. Fair-use? If so, replaceable (or redundant)? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that these are needed. Trivia/culture sections in general are discouraged; nonfree images to illustrate them don't meet the "necessary" threshold of WP:NFCC#1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. -Nard 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The image is rationaled for use on Notre Dame Fighting Irish and (poorly) on History of American football; however, the image is used on 17 separate articles. As a logo, I can appreciate its use in the former, but in the latter and all 15 other articles it's used as decoration and not discussed or necessary at all. Before I anger football .... fans, I thought to bring it up for discussion was the better part. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The image has been given two additional rationales by Phydend (talk · contribs) for articles Notre Dame Fighting Irish football and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham. They are rationaled essentially because they're in an infobox that sits in those articles, and eases identification moreso than words apparently. I disparage these rationales and uses as decorative and unnecessary, failing WP:NFCC#8 & #3a. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Same user, one more rationale for article Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Bob Davie; same decorative, unnecessary purpose. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. -Nard 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This image is used in two articles, in Mireille Bouquet with the rationale 'To illustrate Mireille and her partner Kirika' and in Noir settings, an article about the fictional world of the series, with no rationale at all. My concern with the first rationale is that the image seems more decorative than educational, especially as there are already several images of the character (and one of her partner) in the article. -Malkinann (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- There do seem to be an excessive number of images on Mireille Bouquet. One, or at most two, should be enough to convey the character's appearance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. -Nard 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've also added a FUR for its use on Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons). Is that rational adequate? If not, what specific problems can I address on it? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:SJR6GreyspaceCover.jpg And I'd like comment on the use of this image in List of Spelljammer crystal spheres. Is there an issue with the rationale that warrants speedy deletion and removal, or would it be better to discuss it with other users? I believe the image at least shows the book where the material is described, so qualifies under fair use, but I'd like to see others opinions. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ddobox.jpg And this one too. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Since this was listed someone removed the book cover images from inappropriate articles. They now appear only in the actual article on the book. Non-admin closure. -Nard 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Sickero (talk · contribs) uploaded the above image under both a PD license and a fair use license. I was asked to take a look and see which one it falls into, and I'm doubtful that this image falls under PD, because it wasn't made by the US federal government itself. It's currently orphaned; the article hasn't been created yet, so I've warned the user about that. A user with more experience with fair use images should take a look and determine the exact status of the image. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
but the image was made while the person was under a hold for us marshalls ( who are federal). he is bieng tried in federal court, so the picture was made for the federal goverment.
as for not bieng in use i combined the second picture to make a mug that is bieng used on article mitchell johnnson the murderer. besides this is a booking photo ! if i cant use it remove paris hiltons booking photo.
Sickero (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Already deleted. Closed. -Nard 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This image is being used in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), an article about an upcoming episode of the British television series Doctor Who; it was screencapped from a trailer for the series, which will debut on April 5. Doubt has been expressed as to whether this constitutes fair use, specifically whether it satisfies NFCC #8, and the suggestion was made to list it here for discussion. --Bragen 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Specific doubt links: WP:ANI, Talk page poll. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly fails NFCC#8, almost certainly fails #1 and probably fails #3a as well. Black Kite 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Clearly" passes NFCC #1 (it is unreplaceble) and #8. The image increases readers' understanding and that is sufficient enough to pass. #3a states "minimum", and 1 is the bare minimum. As the image comes from a trailer, it is by defenition promotional material (like a movie poster) which is listed explicetly in the list of permitted fair-use media. — Edokter • Talk • 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- #3a: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." One usage of copyrighted material is not the bare minimum. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It really does concern me that an admin should be trying to wikilawyer past a very clear policy point. WP:NFCC#8 states "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." Which part of the article would be difficult to understand if the image was removed? Black Kite 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 requires that the media be irreplaceable with prose; the characters presented are engaged in nothing that cannot be described otherwise, being "representative of the episode's plot as a whole" is a purpose best accomplished by a description of such. WP:NFCC#3a requires the media be used only if necessary; such necessity has not been established. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the media "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and have] its omission [...] be detrimental to that understanding;" I understand the article Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) well w/o the two caucasoids and their hats; sans the image, the article conveys exactly the same information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does Follows #8, it explains the plot (Donna is searching for the Doctor) and it explains over the two past christmas specials that Donna and Wilt have encountered the Doctor separately, Wilt is obviously going to be the first person who tells Donna that the Doctor is back (He met him briefly in Voyage of the damned), the image is more appropriate than the image of Mrs Foster, only those who have watched the Sarah Jane Smith adventures on CBBC will know who Mrs Foster is, no one else will so this image is more understandable to those who have only watched Doctor who.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Taking my comment from the poll to here.. The article doesn't mention anything about the story of the relationship between those two. Fair use images can only be used in the context of commentary of the subject. No one has provided a satisfactory rationale to meet NFCC #8. NFCC #8 says that the image has to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and no one has provided a reason as to what text would actually be hard to understand if the image was removed. Unless you're a Doctor Who fan, unlike myself, they wouldn't understand what that screenshot is about, or understands why it is significant. In reply to the above "this image is more understandable to those who have only watched Doctor who", fair use images cannot be used to the extent of a single target audience only knowing what it is about. There has to be commentary within the context of the article and caption that reflects why it is significant. This screenshot nor the commentary tells the reader why that particular image of those people are significant to the episode. I hope you do realize that taking a single still-image from an episode of Doctor Who and putting it in the infobox of the episode doesn't meet fair use by itself. In that case, yes, if other images are being used like that, they should be removed. — Κaiba 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) It seems to me that your description there serves the same purpose as you purport the image to. What more does the image significantly contribute to the article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does Follows #8, it explains the plot (Donna is searching for the Doctor) and it explains over the two past christmas specials that Donna and Wilt have encountered the Doctor separately, Wilt is obviously going to be the first person who tells Donna that the Doctor is back (He met him briefly in Voyage of the damned), the image is more appropriate than the image of Mrs Foster, only those who have watched the Sarah Jane Smith adventures on CBBC will know who Mrs Foster is, no one else will so this image is more understandable to those who have only watched Doctor who.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Press Kit fair usage in general/Image:Lena.jpg
