Wikipedia:Non-free content review

WP:FUR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

WP:FUR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Sample of screenshots with Windows/OS X etc. non-free widgets

Hi,

I tried to start some discussion of this on Template_talk:Non-free_software_screenshot#Windows_UI_elements_etc. (possibly not the right place, so direct the discussion to another place if you feel so); anyway:

On commons:Commons:Screenshots, there's been some discussion on UI elements like the Windows close/minimize buttons etc. not being free. While they might qualify for fair use, they probably fail the Wikipedia non-free policy if they are replaceable, i.e. if a similar image could be made without them (possibly using a free system or something), or they could be cropped.

In my experience, while there are such policies on Wikipedia, they aren't systematically enforced, so I went through the first 100 hits when searching for "screenshot" in the File: space. Here are some images to consider (a mere sample); I'm not tagging them yet, as I'm not sure enough about the issue (I think mass tagging without discussing first would be rude anyway). Note that all these were among the first 100 hits, and I only considered those that were screenshots of software and not a full-screen game without any OS widgets (which often still are non-free). One of them actually contains album covers, and a couple contain Wikimedia logos which I understand render them non-free.

File:Old_project.net_screenshot.gif

File:Flcelloguy's_Tool_UI.PNG

File:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG

File:WM_screwedupimage.PNG

File:2007-E-uncat.png

File:Commonist_screenshot.png

File:Screenshot-big.gif

File:TUGZip_screenshot.png

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg

File:GOLD_screenshot.gif

File:Screenshot-AlbumPic.png

File:Commonplace-screenshot.jpg

File:Ichitaro_2006_screenshot.jpg

I explore Wikipedia systematically anyway (I do copyediting), so I might spend some time tagging images like this, if there's a consensus of what I should do to them. --SLi (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific blanket action to take for all the images. In my opinion, the Windows window design and minimize/maximize/close icons are too simple to attract copyright, so a screenshot of free software that just happens to be running in Windows is OK (provided it doesn't show taskbar or a copyrighted background, etc.

Some of those images don't have a sufficient rationale, though, and fall to be tagged {{subst:nrd}}.

Anything with the WMF logo is also non-free and needs to be tagged appropriately. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this, these images basically fall into one of the following categories:

1. Images on Commons, which are outside our responsibility
2. Screenshots of free software which only display freely-licensed material (I'm including a window with minimize/maximize/close icons in this)
3. Screenshots of non-free software which have a proper rationale
4. Screenshots of non-free software which do not have a proper rationale
5. Screenshots of free software which include non-free content (including Wikimedia logo, other copyrighted programs, copyrighted text or images, Windows interface, etc.)

What action to be taken on the image depends on which category it's in. #1 is out of our hands, #2 and #3 are probably fine. #4 should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:dfu}}, or similar, and #5 should be tagged as {{PUI}}. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt modern UI elements would be considered simple enough to not merit copyright protection at least in the US. Of course I think this question is somewhat academic in the sense that whether to allow those images or not is only a Wikipedia policy question, since they quite certainly would be fair use. But the bar for copyright protection is usually quite low. Old black-and-white UI widgets with a cross as a close button would not be copyrightable, but I'm fairly certain if we're talking about more artistic wighets, and e.g. having the Windows logo in one of the widgets (as I think is often the case in Windows) and more stylish widgets, then the UI at least as a whole would get copyright protection. (And how about the Windows panel... bar... whatever the thing in the bottom part of the screen is called?) I also think showing a Windows logo wouldn't be any different from showing a Google logo (for example the small site icon in a browser), even if it's embedded in the standard UI of Windows.

In any case, the nice folks at Commons seem to have discussed this issue quite a bit. --SLi (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

History of graphic design

This article is a glorified gallery/slide show. And it is peppered with non-free images. For some topics, there are 4 non-free images illustrating the exact same point. And it isn't even clear to me why we need so much non-free imagery. Many of the non-free images have little relation, if any, to the the text of the article. It seems like massive image abuse. I wanted to get other opinions on this, and perhaps solicit help cleaning up the article's images.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a mess. I'm going to see if I can FFD some of the images. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are likely to be {{PD-old}} actually and are mistagged as non-free. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Apple Computer Logo.svg

Does the use of this image on Rob Janoff and History of Apple comply with WP:NFCC#8? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Apple I would say certainly: the coloured logo was iconic of the height of Apple's first success in the 1970s and 1980s.

Rob Janoff I would say also yes: it is his most famous work, and currently the article on him is substantially devoted to discussing what may or may not be symbolism in the logo.

I question whether the logo needs to be as big, though. Smaller logo with more white space might be better. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it would be legitimate on Rob Janoff, if that content was a little better sourced, but it would be better in section rather than at the head of the article (where an image of Janoff himself would be best). The lack of discussion or even, as far as I can see, mention is not consistent with the claim that the logo is "iconic"- I cannot see why it is being used in that article. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before Stifle added the CSD notice, there was a caption which read "The Apple logo in 1976 created by Rob Janoff with the rainbow color theme used until 1998."

IMO showing the original form of the logo, naming the creator, describing when it was changed, taken together as a package does add significantly to the subject of the article, "History of Apple".

As for it being "iconic", that was just my automatic reaction having been around at the time. It's an assessment of significance being offered by me as an editor, and as such germane to the discussion. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption is not enough- it's fairly obvious that the caption describes the image. This reminds me a little of Russell's paradox- using the logic that the caption describes the image, you're basically saying that, if the image is there, it is needed- if it isn't, it isn't. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption can be entirely enough. There is no requirement at WP:NFCC for any text at all discussing an image. The requirement is for the image to significantly add to the understanding readers get from the image. This image does that. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While a sourced discussion is not specifically mentioned as a requirement in WP:NFCC, the significance still needs to meet WP:V, which would require discussion sourced to a reliable source. Otherwise, simply claiming that an image is of importance to an article would be WP:OR or WP:POV. --Mosmof (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and OR are content policies - it's just fine to make unsourced statements in a meta-discussion like this. We all know (anyone who was around at the time) that the rainbow apple logo was an icon of its era. If we want to improve the article with a sourced statement to that effect, surely it's out there somewhere. The general take on historic logos is that they're okay if used to illustrate a sourced discussion of the branding, logos, and identity of a company (where that is germane to an article), but not okay as a mere gallery of images. By comparison with other visual artists, it's okay in the bio of a graphic designer to include a few well-chosen examles or famous works, if accompanied by sourced discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me - I was talking about content in article space. My point is that:

1. Non-free content needs to be subject of critical commentary
2. Critical commentary, like all article space content, needs to be sourced to meet WP:V and WP:NOR
3. Therefore, there is an implicit requirement for non-free content to be accompanied by sourced commentary.

And if we wanted to use the rainbow Apple logo as the designer's representative work, we would need a reliable source to verify that it is considered to be the defining work of the designer's, right? --Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Who I was just about to quote, from this discussion, and even more on-point the one immediately following it, in the archives at WT:NFC.

WP:NOR is about text in article space. It does not apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy space, etc. The question of significance is a judgment for the community to come to. It does not depend on citing sources. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. If the logo is as important as you claim, it will be worth discussing in the article. If there's discussion in the article, it may be worth including the image. You can't cut out the middle man and slam in a non-free image just because you consider it iconic. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for the community to consider whether they find it iconic (or more precisely, significant). Per WP:BRD "slamming in a non-free image just because you consider it significant" (and expect the community to agree) is exactly what you can do. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Yeah, wow indeed. I think the comment is a pretty good illustration of exactly how not to approach non-free content use and the fair use principle, that I see with many editors. They think of images as an afterthought or an accessory that you add to an article. Rather, non-free content needs to be an integral part of the content, so much so that the discussion couldn't exist without it. It's not so much that non-free content requires accompanying commentary, but rather, the non-free content must be part of the commentary. --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

back to the game. Like many who were around at the time, the image is significant to me though for what it reminds me of rather than what it tells me. There should be sourced commentary in both places (not hard to do) as without it, particularly in History of Apple the logo adds precisely nothing to the uninformed. I just got someone here to read the section with the logos as an experiment (someone too young to remember the logo)...result was that the inclusion of the logos was meaningless. To those arguing that things are significant, without commentary in the article, this sort of experiment is most instructive. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of galleries to display former Apple logos in the Apple Inc. is disgusting, and without a doubt, does not meet the criteria for non-free content. Fair use images of any kind shouldn't be in galleries at the end of the section, they should be in the context of articles. Not only that, but the article only talks about the original Apple logo and the rainbow colored logo. And in the article is says:

In 1998, with the roll out of the new iMac, Apple discontinued the rainbow theme — supposedly at the insistence of recently returned Jobs — and began to use monochromatic themes, nearly identical in shape to its previous rainbow incarnation.

Bearing that in mind, why do we have to have 4 apple logos that nearly look the same in gallaries when the current logo is in the infobox? — ℳℴℯ ε 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Images used at Jayne Mansfield

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Four questionable photos have been deleted, and one more was removed from the article. The two remaining non-free photos are iconic and supported by critical commentary.