I am curious about the usage of a press kit. I have started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_of_press_kit. I am wondering about the fair usage of a press kit when free usage licensing has been denied. A picture previously claimed under fair use (Image:Lena.jpg ) has been found to be in said press kit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you asking if you can still claim fair use on a photo that appears in a press kit? The answer is yes, if you have a proper rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, I'm not convinced that there is a strong rationale for using the photo. There are already numerous examples of Gair's work on the article, and the text of this section is just as clear without the illustration. The goal is to have the minimum necessary amount of nonfree material in each article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm of the same point of view. The existing images appear to be more than adequate depictions of Gair’s work. What significant understanding would additional images contribute (NFCC#8) above and beyond what is already there (NFCC#3A)? I’m unclear whether the models do runway work, but, if they do, that might be cause to reasonably expect that free images could be obtained (NFCC#1). By the way, from the FUR: "style of Salvador Dalí"? Cut and paste? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gair's models do not do runway work because she can only produce one or two body paintings a day and it would be difficult to do a show with one woman and one "outfit" as it were.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm of the same point of view. The existing images appear to be more than adequate depictions of Gair’s work. What significant understanding would additional images contribute (NFCC#8) above and beyond what is already there (NFCC#3A)? I’m unclear whether the models do runway work, but, if they do, that might be cause to reasonably expect that free images could be obtained (NFCC#1). By the way, from the FUR: "style of Salvador Dalí"? Cut and paste? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. The specific image is already deleted, and the general discussion has died down. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
.org image
Can I use and image from a not for profit organization such as found at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8142/john_edwards_and_jack_kemp_cochair_council_task_force_on_russianamerican_relations.html to depict Jack Kemp. The WP:GAC on hold reviewer wants more images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific image in mind? I don't know that a determination can be made based on the organization alone. NFP is merely a legal classification and shouldn't have bearing on the copyright status of images produced by the organization (i.e. images would be expected to be copyrighted). Frankly, there are already several images in the article that I suspect fail fair use and, as we all know, neither GA nor FA requires any images whatsoever; that's not a valid reason for hold. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the specific one is the one seen at the link in the question with Kemp and Edwards. I have not uploaded it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. The specific image was not uploaded; so it is not a proper topic for this forum. And the general discussion has died down. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Clearly decorative; the moment illustrated is not a key moment and anyway, one person giving an orange bottle to another can be easyily described with words... oops, I just did! The rationale is therefore flawed. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I originally uploaded this image and I agree that it's not essential to the article. It should be deleted, and I've previously requested so too. Matthew (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just to note: The article is currently listed as Good article, and the image also recently survived an IfD; I don't think G7 can still be applied in that case. — Edokter • Talk • 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... but I can describe it with words, though. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why a G7 request wouldn't be honoured, and I also see nothing to disallow it. Matthew (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An image transparently replaceable with GFDL text, and the estimable Matthew requested deletion into the bargain. Gone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
ResolvedBeing used to illustrate Kirby, Texas, and not an article about the hobo festival. Is this proper fair use? Corvus cornixtalk 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no article about the festival. It is placed where the festival is discussed in the article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the image is of interest because it is for the "first" annual festival. I think this is the best way to depict the occurrence.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it is because it adds nothing to the article. There is no critical commentary on the poster at all nor does the poster provide critical commentary on the event/city. I'd definitely say this is a violation of fair use. Metros (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it does. It is the "first" annual festival. I think it adds alot to this small article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of commentary does that provide? The poster simply advertises the event. Metros (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the poster. It shows all the events that the festival entails. It shows all that the festival is about and it verifies it. It also is of historical interest for the city.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you simply write a list of those events in text within the article? Yes. Can it be backed up with sources? Yes. Therefore, the poster in unnecessary because it can reasonably be replaced with text alternative (a list of the events). Metros (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The historical interest cannot be replaced.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The historical interest is in the event, not the poster representing the event. Metros (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to go back and forth with you.
Are you having another bad day?The poster representing the event has historical interest that cannot be replaced and therefore fulfills fair-use.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)- "Historical interest" is not a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy_2 for the policy. Metros (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll direct you to Images#8.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hardly think that "Hobo day" posters are iconic or anywhere close to the intended purpose of this guideline. Also note that the guidelines says they have to be used as the subject of commentary. There is no relevant commentary about the poster in the article and none is possible. Metros (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the second part of the link of "historical importance". Commentary on the poster is in the description, and the body of the article comments on what the historic poster represents: The "first" annual hobo festival. Use is legitimate within the guidelines of fair-use.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The people who made the poster would likely not care about its use here, nor this discussion, instead being proud and gratified that their event was being featured in an article about the town in which it took place, on the eighth most visited website in the world. Badagnani (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's a mimeographed flier for a public event, not "copyrighted materials." Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless they specifically released copyright, Wikipedia must assume that it is copyrighted. In addition, anybody could go to the festival and take pictures, and those would be much more informative than the flyer. Corvus cornixtalk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- A photo cannot capture the entire event, and at this point that is a purely hypothetical position considering the event is in 3 weeks.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- This poster doesn't capture the entire event either. Not sure how this is an argument that a poster would be better than a photo of the actual event. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to go back and forth with you.
- The fact the event hasn't even happened yet makes fair use claims of the poster of the event extremely dubious under law. This is a clear violation. When the event happens, a wikipedia editor can go take a photo of the event, making this image replaceable. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- We should try to get a free image of the actual festival. There's no reason I can see to include the (mostly-text) flier for the event. Many, many towns have similar carnivals, festivals, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is the hypothetical image does not, and will not exist. This image cannot be replaced and a clear rationale has already been given. Fair use is clear under Images#8 as already discussed.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It can readily be replaced by an image taken at the festival. There's no crying need to have the poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody will, and the poster would be better anyway. A photograph can only capture one aspect.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Presuming that no wikipedia editor with a camera will be at the festival is not a justification to permit fair use. For example, we do not permit fair use images of living people since it is possible to obtain free imagery, even if free imagery does not currently exist. Same applies here. You seem to have an interest in the subject. Perhaps you can attend with a camera? With free imagery, there's no restriction on the number of images. I'm sure we can display a few on the Kirby, Texas article and host an entire gallery if we like on Commons. Such a gallery would certainly convey an awful lot more information and detail than a simple textual poster could ever convey. I.e., the poster is eminently replaceable and is not acceptable under fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete?