---

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Jayne Mansfield#The lead image about the specific use of File:Jaynemansfield.jpg in the infobox, and the use of images within the article as a whole. The article currently uses 11 images. 9 include Mansfield and 2 are of her grave. Of the 9 that show Mansfield, 2 are free images from Commons, and the other 7 are included on the basis that their use is fair. Questions have resulted from the discussion.

1. If an unfree image is being used with a fair use rationale, can it be used in the infobox if a free image is available? ie Does the fair use rationale determine where in the article the image can be used?
2. Is there a maximum number of unfree images that can be used in one article?

My opinion is that each image of Mansfield does not show her in such a different guise as to justify using so many unfree images. As the infobox is to provide a basic summary of the person and a basic visual identification, a free image should suffice if one of satisfactory quality is available. From what I've observed in various discussions, including FA and GA reviews, the infobox image is the one on which most weight is placed, because it is the one seen first when accessing the article, and is the one most prominently displayed, and therefore should be free if possible. Does anyone know if there is any policy that specifically mentions this, or is it more a case of "common practice"? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we use images that illustrate the text and the context adequately and appropriately, or should we use random images just because they come free? I'm asking this in lieu of emerging events at the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested using "random images just because they come free". I have said that I believe the infobox image needs to be the free one, simply because the only thing it needs to do is identify Mansfield. A free image will achieve that. If there are compelling reasons to use the unfree images in the article, accompanied by appropriate supporting text, and strong fair use rationale, I have no disagreement with that. I feel you are misrepresenting what is being discussed at the article talk page. None of the unfree images have a strong and specific fair use rationale. They are all fairly weak and generic, and generally support a brief mention in the text, rather than a detailed discussion that would require illustration. The FURs say what the image is, which is self-evident, not the reason why the image is being used, which is not so self-evident. What I did say that nobody has bothered responding to is "Not everything needs an illustration." Your objective should be to make the fair use rationale on the image description page and the discussion in the article, so interlinked and so compelling, that a fool like me can't come along and question it. That's what you're not doing, and that's why I've brought this here so that someone else can look at it impartially. Rossrs (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that none of the non-free use rationales is adequate. The rationales need to make a strong case that its image significantly increases readers’ understanding of the article. (Adequate rationales would be easy for the Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt—and probably impossible for anything else.) Instead these rationales waste verbiage mentioning things like her being dead. (The only point of her being dead is that a free image could not be created, which is moot considering that free images already exist.) —teb728 t c 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this forum is of little value for such a disputed discussion as this, for the forum has no process for reaching a conclusion. The forum is effective only if there is a consensus to keep (which isn’t going to happen with these images) or if an image is a candidate for speedy deletion or for FFD. Indeed, I just may nominate some or all of the images at WP:FFD if only to get closure. Based on my experience with FFD, here is what I think would be the result if they were nominated:

• The Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt would be kept as iconic images with ample sourced critical commentary.
• The lead and Playboy photos would be deleted as undoubtedly being replaceable by the free photos already in the article, and because they do not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article. (But of course the lead image will be speedily deleted long before the FFD is closed.)
• The album cover would be kept only for use in the infobox of the album article.
• The Hargitay photo might be kept only for use on his article, assuming no free photo of him exists.
• The family photo would be deleted because it does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article.

In reply to your specific questions: This is not exactly an answer, but if there is a free image, a non-free image cannot be used simply for identification of the subject, and the use of a non-free image anywhere requires sourced critical commentary (like that which accompanies the Loren photo). There is no absolute maximum number of non-free images allowed in an article, but the more non-free images there are, the stronger the rationale must be for each one. —teb728 t c 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't expecting a conclusion but an opinion from an editor or editors who are looking at it impartially from a non-free content standpoint, rather than an article-specific standpoint. I think your comments are valuable, and I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. I was thinking that each time an unfree image is added to an article it effectively weakens the non-free aim of the overall article, which is somewhat in line with your comment that the rationale must be stronger for each one. Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Just two observations - (1) I was under the impression that "significance" was a criteria and that was provided for the lead image; (2) I was also under the impression that playmates do have their playboy pictures as historically "significant". Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aditya, I think what you are referring to is: (1) There is a community consensus that identification of the subject of an article satisfies the significance criterion, but that doesn’t mean that a non-free image could be used when a free image would serve that purpose. (2) If there is no free image of a woman who was a Playmate, and none could be created (because she is dead), a non-free image could be used for identification. (This is just a corollary of the identification consensus above, and it doesn’t affect JM because there are free images of her that could be used for identification.) Notice, for example, that a Playmate picture is used for (dead) Dorothy Stratten but not for her (living) predecessor nor for Marilyn Monroe, for whom there are plenty of free photos. Notice also how all of the MM photos are free except the first issue of Playboy and Happy Birthday, Mr. President—both highly iconic and accompanied by substantial sourced critical commentary.

I support the identification consensus, but it creates a lot of confusion for editors because the identification rationale seems weak whereas any other use rationale must be very strong.

I sympathize with the sentiment in your first post that Wikipedia’s preference for free images means that a free image is sometimes used when a non-free image would be better. The reason for the policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and non-free images make reuse more difficult. The policy makes editors more motivated in finding free content. —teb728 t c 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:NFCW-Uniform-ARI.PNG

The use of this image in the articles about the 2008 and 2009 AZ Cardinals season is seriously questionable. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The use in the season articles is n ot needed. The images should be removed from those articles. Rettetast (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? They are self-created works used to represent uniform images in a given year. Pats1 ^T/C 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They are “self-created” in the sense that you (and other users) created the actual drawings. But drawings are copied from the original design which belongs to the Cardinals. Since you don’t own that design, you can’t license Wikipedia to use the image. And that means that it can be used here only under Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. One restriction of that policy is that non-free content is allowed only if its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic. There is a consensus that a drawing of the uniform in the infobox of a team’s main article does significantly increase readers’ understanding by visually identifying the subject of the article. But there is no such consensus for an article about a season. Indeed the uniform does not identify the season; you can’t make a picture of a season. —teb728 t c 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor can you make a picture of a team, other than a logo. Current unform images are used in team infoboxes. But take the New England Patriots for example; I have separate images for each season (i.e. uniform change) that are used on every individual season article, from 1960 Boston Patriots season to 1977 New England Patriots season to 2003 New England Patriots season. In all, there are more than a dozen unique images. Using these in individual season articles makes a lot more sense than putting them in a logos and uniforms gallery on the main article. I also have a uniform image on Tuck rule game to show the uniforms the teams wore in that game. All of these images are used only in those specific articles. Are you proposing the removal of all of those? Pats1 ^T/C 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've always felt these uniform images are inappropriate per season. They do make sense in a main article, or in an article specifically about the logos and uniforms of the organization. Per season is excessive and unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? They are capable of changing from season to season and are one of the main identifiers of a team's season. Pats1 ^T/C 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I generally think this overuse falls into the same category as team logos being splashed on every season, as we have dealt with most recently on college football teams. In particular, I think the use on Tuck rule game is completely indefensible. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you can't provide photos of the game, the next best option is to use illustrations of the uniforms to provide readers an idea of what the game may have looked like. Pats1 ^T/C 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the uniform might be relevant is if there were some uniform-related controversy attached to the game. If, for some reason, we can show that it's impossible to find a free image from the game, then the proper non-free replacement would be a photo from the game, not the uniforms. In this article in particular, I could definitely see the value in some photographic description of the "tuck" situation, but it doesn't matter what the quarterback was wearing when he tucked the ball. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could buy showing the uniforms in-use during a particular season on the season pages. But not for games; that's not generally information important to the specific game (if the uniforms were relevant to the particular game, it's possible a good fair-use rationale could be written, but such cases are very very rare). Powers ^T 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Libertarian Party.svg

This non-free logo is currently used on 45 articles. The use in Libertarian Party (United States) should be ok, but I don't understand wy it is needed on all the affiliate state parties, such as Libertarian Party of Arkansas. I note that the democratic and te republican party does not need the logos on the state parties. 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetast (talk • contribs)

I agree. Some (if not most) of those individual organizations have their own specific logos independent (or derivative) of the national logo. Seem similar to sports teams/seasons. National article should clearly have the logo. Each state should not (though having their own state logo for that one article would seem adequate in those cases). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shells' Written Roads album from WeThreeRecords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The covers have been removed from all articles, and the discussion here has died out. —teb728 t c 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg
• File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg
• File:The Shells Written Roads Album Cover 3.jpg

These images are all being used in various places on The Shells, WeThreeRecords, and Written Roads. I believe (other than cover1 on the actual album page) these images fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8. There has been some discussion on the talk page but the uploader does not agree that there is any violation and they city the Album fair-use as a rationale for why these images are acceptable. I would appreciate an even-handed review of these images.  ~ Paul^T+/_C 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I removed all three from The Shells. Someone else beat me to removing covers 2 and 3 from Written Roads and cover 1 from WeThreeRecords. —teb728 t c 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. I also tagged the cover for a size reduction, and I believe the other images have been tagged for deletion. I consider the issue resolved, unless someone feels the need to add them back. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the use of covers that is being considered here was consistent with the uses in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] as well as (from what I can tell) the vast majority of the thousand or so images at [12] and [13]. Indeed, it was in part because of the widespread use of such images that I thought that my use must certainly be fine -- it was in accordance with what is already on Wikipedia. Are they ok because of some other exception I'm unaware of? --VMAsNYC (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't care that other crap exists, but secondly, no, it isn't. Those usages are mostly to illustrate the article on the band when the band has broken up. These usages were to illustrate the article on an active band (therefore, the image would be replaceable) and random decoration in an article about an album. J Milburn (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The very second example here demonstrates that even if the band/singer is no longer around, there can be other photos -- see [14], where it is just one of a number of images of Nick Drake in an article about him. And repaceablity is just one of the 10 requirements -- how do they meet the critical commentary requirement? And finally, where is this rule written in the guidance?--VMAsNYC (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but it can't be replaced with a free image. I admit, as I scroll down the second article you link, it is not awfully clear why those other images are required. And, there is no "critical commentary" requirement- only a requirement that the image significantly increases reader understanding. There is a longstanding consensus that a single image of the band/singer in an article about the band/singer significantly increases reader understanding (the same applies to any biography). As such, if we have no free images and it is deemed that we will not get any, we may use a non-free image in the article header. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, even though in fact free use pictures clearly exist of Nick Drake (both on his article and on flickr at [15]), because he is dead you (falsely) presume otherwise and allow use of the back cover image of an album on his wikipedia bio. But with the Shells, where I can't find any photo on flickr or Wikipedia, I can't use any album image -- so the article about the band is photo-less? Wouldn't it significantly increase reader understanding to allow use of the band image on the band article? The image is already up (on an article that the reader of the band article might not read), the band article contains critical commentary about the album from Seventeen magazine, and the picture is reduced to a level where there is no risk of commercial re-use. And if I delete the album article, can I then put the image on the band article? And again -- you speak of a longstanding consensus -- but where is this reflected in the guidance?

How in the world are people like me supposed to ferret out what the rules are, if: a) they are not set forth in the guidances (took about long!), b) they are unwritten "its generally accepted" rules, or "longstanding consensuses" and the like that a small coterie is aware of, c) the facts on the ground don't reflect the guidelines or the consensuses (you may not care about the "crap" of what exists, but given the flaws in the guidelines it is not as crazy as you suggest for me to try to figure out the rules by looking at similar articles), and d) the people who are the guardians of those unwritten consensuses only share the facts piecemeal and with a distinct air of inconvenience?

BTW, I read other crap exists. It says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." It also suggested that your terse answer to that wasWP:VAGUEWAVE--VMAsNYC (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fucking expert on any specific case you happen to cite. You have an issue with other uses, go and deal with it, stop moaning at me. I'm not responsible for every image on Wikipedia. Oh, and guess what? Shorten your comments. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolling up off-topic discussion, please do not continue it. All further comments should be constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. How's this? Given your tone, you may want to either lighten up or, alternatively add {{User DGAF}} to your user profile.--VMAsNYC (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about both of you calm down? VMAsNYC, J Milburn was just trying to offer input (for which you should be glad—in the past I've listed things here and had them pretty much ignored for weeks) and there's no reason for you to attack him for things outside his control (i.e., the lack of standardness across articles). Maybe both of you should go on to other things and wait for other editors to comment here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ... I thought I was being funny by responding to his cursing (admins really do that?) and request for terseness by using a style closer to his own. I'm calm, and I don't blame him personally for things outside of his control. I do think this nook of wikipedia is a very byzantine one though that makes it difficult for a new person to know what the rules of the game are, for the reasons stated. It's like an electric fence where nobody tells you where the borders are until you run into them -- and then they use profanity while doing it to make you feel welcome.--VMAsNYC (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're offended by profanity, I advise you to avoid the Internet, whereever possible. I found this conversation somewhat irritating- basically, you asked for help, and, when it was offered, starting ratting on about how you weren't happy with the help, and running around trying to find someone else to give you the help you wanted, while posting big blocks of text and making rather odd assumptions. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that Wikipedia:Civility would provide some protection from profanity. I posted on the album wikiproject because I was seeking advice from people expert in the area of album images. The only reason that I posted here subsequently was because I found (only subsequently) that discussion on the same topic had been opened here. If it was odd for me to assume that there may be free images of pictures of former bands extant, or that it might assist editors new to this area if the "generally accepted understandings" and "longstanding consensuses" that have been shared with me were written into the guidelines, I apologize.--VMAsNYC (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) VMAsNYC,

• Thank you for pointing out a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake. That bears looking into. You say there is a free photo on his bio, but I don’t see it: where is it?
• The Shells does not need to go photo-less: You or someone else could take a photo of them and release it under a free license, or you could get their management to release a photo under a free license. (Do I guess correctly that you are connected with them?) Inasmuch as their first album has not even been released yet, there is no urgency to add a photo to the article.
• You can’t delete the album article unless you can show the album is not notable.
• Wikipedia’s policy for non-free content is set down at WP:NFCC. Most significantly for you, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” [emphasis added]
• Wikipedia’s guideline, interpreting that policy, is set down at WP:NFC. Most significantly for you, unacceptable usages images include “Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.”

Hope this helps. —teb728 t c 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The way things are looking now, all these articles will be deleted soon anyway. Once the articles are deleted, the images can go as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lumberjack Song.jpg

Only has a fair-use rationale for Michael Palin, but is included on four articles. Plus, the rationale for use on the Palin article claims the image is discussed in the text, but it is not (the sketch is mentioned, very briefly, but not this specific image). In my opinion, a valid FUR could be written for "The Lumberjack Song" and maybe Monty Python, but not for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Powers ^T 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a fair-use rationale for The Lumberjack Song. I agree there doesn't seem to be one for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from articles that failed NFCC #10c. It was once restored at Monty Python, where I noticed other NFCC abuses. We may need eyes on there. As for the specifics, if someone can write an adequate fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, then good. Uses that fail the most basic of criteria need to be removed from those articles. We could argue back and forth regarding how much that image significantly increases our understanding of Michael Palin/Connie Booth, but until rationales have been written, that point is moot. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A FUR has been written for Michael Palin, so I would like to discuss whether it's valid. Powers ^T 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate that the point Andrew mentions regarding the how much the image increases our understanding of Michael Palin is not moot as he indicated it was, but rather very relevant here, and in fact is the very FUR I was disputing when I introduced this discussion. Thoughts? Powers ^T 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Drake photos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Two non-free photos have been deleted - one kept for identification of the article

---

VMAsNYC points out above a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake:

• File:Nick Drake.jpg a promotional photo
• File:Nick drake way to blue.jpg album artwork
• File:Nick Drake Pink Moon Insert.jpg album artwork

Since none of them is accompanied by critical commentary on the photo, two fail WP:NFCC#3. VMAsNYC also points to this flickr image, which is ostensibly {{cc-by-2.0}}. But that may be too good to be true, for the same flickr uploader has other content at here that seem to be copyvios.—teb728 t c 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I FfD's all three with the recommendation that the promotional photo be kept and the two album photos be deleted. Does anyone know what to do about possible copyvios on flickr? —teb728 t c 07:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a page on commons (Commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images) that deals with this, and you can list questionable flickr users there. As for reporting the images on Flickr, I am not familiar with those mechanisms. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:JJam.JPG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