Should this be deleted now? It appears that there's consensus to do so with only the uploader supporting its existence. Metros (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't true. Look at the discussion again and you will see I am not the only editor "supporting its existence".--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- So in other words, their opinion is useless.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Less 'useless' than 'in error'. I concur it should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then use the proper forum, this isn't IFD.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't an improper forum. Please see the top of this page. We decide here if it's appropriate fair use or not, and whether it complies with WP:NFCC. images that do not are subject to deletion. If we decide (and it appears we have) that the image does not pass fair use requirements, then failing it means it gets a tag such as {{rfu}} or {{orfud}} since it will be removed from the article, which according to WP:IFD is inappropriate to list there. There's no need to start another discussion on it's appropriateness to Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is in dispute.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- With no objections other than the original uploader, I'm removing it from the article and marking the image for deletion. Uga Man, if you have an interest and can attend, please take a camera to the hobo festival and upload some free license imagery from it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are objections. This discussion has not come to a conclusion. It would make more sense for you to place the image at IFD and abide by the decision there, rather than doing it unilaterally without a clear consensus. The fair use rationale is valid from mine and other's standpoint. From what I see, you and Metros (who strongly dislikes me) are the only editors who think this image should be deleted.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This image fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and a consensus is not needed for it to be deleted. If it fails, it fails. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not fair use in Kirby, Texas because it can adequately be replaced by a photo of the event itself. --Carnildo (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
List of images uploaded as GFDL when fair use is expected
Here is a whole list of images uploaded by one user in the past week as GFDL, when I normally expect a fair use license. Not sure how to handle it, so I am posting it here. If this is the wrong place, please move it to talk or where it is appropriate. --Voidvector (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The best thing to do would be to talk to the uploader, and also find someone who can read the websites listed as sources for the photos. That person may be able to tell what the original source of the photos is, and what the copyright license is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, the last image on this site is watermarked as a Getty image. My guess is that there are other nonfree images among these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Images have been listed at WP:PUI which is a more suitable forum. This forum is here to review the use of an image within a specific article, not whether the license is correct. Non-admin closure. -Nard 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is it appropriate to use this image on the Barechested article? Corvus cornixtalk 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's also used in Masculinity, Beefcake, List of twins, Physical attractiveness and User:AnemoneProjectors/List of twins. Corvus cornixtalk 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since the image is on commons (maybe it moved?), there isn't much we can review here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The use of this image can be reviewed here. Corvus cornixtalk 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- For what? This isn't a fair use image. It's a GFDL image. This is fair use review. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The use of this image can be reviewed here. Corvus cornixtalk 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since the image is on commons (maybe it moved?), there isn't much we can review here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Out of scope of this forum. Image is freely licensed and hosted at Commons, not here. Non-admin closure. -Nard 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I don't think this image is particularly useful in either Jeremiah Wright or Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago (even less so in the latter). There is no need to see what he looked like in 1973, and neither article makes any point to mention his appearance. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- First off, it's pretty hard for you to making that determination in a drive-by manner. You have to study the topic carefully and over time. Second, the article is not complete yet, just as the tags in it declare. Third, if one will read the TUCC article carefully, they'll see how the church underwent a transformation from Anglocentric Congregationalism to Africentric Black theology. When Wright arrived in 1972, near the date of the photo (very important, the date), Trinity was an Anglocentric black congregation and Wright's traditional Congregationalist garb, as in the photo, reflected that. Under his leadership, TUCC underwent a change to Africentrism...and his garb changed to reflect Africentrism (see photo here). This will be born out very clearly in the article as I complete the relevant section. Once I get done there, I'll turn to the Jeremiah Wright biography article and include the same info in a bit more detail. Ewenss (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can only make a judgement on the article as it stands now since I do not have a crystal ball handy at the moment (and the Magic 8 ball is less-than-qualified to help). If you feel that it will legitimate use when the article is complete, then add the image at the appropriate time and then we'll revisit. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My own, humble, opinion is that there is no fair use in showing a 35-year old photo of a living person in religious clothes when it is already public knowledge that he was, at that time, a pastor of that particular church. What does it add to the article? It is not encyclopedic, because it does not increase readers' understanding of the articles. Cast your votes in the polling booth, please, for those who can, and leave U.S. elections to U.S. citizens. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image:06-01-06 MLK speaker Jeremiah Wright.jpg should also be here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let's try this again. Read the entire Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ, Chicago article. Then re-read what I wrote above. The point is to show the change in his garb as a sign of a dramatic historical shift n the church - a crucial point. Ewenss (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not a crucial point which requires the use of copyrighted photographs of a living person. I have read both "articles", which is why I agree that the use of these images therein are multiple violations of WP:NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I always enjoy hearing the hollowness of that sort of thing from people who have not one substantial, meaty contribution in their whole history at Wikipedia. Ewenss (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your sarcasm is unwarranted. You are dealing with two administrators who have a lot of experience in dealing with the use of non-free images across many different kinds of articles. I'm not trying to pull rank, only pointing out that we have a good grasp of policy and the application of that policy. We don't need to know the intricacies of the church or Rev. Wright. May I point you to WP:NFCC item 1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer ... is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I always enjoy hearing the hollowness of that sort of thing from people who have not one substantial, meaty contribution in their whole history at Wikipedia. Ewenss (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not a crucial point which requires the use of copyrighted photographs of a living person. I have read both "articles", which is why I agree that the use of these images therein are multiple violations of WP:NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let's try this again. Read the entire Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ, Chicago article. Then re-read what I wrote above. The point is to show the change in his garb as a sign of a dramatic historical shift n the church - a crucial point. Ewenss (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. -Nard 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A lively discussion occurred regarding this image's use on the Twiggy article. The outcome of that discussion was that this image ended up being used in a subsection on that article, but I still believe this use violates our fair use criteria. I cite the following reasons:
- Twiggy is as of this writing alive. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, use of an image of her for depiction purposes is replaceable. Therefore, this image can't be used only for depiction. If it's use is for purposes other than depiction alone, then it needs to pass all requirements of WP:NFCC. I don't feel it does, as listed further below.
- No free equivalent available requirement: The proponent of this image claims an attempt was made to contact the rights holder with no response as of this time. An independent party should verify this. Perhaps it can be released under a free license. The question remains open. Regardless of the rights availability of this image, there may be other images of her that are free license and depict this style of modelling. We don't know, and no one has apparently tried. Further, even if one could not be found of her, another model displaying the same style could be used in replacement to note the influence Twiggy's appearance had on fashion. That could be done now, without having to rely on past photography. Even more, the image is not referenced in the article, only inferred as a demonstration of the look with "Known for the high fashion mod look created by Mary Quant, Twiggy changed the world of fashion with her short-haired androgynous look" In the prose of the article there's no connection to the image's importance. The image itself just says the image shows her at the height of her modelling career, not highlighting any particular aspect of the image.
- Significance requirement: The image depicts Twiggy, but it's lack of connection to the prose makes it hard to understand how this image is significant to the article. For the phrase quoted above, the phrase itself covers the topic adequately. One does not need a picture of twiggy with short hair to understand that she had short hair in the image. One does not need a picture of twiggy in a then-current red dress to understand that she modelled fashion.
- Image description page requirements: There is a rationale, but the rationale doesn't indicate what the purpose of the use of this image is, other than showing Twiggy at the height of her modelling career. I.e., depiction, once again failing the Foundation's requirements.