File deleted

---

I think the FUR for Michael Jordan is fine, but I dispute the FUR for David Falk. I don't think this meets NFCC #8, which requires the media to contribute significantly to understanding. Powers ^T 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO it is if anything even less significant in the Jordan article than in the Falk. But it is not needed for reader understanding in either. —teb728 t c 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd it. —teb728 t c 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed from all articles other than UCLA Bruins, UCLA Bruins football, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, and UCLA Bruins women's volleyball as failing WP:NFCC#8. Using the team logo to decorate the many articles about various seasons' versions of the teams isn't a viable fair use under our criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. As I did with Arkansas and LSU previously, I've created File:UCLA athletics text logo.svg, which should be an adequate text-only (i.e. PD-logo) image with which we should replace the non-free instances.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem there is that it is frequently the case that such logos are not the actual logos of the university in question. In this case, and this case only, it can be considered to be so. See page 14 of this document, where it says "The UCLA script, with or without a tail..." and this is the UCLA script without a tail. People should avoid making logos that are not actually the logos of universities. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would never create a logo that was not the universities (at least not on purpose). I agree 100% with your sentiment, but resent that some of it may be aimed at me personally. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• None of it was aimed at you personally. I've seen people create logos for universities before that were not in fact the university's logo. That's fine if it's a userbox. Not fine when it's article space (and yes, I've seen this done). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed. Even if there isn't a PD-text replacement, the non-free image needs to leave those individual season articles. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed too. But, 100% agreement doesn't exist. It's time to take this to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the sports logo dispute never got resolved, but isn't this a pretty clear-cut case that we have a free logo that can serve the same purpose (identify the school) as the non-free one? howcheng {chat} 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom will accept this, I can hear "decline, content issue" immediately. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I already felt them out about this, and I think it would be accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. I don't believe this logo is eligible for copyright protection (argument made on image's talk page, so I'm not going to rehash it here), so NFCC#8 doesn't apply
2. If it did, I would have no problem replacing it with Andrew c's logo as it is one of the UCLA logos and sold on UCLA merchandise, but the problems remain as to how to define things like this so we don't have these arguments (or at least minimize them to images that are complicated).
3. 100% agreement (or even 70% agreement) doesn't easily exist on how they should be treated. I would like to take another shot at Mediation. Hammersoft and others didn't like the way I phrased some of the last request. I recommend at least trying to do another mediation before going to ArbCom; feel free to phrase it how you so desire. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with BQZip on this. I don't see how any of the letters, including the tail on the "a" are anything more than typographical ornamentation, which is not eligible for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Andrew C, what font did you use to create that new image? Stifle (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  No font, auto-traced a logo. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine image you've created, Andrew c, and it illustrates another protection of copyright, described here in Derivative work.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying my image is still a derivative work and therefore not PD? Derivative work of non-copyrightable elements (i.e. text-only) is still not any more eligible for copyright than the original constituent parts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, with all that above, it's got me second guessing myself. What I did was take the largest logo file I could find on google images, which was a helmet drawing from here, that has the tail. I then cut the tail from the trace, took a smaller non-tail logo, and hand traced the terminal of the "a". I finally added the outline, but no drop shadow (similar to this). But now I noticed that the helmet logo, which isn't outlined, seems to be thinner than the basic text used in the outlined versions. So I believe I may have done what I was talking against above, creating a logo not used by the university (A thin, outlined logo.). While they do officially accept versions of the script logo without a tail, I have not been able to locate any from an official source, and a google image search apparently comes up with not-so-official logos. I'd be totally fine with scrapping my version altogether because of this, or re-doing it or making modifications if others can offer suggestions or better source logos to use. Maybe if I simply removed the outline it would be better, but then again, are there any uses of the thinner script without a tail? Sorry about all that. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've created another file, from scratch, using a different source. I still had to draw on the terminal of the "a" by hand after removing the tail. Not sure what others think about this new one, or if the previous one was even problematic. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the PD claim: the Copyright Act requires that a typeface must have an "intrinsic utilitarian function ... for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". While the "UCLA" or "Bruins" elements would certainly meet that requirement separately, the work must be evaluated as a whole and it seems incorrect to conclude that this is a mere "compos[ition of] text" or "cognizable combination of characters" (the latter in terms of the spirit of the definition). Admittedly this is a grey area on which reasonable people may disagree. It is important, however, to err on the side of caution as, among other reasons, not to misinform our readers. Although a much more clear-cut example, ASCII images demonstrate that the whole, at times, can be more than the sum of its parts (i.e. in certain instances, collections of elements themselves ineligible for copyright may become eligible by virtue of sufficient creative arrangement, etc.) Эlcobbola _talk 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Elcobbola, your opinions are certainly important here. I concur that reasonable people may disagree, but the question remains as to how we should proceed. I have to say that I based most of my opinion on your page, so clarification about your points is certainly important. I agree that ASCII art such as this is a clear-cut example to the contrary. You agree that the "UCLA" and "Bruins" components each are PD, correct? It seems to me that adding two PD images result in another PD image. The "U" is being used as a "U" and has no other function than a "U". The same goes with each of the letters. Writing letters on a circle doesn't suddenly make it copyrightable. Why would writing it on another letter? Where am I wrong on this?

  As a further example, what would you think about the PD-ness of this image? Should it be PD? I am unaware of a key that combines a K, Y, and another Y. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with that is someone can take PD work, change it a bit and give it a new copyright (at least on the new work). Copyright is automatic now; I do agree that some elements alone are public domain, but from looking at the total package, I believe the image is copyrighted. As for the season articles...hmm... User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]" I view the elongated tail of the "a" as a variation of typographic ornamentation, hence it is not eligible. The same goes for the "Bruins". — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  I see where you are coming from, but I just don't see the tail design as simple ornamentation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  It doesn't mention "simple" ornamentation, but ornamentation in general, much as in the Coca Cola logo (another example of a PD image)...and while we're on the subject, it is extremely similar to the ornamentation on that logo, only that it goes in the opposite direction.

  On a related topic, you unilaterally deleted the UT&T logo. Why? Even having the wrong license is correctable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Texas Tech or something else? The Coca Cola image is PD due to age, which is a different reason all together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The Coca-Cola one may be old enough to pass that magic 1923 mark, but it has been a PD-trademark for some time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, the Texas with the U and T overlayed; it is restored as of now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  There are also several others:

  File:ASUinterlock.gif

  File:AzSt.gif

  File:Colorado.gif

  File:Tulane shield web.png

  File:Akron.gif

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  File:Tulane shield web.png was not me; it was also not claimed in any sort of PD license. The others, I will look at it later. It's almost 2 am, I need sleep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "PD-Trademark"? Yes, it's PD, and yes, it's a trademark, but please try to understand that the Coca-Cola logo is not subject to copyright because of its age, and not because it is too simple. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is labeled as such (and only recently so), but as numerous people have pointed out, labeling somethign doesn't make it so. This is logo is made from a specific font, by any definition a typeface, and is therefore completely ineligible for copyright. Its date of creation is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

←There's a suggestion above that a combination of PD works remains PD. This isn't true, because the composition and arrangement of the PD works, and any modifications made thereto, attracts a copyright. Reminds me of the proof by induction that all men are bald. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, but there are certain things that cannot be copyrighted. A square is not copyrightable. The letter "A" when used as an "A" is not copyrightable. Putting an A in a square is merely an arrangement of things that are not copyrightable. Take a collection of letters and make them into art and you have ASCII art which goes beyond its use as an "A", beyond its utilitarian purpose. Take a collection of squares in various colors and you get the basic construct of a bitmap image. The question is, was, and remains, where do we draw the line? There is reasonable disagreement on where we should do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a deeply disturbing, shocking, and unnerving thought; has anyone thought to contact UCLA for their opinion on the copyright status of their logos? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the sarcasm.

We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image. Like I've said ad nauseum, spend the same amount of effort on a mediation request and we can take this whole issue there and either resolve it or go on to ArbCom and be done with it much sooner. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go to ArbCom to settle the issue, as long as no one is going to have editing restrictions or any punishment of sorts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BQZip, there's no reason to conflate this issue with the issue regarding copyrighted logos on season articles. Further, asking the holder of a work about the nature and extent of copyrights they hold on that work is hardly out of line. If you don't want to do the work, fine. But, don't extend that to mean we shouldn't, can't, and that it is against our principles. There's nothing about asking a source holder questions about the source that is against our principles. Zscout, arbitration is probably premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to just this logo. Six others are mentioned above as well and they apply to all of them. It also applies across Wikipedia and it isn't simple.

ZScout, you and I do not agree on this, but I think we could work together and present an accurate discussion to start the ArbCom process. Are you interested? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom won't take it, BQZ. I talked to a few last night and they told me they will not legislate copyright law. Plus, I took image issues before the ArbCom and it was rejected. I am dealing with some IRL issues at this moment, so even if they would take the case, I am not sure what I can physically do in the next few weeks. But I stopped any of the edits to images and began asking a few questions off wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about legislating copyright law, but to define what we use within Wikipedia as free and non-free images. I personally don't care one way or another, but we need to have something concrete to make appropriate edits. Current discussion is about 60-40, not a clear consensus, but we will continue to have these problems until a solution can be worked out (either directive from ArbCom or throught agreement by a sizable percentage). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is how they see it, but I will try again soon. If I had my way, I would not use college logos in userboxes or anything like that, and I frankly not concerned about trademark whatsoever. Trademark law makes my head spin. But as an admin, and one who deals with images, I need a clear boundary to say what is good and what is no go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're not going to get a concrete line in the sand that says "This is free and this is not free" on these logos. Why? Because there's no concrete line in law. It's a case by case basis. In this case, we can't agree if it's free or not, so it needs to be marked as non-free. The only way around that is to contact the rights holder (UCLA) and find out their stance as to its copyright or lack thereof. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  That is how I was told to operate; assume non-free unless otherwise proven. Is this written somewhere in Wikipedia policy? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  I went looking for it recently and couldn't find it coded per se. But, it's implied in things like {{nld}} and {{nsd}} and CSD F11. It is how we operate here though. If we can't prove something is free, we delete it unless we're using it under a fair use claim. I think we can make reasonable assumptions of something being free. But, when the community can't agree something is free (and we don't here), we have to either use it under fair use or be done with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  "If we can't prove something is free, we delete it..."

  1. You have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy to make such a statement
  2. The problem is that even if we accept this is that there is no standard for "proof". Making such a demand isn't appropriate as this isn't policy. I have no problem with creating such a policy, but let's set up some basic structure by which to come up with this proof or give guidance to other Wikipedians. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. That was how it was explained to me in the past, but I cannot seem to pull the quote given to me. But if I can make it simple, if it cannot go on the Commons without certainty, we should assume unfree until we get evidence. However, a lot of our license changes came from people above me. It took a Jimbo order in May of 2005 to get rid of images used under a license of non-commercial. It took the Foundation itself to talk about the EDP policy or your upload will be disabled (thus forcing it to the Commons by default). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone who believes we are a free until proven non-free project fails to understand what our basic ethos is. It's blatantly obvious. BQZ, you've been shown this multiple times. It's like everyone is telling you the sky is blue, and you're insisting it's a neat shade of green. It's pointless to debate this further with you. Baring consensus, this image will remain tagged as unfree. I fail to understand why the proponents of this image being free refuse to contact UCLA. What harm could it possibly cause to ask, you know, the people who actually OWN the thing? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted Texas Tech about their logo to solve the issue. If anyone else decides to contact a school about a logo, do say that we KNOW it is TRADEMARKED, but what about copyright? As I pointed out constantly, copyright is automatic under US law and we need to show proof that it is indeed non-eligible for protection in the first place. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing; I was pointed to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others tonight. I wish for all to read this quote: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." This is a statement that we must treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the quote. My point is that they fall into the public domain. We don't treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. We make the call on many of them where copyright status isn't explicitly stated, such as statues created prior to 1923.

Hammer, I do not believe we are a free until proven non-free, period, but you (and no one else in this discussion) has provided an avenue to prove whether this image is free. If I contact UCLA and tell you that is what they said, then I would expect that you would then demand an e-mail and subsequent OTRS verification stating this. It simply isn't how things are done. These are your personal standards, not Wikipedia's. Demanding that everyone acquiesce to you and cave to your demands for proof (which you haven't even stated what would prove it to be so) isn't appropriate, IMNSHO. Barring consensus, it doesn't mean we default to what you want and nothing in Wikipedia states so (feel free to prove me wrong). I'm not saying it means it should be PD, but a lack of consensus doesn't mean we default to non-free. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about OTRS because I'm part of it. So if UCLA tells you it only has trademark protection, then I will believe you. As you mentioned, a lot of the problems with fair use is because A agrees but B disagrees, like in this one. I don't think this specific UCLA logo is in the public domain (the sports one with the tail; the new UCLA logomark is in the public domain due to the font issue you mentioned). I just think with the design of the tail and the way the letters are arranged, it is does have some copyright protection. For some of the images, such as the publication before 1923, we generally go by a checklist mentioned by Cornell University. If you have not seen the checklist, I will send it to you on your talk page or any other method. But this checklist will allow myself and other users to just be able to see if it really does fall under PD-US-1923 rules (such as known author and publication date). If the author is unknown, there are more requirements. If the publication date is unknown, we have more hoops to jump through. I think my own personal problem is one, I used to be very crappy at copyright and everything is a learning experience to me, two, a lot of fair use issues were discussed when I was away from WP (which I need to study up on, including the RFC in June) and three, I come with a mindset as a Commons admin (which we are very harsh to images). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As an OTRS agent myself, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to forward correspondences in, and we can reference that ticket # on the image page. It may help quell any future issues that may come up, unforeseen, years down the road. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Echo that. I personally would rather have the correspondence passed through OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, this isn't a simple way to use such images. Are you seriously proposing we cannot use PD logos unless each and every legal department from every Univeristy/sports team/corporation/etc respond via e-mail? That isn't workable and provides significant problems. While you "prefer it", it is your own preference, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I'd love to see the checklist Zscout. Pls e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yet we're in disagreement over this logo. So you would have us presume it's free and make no attempt to contact UCLA to ascertain its status? If we're all in agreement something is free, there's no debate. We treat it as free. That's not the case here now is it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• So someone has to make a phone call on every logo for which someone disagrees that it is non-free? That's thousands of unnecessary calls. Follow the guidelines that have been established by consensus: text and/or simple geometric shapes=PD (no matter color, arrangement, or ornamentation). It really is that simple. If you don't like that, that is fine. Please start a mediation on the subject. You didn't like the "format" of my request. Fine. You are welcome to submit your own, but it's been almost 6 months and no proposals. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "you would have us presume it's free" No, I wouldn't have you "presume" it is free (that is twisting my words), I would have you listen to my rationale and agree that everything in this logo is text. The fundamental purpose of this logo's components is to provide letters, no matter how ornate. Those letters do not form other images and they are not used in other such capacities. As such, the letter's "intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text" (this is verbatim from the 1976 U.S. copyright law) and is ineligible for copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The tail of the "a" forms an image of a banner/flag, a very common motif in design, which isn't simply a geometric shape. Take for instance an image like this. It seems like you are saying that if the banner in that image was attached to the tail of a letter, it somehow stops being a decorative element, and becomes entirely utilitarian? Regardless, this seems very similar to the topic below Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Four_images, where comments like "Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template" and "It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go." seems apt in this discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about the banner image mentioned above: it is a ribbon of some kind. As such it certainly is an object and not part of any letter. Ergo, it is part of a drawing, not a geometric shape.

As for the tail of the "a", it is part of the letter and is ornamentation of that letter. One could argue that it is simple a variation of underlining and, in any case, is part of the text. "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]". I don't believe it to be a "shape", but rather ornamentation as it is clearly connected to the letter. I am not arguing that another image, if changed, would be part of another letter. I would handle it on a case-by-case basis. At some point, an artistic drawing connected to a letter would certainly meet the criteria for copyright status, but in the case of the UCLA logo, this isn't it. Other logos are also in the same category and have the same type of flourish: Cal logo Idaho logo. If they were copyrighted, there certainly would be a copyright lawsuit over the matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument that this image should be free of copyrights too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is an essay (not guideline) on deletion discussions, not copyright status. Moreover, citing examples of other free images is the only way to make a comparison to illustrate certain points of view. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes think using other free images with the confusion we have right now over what is simple or not is, in my opinion, not the smartest move in the world. If we were comparing images based on a standard that is clearly defined, such as location and time, I can see that approach working. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ, I'll simply state this; this is yet another permutation of our lather-rinse-repeat arguments on this project. You insist you're right. I insist I'm right. There's no in between. This is why discussion with you is futile from my perspective. It never gets anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been talking about this now for more than a week. Not one person but BQZ believes this image qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. BQZ, I know you disagree, and feel you have strong reasons for your disagreement. But, after more than a week of you being the most prolific poster in this discussion, not one of us have been convinced you are correct. I think this discussion has run its useful course. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it is PD: [16][17].

As for me convincing anyone, ZScout and I have come to an agreement on several other restored logos.

Why would anything I say sway you in any way after a week? This discussion has been ongoing for nearly a year, but you seem to dismiss any form of dispute resolution. Let me ask you point blank: Will you submit a proposal to mediation or ArbCom? I prefer the former than the latter.

I have asked dozens of questions above with no answers other than "You're wrong" as a response (I'm paraphrasing here). I've quoted policy, law, precedent, examples, legal opinions, etc, but all have been ignored. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• And once again you attempt to conflate this issue with that of fair use logos usage. They're not the same issue, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BQ asked me elsewhere a few days ago to take a look at this. I'm not able to support his position as regards use on English Wikipedia (sorry BQ! :) In my very humble and massively confused opinion after the last twenty browser windows, I feel that the "tail" comprises a sufficiently artistic element that copyright devolves. Someone appears to have done more than just arrange simple text, they've put some thought into how to unify the text using a novel arrangement of graphic elements (well, putting text into a tail isn't exactly novel, but neither is it a slavish copy of extant work). The text shadowing is much more iffy, but the "tail" seems clearly designed to connote an actual animal tail (though it's more of a beaver-tail than a bear-tail). More broadly, I don't feel that our role here is to conduct "shadow litigation" to determine these points, when we already have fairly well-defined procedures on how to act.

I'll remain open to persuasion if specific outside legal opinions or even better, precedent-setting case law on this can be presented. In the absence of specifics, I feel we're better off to follow SOP. Also, I'm not good enough with the UCLA site and the TESS system to find which actual RTM's of UCLA incorporate the various elements.

Even more broadly, I'm not clear on exactly what the distinction is between copyrighted and trademarked images as far as non-free content criteria goes. We explicitly license our content for commercial re-use, but I read in Section F [18] here "All commercial use of Campus Names and Trademarks... is permitted only by license or authorization...". So the use at this site seems to me clearly NOT FREE, unless we have license or authorization - so why aren't we using strict application of NFCC? I'm even more alarmed by Andrew C's adaptation which preserves the sacred circle-R in what appears a non-trademark-registered copy. If I was an IP officer at UCLA I would go nuts when I saw that - but I'll address that elsewhere.

I understand all of BQ's points and agree with most of them. BQZip01, I do disagree with you on your "literally thousands of phone calls" comment - since that's something we can actually do, it's what we should be doing first. And in that same post, where you say "We don't need a lawyer's input on every image" - well, yes we do, but we'll never get it. :( What we have to do instead is establish broad guidelines, then show due diligence in enforcing them, then we will never get sued over some stupid and arcane point of law that takes every single donor's cash to defend for two years. It would be great if it was all different, but it just plain ain't...