The proponent of this image insists that since there was a DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7) regarding this image, that it's use is acceptable. However, the Foundation's edict regarding the replaceability of images of living people passed into policy some months after February 7, 2007. This invalidates several arguments in the DRV. In sum, the image if used for depiction is clearly replaceable. If used for purposes other than base depiction of Twiggy, it's use is not significant and can likewise be replaced. I don't believe a case can be made that this image qualifies as fair use here. Others opinions? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the arguments presented at the original DRV here. Although this discussion took place prior to the issuing of the foundation policy, the arguments for it follow it strongly. This image is not used purely for depiction of Twiggy's current status, it is used to depict her in a very specific time period in the past. It is not reasonable to expect a freely licensed image of her from that period in the same way it is not reasonable to expect a freely licensed image of Syd Barrett. That she is alive now, is wholly irrelevant, and even given a freely licensed contemporary image of her in the article, I would argue for the continued inclusion of an image of her from the 60s. Replacing this image with a lookalike, would confuse and contribute a lot less to the understanding of the article. - hahnchen 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it is obviously not as clearcut as Hammersoft has suggested, the Foundation Policy states "almost all portraits of living notable individuals", notice the word almost. This is one of the exceptions, an image of a living individual at a certain point in time, one that cannot be reasonably replaced with a free alternative. I have received a response from the Brian Aris archive, they have declined to release any of their works, even at a low resolution under a free license. - hahnchen 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the time period is so important to her career, then why is it barely mentioned? It is reasonable to expect a freely licensed image that displays the influence of her modelling career. That she is alive now is utterly relevant; you can not ignore Foundation policy on this. Lots of people attempt to make hay of the word "almost". In practice, it means never. The Foundation wrote that in because policies can not foresee all circumstances. Outside of historical photographs, no fair use images of living people have been allowed in biographies on those people, and the historical nature of this photograph is clearly replaceable. Even if you think it isn't, no attempt has been made to obtain free licensed imagery other than from Brian Aris. You could contact the rights holder to this image for instance. Or how about this one? Or how about this one from vintageglues.com? The list goes on and on and on. There's umpteen examples. We don't have to have this image. The article is clearly understandable without it, and the image is barely inferred (and not even directly referred to). The reality is this image doesn't depict something unique. It's just one of countless images from her modelling career. It's not iconic. It's just Twiggy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:NFC: Pictures of people still alive should be considered replaceable provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. It was Twiggy's ultra-thin look and style in the 1960s that "changed the world of fashion". Not her look and style today. IMO, by making visible what "iconic" look the article is referring to, that "changed the world of fashion", the image does indeed "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". (NFC #8). Yes, this photo maybe just one of countless images from her modelling career, rather than an iconic historic photo in its own account. But it passes the tests currently set out by WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- And all a person has to do to replace the image is dress like her and do their hair/makeup like her in so many similar images of her. Poof...free image that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. It's replaceable alright. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think think that's very convincing. It was Twiggy, rather than however many thousands of other models and other girls of the time, who became an absolutely massive overnight icon. And she remained a unique icon, even when people started copying her look. So in an article about Twiggy, to help the reader understand the nature of the images of Twiggy - rather than anybody else - that had such huge impact, an image of anybody other than Twiggy really isn't going to serve the purpose. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image itself isn't iconic. As I showed with a number of other images above, the look isn't unique to this photo. In fact, this image is actually pretty hum drum. As for the look itself, it wasn't even created by her. It's not 'her' look. You can dress anybody up that way for the 'look'. That it's Twiggy isn't important, unless you want it for depiction purposes which violates Foundation dictum. The image is flatly replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image isn't iconic, but per policy it doesn't have to be. The 1960s image of Twiggy (including her 1960s figure and 1960s face) was iconic. This picture lets the reader see what that image was, and therefore understand the fact better; in a way that an image of anybody else wouldn't achieve. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image isn't iconic, the look was, her face at the point in time was. It is used to depict Twiggy at a certain point in time,
- By the way, the comparison to Syd Barrett is faulty because (a) Syd's dead, and (b) there is free imagery of him from that time. See Image:Threatened by shadows at night (187465667).jpg, which is now on the article in place of the non-free Image:Syd.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The point isn't over whether the subject is dead or not, but whether it is reasonable to obtain a freely licensed image dating back x number of years. Contacting every single person who owns a license to an image of classic Twiggy is unreasonable, in the same way that contacting everyone who owns a license to an image of Jeff Buckley is unreasonable. Following your reasoning above, by not contacting an exhaustive list of license holders, we could not use fair use images in articles of deceased persons. We're discussing an image here, so its obviously used to depict something, in this case, it is Twiggy's appearance in the 1960s, this does not fail the foundation resolution. And for the issue of whether the image could be replaced with a free equivalent? Not unless you have a time machine, as voiced in the DRV. - hahnchen 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although I am sympathetic to the generic argument that some models, actors, band members, etc., who are famous primarily for a particular image cannot fairly be represented by a free photograph of them taken decades later, I simply don't think this is the case here. First, Twiggy Lawson is not only very much alive, her career is too as is her enduring notability - it is not crucial to show her as a young twig to describe who she is. Second, she continues to be model-handsome in her middle age, and rather svelte. A modern picture will show her at the top of her game still. Third, the promo image in question does not really show her to be unusually thin for a model. There are others that do[1] but not this one. We do not need this illustration to prove or conceive of a thin model. Finally, we should take a cue from some other websites. Her official page,[2], a fansite,[3], and even Askmen.com[4] illustrate who she is with a contemporary image. If a picture of an older twiggy is good enough for Askmen (which is more concerned about looks and less about copyrights than us), it's probably good enough for Wikipedia. The argument in favor of the image is reasonable, I just don't think it fits here. Wikidemo (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](http://images.teamsugar.com/files/usr/1/13254/Twiggy.jpg){kind=link}
- I believe all of the above (i.e. Wikidemo's edit) to be entirely irrelevant. Twiggy's 1960s look has a very high cultural significance and is the most frequent subject of references to her. It is hard to depict or describe it in any other way then presenting a period photo. I see fair use here as firmly justified. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then you can argue for the photo in an article about the cultural significance of 1960s pop icons (and probably find plenty of free photos there). But this is a bio article about Twiggy Lawson the person, not Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon. Obviously, many sites (including her own, and askmen, and her fansite) would dispute the contention that one cannot depict Twiggy Lawson the person with a new photo.Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- But appreciating Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon is arguably an essential part of understanding the history and subsequent career of Twiggy Lawson the person. It is not being argued that this picture or a picture like it represents the only possible picture of Twiggy Lawson; rather it is being argued that this picture significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ideally the article would have both a 1960s picture and a (free) picture of Twiggy as she is today. Jheald (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that it's arguable and a fair point, it's just my personal opinion that one's understanding of the topic is not sufficiently increased. It's inherently subjective because different people take different things out of an article. Your mileage may vary. Wikidemo (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- But appreciating Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon is arguably an essential part of understanding the history and subsequent career of Twiggy Lawson the person. It is not being argued that this picture or a picture like it represents the only possible picture of Twiggy Lawson; rather it is being argued that this picture significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ideally the article would have both a 1960s picture and a (free) picture of Twiggy as she is today. Jheald (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then you can argue for the photo in an article about the cultural significance of 1960s pop icons (and probably find plenty of free photos there). But this is a bio article about Twiggy Lawson the person, not Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon. Obviously, many sites (including her own, and askmen, and her fansite) would dispute the contention that one cannot depict Twiggy Lawson the person with a new photo.Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe all of the above (i.e. Wikidemo's edit) to be entirely irrelevant. Twiggy's 1960s look has a very high cultural significance and is the most frequent subject of references to her. It is hard to depict or describe it in any other way then presenting a period photo. I see fair use here as firmly justified. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Non administrator closure. Discussion has died down, and as noted this has already been debated before. Participants here agreed to disagree. It's fair use. -Nard 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Images of living persons are not eligible for fair use under Wikimedia standards. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Marked for deletion. -Nard 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Multiple Black Knights images
- Image:RSAF Black Knights.JPG, used on RSAF Black Knights and Tengah Air Base
- Image:Black Knights 2000-1.jpg, used on RSAF Black Knights and A-4SU Super Skyhawk
- Image:Black Knights 2000-2.jpg, used on RSAF Black Knights
- Image:RSAF Black Knights 5 & 6.JPG, used on RSAF Black Knights
- Image:RSAF Black Knights & Pukau Sudong.JPG, used on RSAF Black Knights, Pulau Sudong and Tengah Air Base
- Image:RSAF Black Knights & Pulau Sudong 2.JPG, used on RSAF Black Knights, Pulau Sudong and Tengah Air Base
- Image:25th Anniversary RTAF & RSAF exercises.JPG, used on RSAF Black Knights
The use of these images fails WP:NFCC#8: None of the uses of these images significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic, and their omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The use is essentially decorative.