Anyway, long and rambling, but there's my opinion on this. The interpretation of wiki-policy is purely my own, but I'll stand to be corrected if I've misunderstood the relevant US law and rulings of precedent. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my version alarmed you. Would it be better if I hadn't copied the logo 100%, and left the ® out of the image? It is really simple to delete elements from SVG files. Please forgive me for failing to find out how a completely text element found in the source image, when copied, somehow discredits our claim of PD-text. Could you explain that one to me? Do you feel like the image would never qualify for PD-text, or that by adding the circle R, then made it ineligible for PD-text? I'm sorry that I don't get it, but I really want to learn more. I'm just familiar with other logos that we either copy directly from the source, or convert to SVG, and claim PD-text: i.e. File:Copernic-Inc-logo.png, File:Auburn-logo-Transparent.png, File:Blackstone Group logo.png, File:CHTV1.svg, File:Converse logo.png and not the R, but TM File:Cuse_logo_ubx.jpg, File:Colorado.gif, etc. So I'd really like to know if there is anything I could do to the image to improve it in your eyes (like remove the circle R), and what is the basis of that view. I think if I where a company, I'd be more appalled to see my image being used on a site with the registered or trade mark notifiers removed. But I may be missing something. Thanks for the feedback. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that unless UCLA has registered the exact graphic you present (in which case it must always be represented with the R), then yeah, you should remove the R from your clipped and modified version. and explain on the image description page that it is a modified and clipped version of a registered mark of UCLA. It's quite possible that UCLA has in fact registered a mark with just the "ucla" script, but then that's the one you should be copying. I wasn't able to find such a registration in the USPTO database, but like I say, I don't understand it that well. I also couldn't find anything on UCLA's site. Basically, the R applies to the entirety of the registered mark, not individual parts of it.

You're absolutely right that mark-holders want to see the notifier preserved, in the case of the R, integrated into the graphic image, for the TM, preferably on first or most prominent usage but at least in footnotes. My concern is whether or not what you've uploaded is indeed a registered mark of UCLA. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you are saying. The official design guidelines PDF linked to above only has a picture of a "with tail" logo, but specifies that version without the tail are approved. That said, I've found versions of the tailless logo online with the registered mark, but they do not necessarily come from an official source. I'd gladly remove it if you think it is best, but I wanted to note it is present in some sources (i.e. [19] and [20] and [21] and [22]). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on those examples, I did a little more digging and found this, where I can find "UCLA® by itself requires a ®", and the script logo is included under the definition of "UCLA", so I'll withdraw my objections. I also found some other stuff about appropriate use of Pantone colours, not altering graphics &c and I'm still a little concerned about you having [possibly, and in good faith] synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo, but it's far enough down the scale to not matter. Maybe you could just include a link to that FAQ on the image description page so that others would have a convenient link to read. Other than that, I'm fine with it. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added [bracketed cmt] in response to cmt below. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The PDF guide provided colors, in pantone, RGB, and CMYK, and I chose my colors 100% based on their specifications. I really do take "synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo" very seriously, and I myself have been highly critical of users doing this and even deleted files in the past based on cheap knock offs. I'd gladly make any changes to my file that you or anyone else seems fit based on those lines of arguments. I really did try my hardest to be true to the brand. But all this talk is probably off topic. So sorry for derailing conversation and thanks for your constructive criticism. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the semi-diversion above, I did discover this link. It contains the text "Bruins by itself or separated from UCLA® by distance or a design element does NOT have a ®". Since the Ucla script and the BRUINS text don't appear to be separated by any distance and the ® appears next to Ucla, it seems clear that UCLA itself thinks that this logo contains a "design element", otherwise the ® would be near the "BRUINS" part of the logo. Whether or not this "design element" constitutes a creative work to which copyright would accrue is an open question. I'll reiterate that IMO we should not be litigating these questions here. There are two easy ways out: treat the logo as NFC; or contact UCLA directly for their opinion on whether or not they feel copyright holds. It's not like UCLA hasn't faced this question before, and it's not like an unsatisfactory answer from their IP office would prevent anyone from finding someone in UCLA tenured faculty who would be willing to stand up for the truth. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ's response to that is "We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image." I suggested interested people contact UCLA before, and that was his response. I doubt his opinion has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Do we need 10 cover images in the infobox? Se also talk. Rettetast (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell no. The latest cover is sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos

This list article includes 11s non-free image. Most are covers of Videos and DVDs. My removal of all the covers was reverted. Is it necessary to show the covers in this list. Is it comparable to discographies where we don't allow images of each item. Rettetast (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed and watchlisted. Clearly abuse. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I (author of the Glen Campbell videos article) have been in debate with J Milburn and Hammersoft for more than a week now. We thoroughly disagree whether the use of non-free images on this page is violating the non-free content policy and guidelines or not (see User_talk:J_Milburn#Glen_Campbell_videos and User_talk:J_Milburn#Continuous_restoring.2Fdeleting_of_links_to_images_for_Glen_Campbell_videos if you have a lot of time). To make a shortcut to the current status of the discussion: Hammersoft told me he had a similar discussion about the same subject which resulted in the removal of the images, based on the principle: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I remarked that this cannot be found in any current policy or guideline. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT). The reply of J Milburn and Hammersoft was that non-free content policy can never cover every type of article. My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on... This does not answer my question why the images have to be removed. Who can shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I thought (and expressed at J Milburn's talk page), you want your article to be in a special class of articles, all on its own. Yet, it isn't. It's a videography. Pure and simple. If these videos are so insignificant that they are not notable for an article of their own, there's little argument to be made that they deserve to have the covers on a summation article, such as this. This isn't how we work. Even if we did allow this use because it's supposedly not a summation article or videography, there'd still be what, 11 fair use images on this one article? Serious overuse. We target articles with over ten on a regular basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to paraphrase you, Hammersoft, when i said "My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on..." (see Milburn's talk page), but that apparantly wasn't clear due to my limited knowledge of the english language. My fault. You actually talk of zillions of types of articles that are not covered by policy... Just my luck my article apparantly happens to be one of them! Next, I already replied on 1) your claim this article is the same as any other videography (it isn't because besides a mere listing of the releases it also contains sections with detail information on those releases) and 2) the guideline which says that notability determines the use of non-free images (there isn't such a guideline). What's new to me is the fact that you target articles with over 10 non-free images. You almost make it sound like no matter what the policy and guidelines allow or don't allow, 11 fair use images is just too much. However, policy only speaks of over-use if one item can convey equivalent significant information, which isn't the case here. Or would 1 picture showing let's say 3 front covers be better than 3 separate pictures of those front covers in your view? Lumdeloo (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is blatantly obvious to me that you are an extreme literalist vis-a-vis policy here. Unless the policy explicitly states "in the Glen Campbell videos article, no fair use images of covers are allowed" you will presume that policy does not apply to your special little article. Myself and two other editors have tried exceptionally hard to educate you on this matter. You absolutely refuse to be educated and insist that we're all wrong, every last one of us, and you are right. I'm fed up with you. Over and over and over again we keep showing you how you are wrong, and you absolutely fail to get it. NOBODY can show you how you are wrong; because in your mind it is absolutely impossible for you to be wrong. So I'll state what was said on J Milburn's page; restore the images to the article at your own peril. It's vandalism, and you know it. Your move sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate you trying hard to educate me on this subject. However, if you would actually address the points I bring forward, we probably could have ended this discussion a lot sooner. The discussion goes something like this:

• You: the article is a discography and therefore fails WP:NFC#Images 2
• Me: I have asked for examples what a discography article is in your opinion. Without exception, your examples only list the releases but don't describe them in detail. An significant difference in my opinion. What does the guideline say? Two relevant points: WP:NFCI#Images point 1 and WP:NFCI#Images_2 point 1. Front cover art is allowed only the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Not allowed is an album cover as part of a discography, as per the above. To me it's obvious that this means that you can use front covers when you provide critical commentary on the album/video/DVD, but you cannot use front covers in discographies because there you don't provide critical commentary on the listed albums/videos/DVDs.
• You: your article fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, all the images have to be removed.
• Me: I cannot use one item (image) to identify 11 separate objects so the article doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3. If one front cover is considered to significantly increase readers' understanding of an article describing one album/DVD/video, why is this suddenly not the case when one merges several of these articles into 1 new article? (I have also given additional reasons why images in this case significantly increase readers' understanding, but I didn't get a reply on that either.)
• You: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article."
• Me: there is no such guideline.
• You: I repeat, you will not succeed. That's just how it works around here. You're an extreme literalist. Restore the images at your own peril. Your move, sport etc. etc.
• Hammersoft, is it any wonder I keep believing I'm right? You never give any real answers at all! Lumdeloo (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This use of cover art fails 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.” Although there is a consensus the use of a non-free image in an infobox to identify the subject of the article does increase reader understanding, this consensus applies only to that restricted case: It does not apply to non-free content within an article to identify a subtopic. Unfortunately many people are confused by the acceptance of non-free content with the seemingly weak rationale of identifying the subject of an article. But any other use requires a very strong rationale: the article almost certainly would have to have critical commentary on the cover art such that showing the cover was necessary to understanding the article. (The guideline does not explicitly mention videography, but a videography is essentially the same thing as a discography; and WP:NFC#Images 2 says explicitly that an album cover as part of a discography is not an acceptable use.)
  Having said all that, a content dispute is never vandalism. If Lumdeloo uploaded the covers again, the remedy would be to nominate them at WP:FFD. Having seem many similar cases there, I am confident that they would be deleted. And having failed FFD, future uploads would be subject to speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• teb728, thanks for your answer. You start off saying that the article fails to meet non-free content policy. However, then you immediately switch to consensus (not policy or guidelines) to prove your point. What's the official status of consensus when it has not ended up in policy or guidelines? Secondly, I already addressed the question whether this article is a discography or not (see above). What is wrong with my line of thought there? Thirdly, I agree that what goes for a discography, also should go for a videography. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• When someone willfully violates policy, in full knowledge that s/he is doing so, it is vandalism. Lumdeloo knows full well what the policy is. He's been directed to the policy, the guideline, categories hosting similar articles and prior discussions. Not one of those resources has supported his conclusion. Just because someone is in disagreement with a policy does not mean that when they violate it, it is somehow not vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• <Sigh> I am not in disagreement with policy. I am in disagreement with you. I have argued why I think policy and guideline allow this kind of use. I have argued why those "similar" articles are not so similar at all. And we both agreed that prior discussions are not the same as guidelines or policy. Are you ever going to address these points, or are you going to call me "sport" again? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I have repeatedly said, I'm not going to keep debating this with you. I will, teb's objections not withstanding, treat the reinclusion of these images as vandalism. You know full well what the policy is. Violate it at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you don't know what the policy is. It seems you're confusing prior discussions with actual policy. I'm still hoping there are people around here who can distinguish between the two. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• So far, not one soul has come to your defense. Odd, that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't expect anyone here to come to my defense. If only someone would give me a substantial reply... I can hope, can't I? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• <de-indent> You've been given multiple substantial replies. You just don't agree with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• True, at a certain point you did provide some useful background information. But when it became clear you were relying on your own made-up guideline ("if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article") instead of actual policy, you started chickening out. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yawn. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb Break

I know I've proposed the idea of allowing, in such list articles, the non-free cover image for identification of subtopics which would otherwise have complete full articles, albeit short, about them if the subtopics were written about individually, but for editorial decisions on comprehensiveness, have been keep as a single article. I don't propose the Glen Campbell videos above quality, but I recently encountered Music of the Katamari Damacy series which I do consider as falling under the exception for multiple covers in a "discography", as reasonably, each of those albums would stand by themselves in an article, but makes a better comprehensive article put together.

I would like to know if others believe this is the case, as this would further help define the dividing line when discographies/etc. can become exceptional to have those. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree. We had a debate about this recently regarding Music of the Command & Conquer series. That ended up with one image being retained. I think the line you're trying to describe is fuzzy at best. I think a much clearer line is whether a subsection of an article can stand on its own or not. If it can't, there's not much basis for an argument that we have to have a fair use image to describe it. We have processes in place regarding notability of subjects. There's AfD to cover articles. The case you describe has no supporting processes. We don't have Wikipedia:Article subsections for deletions, or any process for external review of the notability of a subsection of an article. I can see your point, but do not see anyway to reasonably enforce it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Of course, I would go further. When an album/dvd/videogame article describes more than one release, the use of an front cover for each of these releases is allowed, according to non-free policy and guidelines, for the same reason it is allowed for an article which describes just a single release. Whether the article is just a stub or of a very high quality doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter for an article about a single release. However, some editors (see above) claim that according to "consensus" or "longstanding practice" this is not allowed and drag in the concept of notability to avoid having front cover images in those articles. However, this is against notability policy and also not in accordance with non-free content policy. I don't believe this group of editors would ever agree with your idea (which in my view tries to restore the balance between quality and free content which got lost in current practice) but the truth is, we don't need them to agree. Consensus within a certain group does not overrule policy. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Muralbondgirls.jpg

Resolved

This is on Commons, but I thought I'd discuss it here first since I don't know how to handle Commons fair use discussions. This is claimed to be the uploader's own work, but in fact, isn't it just a moshing together of copyrighted images? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No. All four of the images are available under free licenses. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Close this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Four images

User:Sligocki is making a claim that the following four images qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}:

• File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg
• File:Spb metro logo.svg
• File:MetroSP.png
• File:MTR Corporation.svg

Comments welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an overly-liberal interpretation of PD-textlogo. It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maaaaybe the File:Spb metro logo.svg. The other three are obviously not textlogos, and I'm pretty sure that "a shape that is designed to look like an M" is not automatically given the status of typeface. Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no to all of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If any of them are close, I'd say File:MetroSP.png, because it is just Helvetica, some rectangles, and some lines. Graphic element on the left seems to be simple geometry, or composed of typographical elements (say a ^ and a | ). But it is pushing it a bit. I'd agree with the above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the latter two would be fine without their logos; the former two are not ok in any part. Powers ^T 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts:

File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg - this isn't a letter, or combination of letters, or any geometric shape. It has no grounds to be ineligible for copyright.

File:Spb metro logo.svg - This could be a letter. I'm not really up on my Cyrillic alphabet, but this easily could be a single letter with some artistic variation. If it is a letter (like the letter "M"), then it meets the criteria for {{PD-textlogo}} as its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..."

File:MetroSP.png - Arrows are not subject to copyright, neither are squares, rectangles or plain text. This one fits PD-text to a "T"

File:MTR Corporation.svg - Same as above, but even moreso as they are Chinese characters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Re File:Spb metro logo.svg, you said it yourself "with some artistic variation". So it's not straight text.
• Re File:MetroSP.png a square or arrow might not be copyrightable, but if you arrange several of them it can be. Again, artistic variation. There's several at play here.
• File:MTR Corporation.svg the icon on the left of the image is not a Chinese character. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You say discussions with me are "futile", yet you keep responding and twisting my words.

File:Spb metro logo.svg, "with some artistic variation" means it is still a letter "M" and therefore PD-text. "...copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation..." In short, if it is an "M", then it is text and its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." and it cannot be copyrighted. It really is that simple.

File:MetroSP.png "[XYZ] might be copyrightable" You seem to have no desire to delve into actual copyright law and learn what is copyrightable and what isn't. You are content with saying "it might not be, so we have to assume it isn't." There is no counter to that specious argument. Just because you personally don't know doesn't mean you just do what you want anyway.

Arrows (in both of the last two images, though the last one is of such small resolution that it is marginally useful at best) are not copyrightable: ...it is not possible to copyright...a standard symbol such as an arrow..."

You cannot make something copyrightable by placing a box around it much as you can't simply outline it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lather-rinse-repeat. All over the project. It never ends. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammer, it doesn't help to complain about bureaucracy, but it does help to show where I am wrong. I am quoting from the U.S. Copyright office which explicitly mentions the design feature here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• My point is that no matter how hard anyone tries, you don't ever shift your position. For the sake of happiness, I'll allow that from your perspective I'm sure you feel the same about me. You've reiterated the claim about the copyright office I don't know how many times. Honestly, we get it, we know you disagree, we know you quote the copyright office to substantiate your belief. In turn, we disagree with your position. The paradox and irony I find here is I think you'd prefer everything were free. That's exacly what I would like to see too, which is why I love this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts:

File:MetroSP.png – This is a simple combination of letters and geometric shapes. It is a textbook case PD-textlogo.

File:MTR Corporation.svg – The icon on the left is not a letter or a simple geometric shape. Unless this icon is a PD for some reason, the logo as a whole is not PD.

File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg – The S is distorted into a circle with a center bar and the M is superposed on the bar. Although it is composed entirely of letters, the artist has shown great originality. (The distortion and superposition are similar in kind to the Bruins logo we discussed above. Although this one has a bit less originality than the Bruins logo, it still crosses the threshold.)

File:Spb metro logo.svg – The side bars of the М are distorted into a circular shape. It is no more like a Cyrillic M than a Latin M (Indeed a upper case Cyrillic М is the same as a Latin M; lower case Cyrillic м is like a small cap Latin M, in cursive script with a hook-in on the left.) Although it has less originality than the Shanghai logo, it still crosses the threshold. —teb728 t c 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the logo on MTR Corporation.svg is not a simple geometric shape, but the one on MetroSP.png is. Powers ^T 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Zachman Framework Image

This image:

is claimed to be in the public domain as follows: "This image is a work of a United States Department of Veterans Affairs employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." However the image is simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman. I question whether simply because a US federal employee includes a copyrighted image within a presentation that they create, that this suddenly makes a copyrighted image in the public domain. I suggest that if this is viewed by Wikipedia as a standard practice, all that is needed to take a copyrighted image and place it in the public domain, is to have a US federal employee paste that image into a presentation and to publish it. I doubt that would pass a legal review. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The original work, even if used in a presentation that was put together by an employee of the federal government, can be encumbered with rights of the original copyright holder. The public domain assertion applies only to work created by the government, as opposed to used by the government. No rights transfer happens just because the federal government uses something that is copyrighted. It has to be created by the federal government. This wasn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: The assumption by SunSw0rd that this is "simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman" is simply not not true, as we are discussing here. There is a lot more to it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Psyren-char.jpg

It is a Scanlation. Non-free image which is an illegal derivative work. I'm pretty sure it should be deleted. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that it's not a free image; the only question is whether it qualifies for fair use. Right now it has no good non-free use rationale and doesn't seem to be adding much to the article, so I would say probably no. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so do I just wait and it gets deleted by an admin now? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chervona Ruta (film)

• File:Chervonarutafootageimmensitarotaru.jpg
• File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg
• File:Sofiarotaruchervonaruta1.jpg
• File:Rotarucervonarutafilm.jpg
• File:Rotarucervonarutafilm.jpg
• File:Chervonarutaactresses.jpg
• File:Chervonarutamusicalactor.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

I have removed most of the images. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Video cover art or a poster would be better suited for this function. Lacking that, this screenshot is marginally acceptable. But its rationale ("to illustrate the article") is inadequate; illustrating an article is never an adequate rationale for non-free image use.