The use also fails WP:NFCC#1: There are free images already on the pages which serve the same encyclopedic purpose of providing decorative illustration. —teb728 t c 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Number of non-free images appears to excessive when free images to illustrate the team are already in the article. Rationale statement that no free equivalents exist is flawed when images exist in article, statement makes the point that images are not available due to security etc. please note that the Black Knights are an aerobatic team of the Republic of Singapore Air Force an organisation with a remit to display in public! Three images are used in the Tengah Air Base article which does not feature in any of the those images. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have marked all of these as replaceable fair use. There are in fact a number of free photos of them available on Flickr. -Nard 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image of a notable living person taken by a press agency. Unacceptable use of copyright images guidenlines 6 and 12 are broken here? TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it appears to violate the NFCC#1, replaceable fair use. I have marked it for deletion. -Nard 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I am requesting fair-use review of Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg, which is used in only one article; the article in question is also subject of an active NPOV dispute. I am not disputing the fair-use rationale, but simply do not know whether the image is fair-use or not, and would like somebody who is better-versed in copyright law to look at this. Even better, if somebody well-versed in human rights law can assist with the NPOV dispute in Talk:Human rights in Israel, that would be nice too! 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should be used in as few articles as possible. -Nard 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The text in Human rights in Israel describing the image may have a POV problem. But the image adds significantly to the article, and would continue to do so with more neutral text. And apparently it is not replaceable by a free image. So it's use in this article fulfils Wikipedia's fair-use policy. —teb728 t c 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. On the balance of probabilities I think this image is replaceable and is not essential to users' understanding of the topic. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I really dont see this as meeting WP:NFC#8, I can't seen many people confusing the article with that of another football match if the non-free image is ommitted Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The default case is to permit logos for companies, events, etc. I don't agree with this stance, but that's the current climate here. The image is clearly replaceable. How about a fan pic from one of the events? That's be more interesting than the dull, informationless logo. I similarly think that articles like McDonald's do not need the corporate logo for a person to understand the article when an image of one of the storefronts, such as this, would do just as well and be considerably more free of rights concerns. But, the culture that's developed here is to accept fair use images until people like you and I become contortionists to develop a reason an image should be removed, and do it every single time we remove an image. Who said we had a m:mission? Who said we had a m:vision? Who said we had a resolution? Bah! Ignore those! This is en.wikipedia the world's largest repository of copyrighted imagery! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The reason it is legitimate is that it adds valuable information to the article, to show how the tournament was marketed vis a vis its logo, which can be compared and contrasted with previous tournaments. English WP has always been a free-content project; it has never been, nor sought to be, a free-content-only project. Once you realise that, you are led to a rather different understanding from Hammersoft's of the documents cited in the comment above. Hammersoft may not like it (though he seems not always able to explain why not [5]), but it's how it is, and how the Foundation seems entirely content for it to be. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the characterization of me. Perhaps I can add one for you? Would you like that? Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please keep discussion germane to the image, its use in this article and policy. We're not here to discuss or make presumptions about fellow editors. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. Was merely trying to express why I thought Hammersoft's
rantoratorical excursion was misguided. Anyhow, as he says, use of the logo in the article is seen as entirely appropriate, by common consensus. Jheald (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- And now I'm ranting? That's what, the third personal attack against me by you today? Cease and desist. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. Was merely trying to express why I thought Hammersoft's
- I don't see why we need to duplicate advertising materials in the infobox. Our role is not to promote or advertise the game, after all. The article doesn't make any claims that the marketing was particularly innovative, notable, or interesting. I don't see that the reader understands the game any better by seeing the promotional poster for it, so I would say this use fails NFCC#8. The (free) photo of the opening ceremony would be a good replacement photo for the infobox, so the image also seems to fail NFCC#1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- This image certainly seems a lot more useful than a logo that conveys nothing more than the date and location of the event, which is already detailed in the info box anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As I said when I thought the image was replaceable, the article Paul Lynde already contains non-free image Image:Lynde1973.jpg and the images look basically the same, this second image seems unnecessary and purely illustrative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Both images are appropriately captioned and located in the article. -Nard 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails WP:NFCC#8: No image is needed to illustrate Lynde’s role on Bewitched. There is no critical commentary on the image. Also fails WP:NFCC#3: Size is 640 × 480. —teb728 t c 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Marked for deletion. —teb728 t c 23:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: The screen cap offers little difference in appearance to the other fair use image. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I do not believe this is a justifiable fair use at punk rock. I routinely remove album covers where they are being misused as I believe this one is. In this case the fair use images have been removed several times and restored by one editor. I would like to see some further input to determine if I am being over-strict in my interpretation of policy. I just don't see this image as being essential to illustrate the article, and neither is Image:Wirepinkflagcover.jpg in my view being used appropriately in this article. --John (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is decorative use. There's no point to the album cover. If someone is interested in the album cover, they can go the album's article and see it there. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Removed from Punk rock. Obviously still valid fair use in Ramones (album). Stifle (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The removal is not sticking: User:DCGeist has restored it twice already and apparently will continue to do so. —teb728 t c 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I doubt that the need for using a non-free image for these articles is sufficient to justify its present use at either of the two pages where it's being used. __meco (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's the new version of the Cup... can hardly be substituted? — chandler — 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#1 precludes fair use in cases where a "free equivalent...could be created". As an object still in existence, a free image could indeed be obtained. (NFCC does not make considerations for the ease with which the free equivalent could be obtained.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- My point is rather this: is the portrayal of the physical trophy of such importance to these articles that we must forgo copyright restrictions and attempt to justify a Fair Use claim? I think not. __meco (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think it is used because other articles (World Cup, Copa America) use the trophy rather than a(nother) non-free image of the competitions logo. It would ofc be better to find a free photo of the new trophy (i searched flickr for a free one but didnt find anyone to fit). Why it's used in the 2008 tournament article (from which I would agree that it is not necessary) it because its a new version for this years tournament. — chandler — 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is a blatant case of replaceable fair use. Elcobbola is spot on. Whether a free use image is available right now or not is not an issue at hand. The issue is can one be obtained. The answer is yes, so this fair use image is not acceptable. I've orphaned the image, tagged it as replaceable, orphaned, and missing fair use rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Both files are copies of the complete recording, not a part of it. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Copy of a QSL card. Claimed fair use on 3 articles. Seems stretching it a bit, as this particular station or QSL card is not discussed. Please review. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Replaceable and/or not needed. I will removed the image from the articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
What do you think about this use? Is it motivated. My gut feeling is no, it should be deleted, but I'm not sure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
An more free version of similar quality and size now exists on commons (as Frederikshavn logo 02.png) and thus i think that this is in contradiction to WP:NFCC criteria 1 (No free equivalent) and should be deleted. Further-more this is no-longer in use on any articles. --Hebster (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I added the orphaned fair use template to it. It will be deleted soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 14:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Various images used at Hairway to Steven
This article is packed with cover images, including spotlights of the back cover listed with each song. These seem excessive by WP:NFCC. (Since this is not my primary point of contribution, I sought feedback at media copyright questions before listing it here. Presuming the use of the front cover is legitimate, at question here is
- Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Back.jpg, back cover.
- Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 1.jpg, inner sleeve
- Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 2.jpg, inner sleeve
- Image:Hairwayfront.jpg, also labeled "back cover".
- Image:Butthole Hairway 1.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 2.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 3.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 4.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 5.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 6.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 7.jpg, detail
- Image:Butthole Hairway 8.jpg, detail
These are all used to illustrate one album, and none of them is accompanied by commentary. I'm not sure if these should be tagged {{dfu}}, but given that the problem may be more readily apparent when they are viewed in aggregate, thought to bring them here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely excessive. Remove that all except for the front cover I say. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed them from the article and tagged them {{orfud}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Images in question have been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This is a directly scanned page out of a book still under copyright. The page does not satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NFCC policy. It would be relatively straightforward to create a free equivalent of this image, and therefore it should not be used. Chaldor (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The last image used to illustrate the article Zlatko Čajkovski was listed at WP:CP and deleted, as not only was it a plainly copyrighted image featuring this man, but it featured two others, as well--one of whom was alive. I found this photo at the Croatian Wikipedia and uploaded it with a FUR, since the permission at the Croatian Wikipedia likely does not cover us. If the images above fail FU, this may also. I list it separately because it is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported at its source. I don't know if that makes a difference. I bring it here for evaluation from more knowledgeable image editors. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I qualify as more knowledgeable, but it looks ok to me. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I raised the question, and I feel comfortable closing it. It's certainly been here longer than four weeks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've questioned whether this image meets WP:NFCC#1 on a couple of occasions, but in both cases, the image was kept without any real discussion of NFCC. Quite simply, the image is non-notable and does not serve any purpose that couldn't be replaced by prose.
And the following points in the rationale seem awfully specious:
- It is used in Wikipedia only for informational and educational purposes, and is not used for profit.
- Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article
- Since he no longer attends UNM, any picture of him as a student at UNM is an unrepeatable historic event.
- The image is from a Media Guide, it was intended for mass distribution in order to promote the UNM.
Could I get an actual discussion on the merits on this image's non-free image rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2008
- Inasmuch as there is a free image of Urlacher at Commons: Image:302343997 76a1a28f71.jpg, this use fails WP:NFCC#1. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the the article’s only critical commentary on the image is that Urlacher sets a weight lifting record at the University of New Mexico; this is perfectly clear without the image. —teb728 t c 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Does not seem to fit with the fair use rationale. Just wanted to see opinions. We66er (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not much of a rationale. It doesn't address any of the WP:NFCCs. Doesn't explain why a free image can't be created. --Mosmof (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question has been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This question was raised at WP:CP, but we no longer handle images there, so I'm moving it here for review. The contributor who raised the matter there said:
| “ |
|
” |
I am notifying him that the discussion has been moved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the logos are surely copyrighted. I don't see how the image improves the article anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Are pictures of a logo really the same as the logo itself? Suppose someone took a picture of a billboard, to illustrate what a billboard was, and the billboard contained the iPod logo which has been copyrighted... does that really make the picture of the billboard copyrighted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem rather silly if that were the case. Forgive me for this breach of WP:AGF, but based on this diff, I believe that User:Malik Shabazz's motivation for reporting the image was not out of concern of violating copyright, but rather because he doesn't like it that the JIDF agrees with the choice of image. I hope you will look into the matter further, and discover whether the image really can be considered to be in violation of copyright. I hope to restore the image or replace it with an undoubtedly ok alternative. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of our motivations, a precise opinion on the copyright aspects would be appreciated. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think that in the situation you describe the billboard would be considered a derivative work that should be replaced by a free alternative. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is not correct. A picture of a logo in a given setting, e.g. a picture of an advertisement that contains a logo, is not a derivative work. It is a new work. Misuse of a logo in this circumstances would be a matter for trademark law, not copyright law (if the logo was use to misrepresent something). This is not the case here. A logo can be used to identify... which is the case here. Oboler (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think that in the situation you describe the billboard would be considered a derivative work that should be replaced by a free alternative. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of our motivations, a precise opinion on the copyright aspects would be appreciated. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:LOGO#Negative logos: "Logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative." --John Nagle (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you do realize that Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, and the United States, right? It is not as if the context is any more negative than its normal use. If we are to read WP:LOGO#Negative logos excessively literally, then IMHO the logo should not even appear on the Hamas article page. After reading the entire WP:LOGO#Negative logos section, it appears that the intent of the policy is to prohibit parodies of logos, the defacing of logos, and the placement of logos alongside negative items with which the logo is not normally associated. The logo in the image is doing none of those things. It is simply associating the logo with Hamas and, since the logo is the Hamas logo afterall, there is nothing unusual or malicious about this association. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Michael that it's hard to put Hamas in a negative light. The main part of logo policy seems to be: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." In this instance, though, is the logo being used (by JIDF) to promote the JIDF agenda? What do you all think? HG | Talk 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading WP:LOGO#Advertisements. It is not as if this were a Nike Swoosh or the Coca-Cola logo where it might be used to promote a particular brand or product. In fact, the logo is not the main part of the image, and the image is not trying to promote the subject of the logo. You are correct in that it "promotes" the JIDF by illustrating what it does; however, I again think that the intent of the WP:LOGO#Advertisements policy is to prevent the use of corporate logos to promote a brand or product, not to prevent Wikipedia from illustrating the views of a particular company or organization. Perhaps we can get a few of the editors of the WP:LOGO policy to explain the intentions of the policy as well as how the policy ought to be interpreted vis-a-vis this image. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LOGO starts by referring to WP:NFCC, which is the controlling policy. There's no indication that the use of the Hamas logo in the JIDF article satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well that brings us back to the previous argument... Lawyers, a clarification on the copyright status of the image would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LOGO starts by referring to WP:NFCC, which is the controlling policy. There's no indication that the use of the Hamas logo in the JIDF article satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading WP:LOGO#Advertisements. It is not as if this were a Nike Swoosh or the Coca-Cola logo where it might be used to promote a particular brand or product. In fact, the logo is not the main part of the image, and the image is not trying to promote the subject of the logo. You are correct in that it "promotes" the JIDF by illustrating what it does; however, I again think that the intent of the WP:LOGO#Advertisements policy is to prevent the use of corporate logos to promote a brand or product, not to prevent Wikipedia from illustrating the views of a particular company or organization. Perhaps we can get a few of the editors of the WP:LOGO policy to explain the intentions of the policy as well as how the policy ought to be interpreted vis-a-vis this image. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Michael that it's hard to put Hamas in a negative light. The main part of logo policy seems to be: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." In this instance, though, is the logo being used (by JIDF) to promote the JIDF agenda? What do you all think? HG | Talk 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you do realize that Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, and the United States, right? It is not as if the context is any more negative than its normal use. If we are to read WP:LOGO#Negative logos excessively literally, then IMHO the logo should not even appear on the Hamas article page. After reading the entire WP:LOGO#Negative logos section, it appears that the intent of the policy is to prohibit parodies of logos, the defacing of logos, and the placement of logos alongside negative items with which the logo is not normally associated. The logo in the image is doing none of those things. It is simply associating the logo with Hamas and, since the logo is the Hamas logo afterall, there is nothing unusual or malicious about this association. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz, the logo's usage in an Faceboog group description by parties unknown, then captured by the JIDF and uploaded to their site as part of a screen shot showing various groups on Facebook, is a fair use by JIDF. It does nto need to conform to any WP (I don't comment on whether it does or doesn't - just that this is not a consideration). The inclusion in Wikipedia need only confirm that the image may reaosnably be used to talk about the JIDF, either because permission is granted, the image is in the public domain, or because it is fair use. There doesn;t seem to be any idea here. Oboler (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oboler, please read WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC concerning the use of images on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the JIDF does and what their attitude is toward copyright. We must comply with Wikipedia policy in this matter. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Do we have a source for this picture? I just looked at the JIDF's Facebook page [7], and this isn't a screenshot of their page. It's a copy of a picture on their page which is apparently a screenshot of some page elsewhere. Of what is this a picture? --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- John Nagle, the photo comes from here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) The origin: it apparently comes from the JIDF Facebook group. I found a similar image in the "Notes" page, indicating that they tried posting several versions. (Perhaps picked up by their minifeed?) But how is this germane to the copyright aspect? HG | Talk 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Ok. I get it, see next cmt. HG | Talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The image is derived from other material; the underlying works may be copyrighted. We have to track it back to the original source. I found the source of the "bed" cartoon shown in the image.[8]. It's by "Nabucho", a cartoonist for the Arab-European League, part of a series they ran in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) The origin: it apparently comes from the JIDF Facebook group. I found a similar image in the "Notes" page, indicating that they tried posting several versions. (Perhaps picked up by their minifeed?) But how is this germane to the copyright aspect? HG | Talk 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Ok. I get it, see next cmt. HG | Talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- John Nagle, the photo comes from here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the above discussion of the logos may be irrelevant. For the image taken as a whole is non-free. As such any use of it on Wikipedia must conform to Wikipedia’s Non-free content criteria policy. But it fails WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” The article could say in text that JIDF targets Facebook groups like the “Hezbollah,” “Based on the facts… There was no Holocaust,” and “Hamas Lovers” groups. The image would not significant add to that. A use could probably fulfill US fair use law, but Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is substantially more restrictive than that. —teb728 t c 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you clarify your statement? On what basis do you claim that "the image taken as a whole is non-free"? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#Policy: "'Non-free content' means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I've regarded the copyright status of the screenshot itself as a non-issue. The author specifically left it "for Wikipedia", and I've assumed that it will license the photo if somebody asks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The license at the source is “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.” Wikipedia does not accept either noncommercial or no-derivative restrictions. Nor does Wikipedia accept permission for Wikipedia only. Wikipedia accepts only free licenses—licenses that allow use by anyone for anything. Without such a free license a copyrighted image must fulfill WP:NFCC. The image correctly recognizes its non-free status with a {{non-free web screenshot}} tag and with an attempt at a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 07:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Where does it say that Wikipedia cannot display non-free content, even if the author gives express permission for it to be used in Wikipedia? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-withpermission for example: “Wikipedia does not accept images that are … licensed only to Wikipedia…. There are several reasons for this policy, but the short version is that Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content and having images encumbered by restrictive licensing schemes runs counter to that mission.” (This is part of the boilerplate text it gives you when you upload an image by someone else with either permission or a free license.) —teb728 t c 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you for the link. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note for clarity, I have been editing at the article in question. I agree the image is non-free, but take issue with the claim that it adds nothing to the article. We have a relatively large section devoted to the JIDF's actions on Facebook, and this image provides a visual example of some groups they've interacted with. Certainly the image is relevant to the material which would be surrounding it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- In my experience with other images, WP:NFCC#8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") is interpreted strictly to mean "only if the image conveys information that cannot be conveyed by words alone". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- New photo was uploaded here - may we get some expertise on whether this is fairly within the public domain now and if it can be used here? If not, what about other photo sharing sites? This was up in a Facebook group, for fair use by the public. It is now up on a photo sharing site. I think this photo is import and would like to figure out a way to get it back into the article with all the proper permissions. It seems that since it was originally on the JIDF site, it was a problem, so now that it is on a public photo sharing site, that it is alright? --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I read the tinypic.com Terms of Use, and their license does not amount either to a release into the public domain or to a free license.(What's more, unless the image was posted on tinypic.com by a representative of JIDF, the posting appears to be a violation of the tinypic.com Terms of Use and a copyright violation.) In any case it doesn't affect the image's status on Wikipedia. By Wikipedia policy fair use images are highly restricted here. —teb728 t c 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- New photo was uploaded here - may we get some expertise on whether this is fairly within the public domain now and if it can be used here? If not, what about other photo sharing sites? This was up in a Facebook group, for fair use by the public. It is now up on a photo sharing site. I think this photo is import and would like to figure out a way to get it back into the article with all the proper permissions. It seems that since it was originally on the JIDF site, it was a problem, so now that it is on a public photo sharing site, that it is alright? --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I went back to the original link and it appears that they have updated it,
created a Flickr photo stream, andlicensed it for anyone to use? Seems like they are certainly paying attention to things here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I went back to the original link and it appears that they have updated it,
Logo copyrights
The "author" of the screenshot has released it with a GFDL license. The issue of the copyright logos in the screenshot, such as Image:HamasLogo.jpg, still remains. Could somebody knowledgeable about such matters help us out? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the issues remain. The logos are still non-free. Also, image still does not improve the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Hezbollah.svg){kind=link}
for fair use on Hamas.
-This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a political party. -This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. -this image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. -Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.
In the case of Hezbollah[11], we have "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."
What gives? This current ruling does not seem consistent w/ the ruling of the past. Furthermore, the logos and artwork in question in this photo are of extreme low-resolution. Again, it is my firm belief that this image does help enhance the article as it helps explain what the organization does. It's a shame anyone would dispute this fact. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would improve the content of the article if it were representative of the groups that the JIDF campaign against. The fact that the JIDF have constructed the image so that we - Wikipedia - can pick it up immediately raises the question on whether it is representative or a propaganda image of how they wnt to be seen. It is for this reason that I doubt it is useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image is question is deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It seems to be a portrait available from other websites (such as http://www.tccsa.tc/notices/john_morris.jpg and http://www.visionforumministries.org/events/hwmc/001/speakers.aspx ). The user who claims it is his image is User:Jason Gastrich who has been permanently blocked for deceitful behavior and has a history of putting images on wikipedia that he doesn't own(there are many more). I'm skeptical it is his to give away given 1) the user's past, 2) that the picture is a portrait on other websites, and 3) that it is a low quality image that is replaceable. We66er (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uhh, wrong page. This is for discussing possibly invalid fair use claims on non-free images, not to discuss if an image is non-free or not. Try putting it on possibly unfree images instead. ViperSnake151 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Closed - Image in question is deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Failure of WP:NFCC #8. This is currently used on two pages with substantively similar text. The version from Sarah Palin currently says:
- Palin has appeared on the cover of both Newsweek and Time. The inclusion on the cover of Time was particularly notable as Jay Carney, the newsmagazine's Washington bureau chief has been vocally critical on what he has said is a lack of media access to Palin.
Her inclusion on the cover is noteworthy, but nothing about the look of the cover is being addressed. The articles already note that the cover exists, and we already know what Palin looks like, so I don't see how showing the cover itself adds anything of encyclopedic value. NFCC requires that the image add something of encyclopedic value beyond what is included in the text, and I don't see how this image does that here on either page where it is used. Dragons flight (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Also discussed at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Time_Cover. It was suggested that it would be better to bring this here rather than prolong the revert war that was starting. Dragons flight (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would concur that this image doesn't meet the muster of WP:NFCC#8, nor the stipulation of the acceptable use guidelines which require identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). There is no discussion of the cover (per your quote), only that it occurred, which doesn't require illustration to understand. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a completely generic cover for Time magazine, and I don't see much possibility for an argument that Palin is different from every other person who appears on the cover of Time, to the point that we need to use the cover image for her without using it for everyone. The mere fact that she appeared on the cover of Time can be conveyed in text. Conclusion: not an acceptable use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how it meets any exception to WP:FU#Unacceptable use which states: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." (also listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 September 10)GtstrickyTalk or C 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(←) (Copying from discussion here.) Specific criteria for noninclusion is "a magazine cover, [solely] to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." That clearly is not the case here; we have plenty of other photographs of her. The Time cover is specifically being included as the cover itself is newsworthy. On Monday, Time itself discussed the cover as it relates to any alleged bias in media coverage. user:j (aka justen) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- As of this revision, the text reads:
Palin appeared on the cover of both Newsweek and Time. The Time cover story of Palin came as the newsmagazine had been critical of the McCain campaign for allegedly limiting media access to Palin.[1] Time later cited their Palin cover in an editorial on media bias.[2]
- As I stated on the article's talk page, we're not going to have pages, or even paragraphs of discussion on the Time cover, but I think using the cover image to illustrate the discussion of the notability of the cover itself falls squarely in line with fair use. user:j (aka justen) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image itself shows no signs of being particularly special qua Time magazine cover. All that Time says about the cover is that "So far this year, Obama has graced TIME's cover seven times, compared with three for McCain and one for his running mate, Sarah Palin." They don't comment on the cover image at all (not surprising given how generic it is), only on the fact that Palin was on the cover. All significant information about this Time cover can be conveyed by text alone, and thus the cover image doesn't need NFCC requirements for use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the picture is appropriate for that article. If not that article which article? It illustrates the media frenzy over Palin. If it's decided that it violates some subsection of a guideline it should be put up for deletion since I don't think there is another article that could be more relevant to this picture than the Sarah Palin article, all other articles will be just less relevant. Hobartimus (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the image should be put up for deletion, as its use can't possibly meet the NFCC requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Time cover fails NFCC#1a - it is replacement by free content, specifically "Sarah Palin was pictured on the cover of Time Magazine for (such and such a date)". We have free pictures of Sarah, and even though I know how Time uses their cover, a quick visit to Time (magazine) tells me they often just do simple full-face shots of a person as the cover. Thus, the image is completely replacable by free text. (That's not to say that it should not be mentioned about the media access to her that others are arguing for the cover; just that its not sufficient cause to use the cover). --MASEM 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the picture is appropriate for that article. If not that article which article? It illustrates the media frenzy over Palin. If it's decided that it violates some subsection of a guideline it should be put up for deletion since I don't think there is another article that could be more relevant to this picture than the Sarah Palin article, all other articles will be just less relevant. Hobartimus (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How can the rights to the cover of Time magazine be considered "fair use" or "free"? The use of this cover appears to be a copyright violation. 75.36.70.205 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, this is a copyright violation. Whoever took that photo, and/or Time, fully intended it to be theirs. We don't need to prove Palin was on the cover of Time, we don't have any shortage of images, and the article is not about media coverage. If someone drops a dime on Wikipedia, money damages are possible. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Carl and others, this fails FU as there are plenty of free images available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Time cover does not come close to the non-free criteria of "Significance". "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The mention of the Time cover in the article is all that is needed.
75.36.70.205 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if I great this right... We have some folks claiming any use of a Time cover image is a copyvio. We have other editors saying there are plenty of free images available that presumably would satisfy the resulting gap that removing the Time cover image would create. And then we have some others who say direct sourced content discussing the cover itself isn't enough. The policy doesn't exist to require that we discuss colors, fonts, or photographs (although we could if they were notable). If we're discussing the cover, wp:nfcc allows including the image to illustrate the discussion of the cover. I think youdon'tlikeit is what's going on here, sadly. user:j (aka justen) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The cover may be used to illustrate the cover, but since it can adequately be replaced by a line of text, it fails WP:NFCC #1 and #3. --Carnildo (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, it's the straightup type of NFCC disallowance that we routinely reject. --MASEM 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- user:j said I should look at wp:nfc which says it's okay to use images for certain purposes. I read that, and still think this image fails:
- 1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
- So, for instance, the cover of Vanity Fair with Demi Moore pregnant on it would be okay, in an article on Vanity Fair. But this image is a headshot without any possible analysis, just a statement of fact; "Palin's on the cover." Number 1 says "(not for identification without critical commentary)". This is exactly what this image is being used for. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- user:j said I should look at wp:nfc which says it's okay to use images for certain purposes. I read that, and still think this image fails:
- Exactly, it's the straightup type of NFCC disallowance that we routinely reject. --MASEM 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a ridiculously obvious unfair use. We never allow magazine covers where the only mention is "So-and-so appeared on the cover of [magazine name]." This is long-set policy. howcheng {chat} 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you believe that Time covers should be deleted from other articles, such as Vladimir Putin? Are you aware that simply mentioning an item in a list can meet the significance requirement? user:j (aka justen) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, actually. A cover of Time magazine can only be used in Time (magazine), period, even doubly so if its a picture of a living person. --MASEM 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- @MASEM: Not true; a TIME magazine cover that was notable in its own right could be used in the correct context. @Justen: No you are absolutely incorrect; merely mentioning the item in a list does not even come close to meeting the significance requirement. #8 requires both that the image add a great deal of context to the article; context without which the section of text it illustrates would become difficult to understand. howcheng {chat} 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have nominated the Putin Time cover for deletion. I believe I am going to spend some time studying Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. I suggest other editors who feel a calling to enforce WP NFC policies and have the time available do the same. There are currently 126 images in this category, which includes the subcategory Category:Fair use TIME Person of the Year covers with three images, all of which I immediately assess to be copyright violations. __meco (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, actually. A cover of Time magazine can only be used in Time (magazine), period, even doubly so if its a picture of a living person. --MASEM 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image of the Time cover clearly fails to meet wp:nfc criteria items #1, #3, and #8. The image must meet ALL TEN of the criteria for the copyrighted image to be allowed. IT DOES NOT, and per policy, must be deleted.75.36.70.205 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you were referring to wp:nfcc. But I don't see any violation on points one or three, and any assertion on point eight is subjective, which would require a bit more than your merely saying "It's bad! It's bad!". user:j (aka justen) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I agree that it probably does not qualify as fair use.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and re-removed the image as it seems from the two discussions that nearly everyone but J regards this as failing NFCC. Dragons flight (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- To "illustrate Time's specific and unique reaction to the selection of Sarah Palin to be a vice presidential running mate."[12] would justify using the image in the Time article, not in the "John McCain presidential campaign, 2008" article. If there is sourced information about the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign's reaction to the Times Magazine cover, then you might be able to get into the "John McCain presidential campaign, 2008" article. In general, usage justification should focus on the intersection between the article topic (John McCain campaign) and the image (Running mate on Times cover). Focusing on the intersection between the image (Running mate on Times cover) and a second article topic (Time (magazine)) does not seem a good way to justify including the image in a first article topic. -- Suntag (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=237515144){kind=link}
Closed - Image in question is deleted. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)