The others (see use in this version) are clear violations of WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). The gallery of non-free images is particularly bad; non-free images are never acceptable in a gallery. —teb728 t c 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarudushaposter1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

As the lead image, I'm inclined to say it's ok- I did remove the non-free gallery and the DVD cover, and I also cropped the other image so that it can now be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that WP:FILMNFI and also WP:NFC#Images call for critical commentary, there is a consensus that a non-free image in the infobox fulfills WP:NFCC#8 by identifying the source of the article. The same applies posters used the same way in following sections.

With regard to this version of the article, however: In the presence of the poster, the video covers, File:SoulDVDsofiarotaru.jpg and File:Soulfilmsofiarotaru.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3. And the gallery images File:Rotaruboyarski.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskiperform.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskirehearsal.jpg, and File:Rotarusoul.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). —teb728 t c 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dniestrmelotitle.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Looks OK to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarusingwillalwaysbewithus.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Again, seems fine. A single poster in the infobox is generally going to be useful. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wherehaslovegonesofiarotaru.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarukaravan1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue3.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue4.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Port Militarization Resistance

Article about an anti war organization in the US that was started in 2006. The article uses 9 different non-free images, with the rationale that the images are historically important. However I can not see any critical commentary on the images themself. Any views on how to handle this articl. Rettetast (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them all as lacking rationales and adding little to the article. It's possible one or two of them are legitimate (though I doubt it), so I'm all ears if someone wants to defend them. This article is exactly the reason that stupid "non-free historical image" rationale was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Little People

Article about a toy. I removed some of the non-free images in this article and was reverted. Do we need nine different non-free images to show how the toy looks like? Rettetast (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd the gallery images, which IMO is the way to go instead of edit warring with people who insist on keeping unacceptable images. —teb728 t c 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gold

Article about a graphic designer. I removed all the non free movie posters from the article, but was reverted. Are all of these images necessary in an unreferenced biography about a living person? Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them again. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One or two might be acceptable to exemplify sourced critical commentary. But the way they were used was purely decorative. —teb728 t c 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay to remove, in this instance, I think, because they are available at the film pages themselves; though there is a case for showing some together, to allow readers to compare the wide diversity and variety of style in one place - and also for readers who are only going to print out or reproduce one article, not dozens.

But what is not okay is the amount of valuable text which has been removed from the article in the process. Please be a bit more careful in future, when there is significant material in captions which should not be lost, to make sure this gets retained in the article. Jheald (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GG-Jeanne Sauve.jpg

This non-free image of a deceased individual is currently five articles.

• Governor General of Canada
• Jeanne Sauvé
• List of Governors General of Canada
• 1993 in Canada
• Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces

I dispute that they can be used in any of the articles except Jeanne Sauvé. Some of these articles use a lot of non-free images and should be checked. Rettetast (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the image at 1993 in Canada seems superfluous. What is one to use for the other pages, though? The subject of the image has been dead for 16 years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed from 1993 in Canada but added to United States presidential visits to Canada.

I agree that the photo is acceptable only in her biography. In Governor General of Canada the photo decorates a mention of the fact that she was the first female Governor General. In the others photo is used in lists--esentially galleries. —teb728 t c 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you say "decorate" when you mean "illustrate"? The former implies complete inessentiality, while the latter has purpose, which the image clearly does on Governor General of Canada; unless you'd like to explain how the first female Governor General of Canada is insignificant. As for the lists: again, you make it sound as though the images are pretty decoration; yet, surely so many lists of people on Wikipedia employ images as illustrations, not simply to add some colour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she was first female Governor General of Canada is highly significant, and its significance is well expressed in the text. The use of the photo, however, is completely inessential. To put it differently, WP:NFCC#8 (part of Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content) says, “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.” If this photo were removed from the article, reader understanding that she was the first female Governor General would not suffer in the least. And if a reader wanted to know what she looked like, they could click on the link to her biography. As for the lists, the use there is also completely inessential: Everything that readers need to understand is expressed in the text, as is illustrated by the fact that understanding of the list of Governors General does not suffer in the least from the lack of an image of her predecessor, Edward Schreyer. —teb728 t c 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Shamrock wwf bigger.jpg

Non-free image of pro-wrestler Ken Shamrock used in the infobox accompanying the pro-wrestling-section of his article. There is already a free image of the subject, and while he is technically playing a character in this non-free one (which is what the rationale is based on) I don't think that warrants its use. The image also differs from the free image in that it shows a younger version of him which I guess could also be an argument, but I don't really think that is sufficient. The rationale given is "It is used to provide critical commentary on the character Shamrock portrayed in the content of the television program, and is also used to illustrate how the organization portrayed his character as intimidating, angry and fearless.". --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows Live Essentials

A short article about a software product. The article uses six different screenshots, and a total of seven non-free images. I can not see that all these images are needed to understand this article. There is no commentary on the screenshots in themself, and one of them are in the words of the editor who reverted my image removal; off "a completely separate product". Rettetast (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Images such as the screenshot of the download website has a very weak FUR, and the website itself is only very briefly mentioned in the article; I think their use are incompatible with NFCC#3a and 8. decltype (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say take the whole article to AfD. It's not even about the Windows Live software, it's about the install wizard for Windows Live. How is this notable? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge Antibody Technology#Design and Marketing

Bringing this here for additional reviewer's input... In this section there are 17 (if I counted right :) non-free annual report covers. As the article is about the group of companies, it would seem to me that one or two of the most unique report covers would be sufficient to get the idea across. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them all. The design of the front cover of an annual report is not important to the article. If it is important that have to be backed up by sources. Rettetast (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Elektra Records#Company logos

Is it OK according to WP:NFCC to have a gallery of eight old non-free logos that this record company has used in the past? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think yes, it is. Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Ignore Jheald. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sample of screenshots with Windows/OS X etc. non-free widgets

Hi,

I tried to start some discussion of this on Template_talk:Non-free_software_screenshot#Windows_UI_elements_etc. (possibly not the right place, so direct the discussion to another place if you feel so); anyway:

On commons:Commons:Screenshots, there's been some discussion on UI elements like the Windows close/minimize buttons etc. not being free. While they might qualify for fair use, they probably fail the Wikipedia non-free policy if they are replaceable, i.e. if a similar image could be made without them (possibly using a free system or something), or they could be cropped.

In my experience, while there are such policies on Wikipedia, they aren't systematically enforced, so I went through the first 100 hits when searching for "screenshot" in the File: space. Here are some images to consider (a mere sample); I'm not tagging them yet, as I'm not sure enough about the issue (I think mass tagging without discussing first would be rude anyway). Note that all these were among the first 100 hits, and I only considered those that were screenshots of software and not a full-screen game without any OS widgets (which often still are non-free). One of them actually contains album covers, and a couple contain Wikimedia logos which I understand render them non-free.

File:Old_project.net_screenshot.gif

File:Flcelloguy's_Tool_UI.PNG

File:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG

File:WM_screwedupimage.PNG

File:2007-E-uncat.png

File:Commonist_screenshot.png

File:Screenshot-big.gif

File:TUGZip_screenshot.png

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg

File:GOLD_screenshot.gif

File:Screenshot-AlbumPic.png

File:Commonplace-screenshot.jpg

File:Ichitaro_2006_screenshot.jpg

I explore Wikipedia systematically anyway (I do copyediting), so I might spend some time tagging images like this, if there's a consensus of what I should do to them. --SLi (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific blanket action to take for all the images. In my opinion, the Windows window design and minimize/maximize/close icons are too simple to attract copyright, so a screenshot of free software that just happens to be running in Windows is OK (provided it doesn't show taskbar or a copyrighted background, etc.

Some of those images don't have a sufficient rationale, though, and fall to be tagged {{subst:nrd}}.

Anything with the WMF logo is also non-free and needs to be tagged appropriately. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this, these images basically fall into one of the following categories:

1. Images on Commons, which are outside our responsibility
2. Screenshots of free software which only display freely-licensed material (I'm including a window with minimize/maximize/close icons in this)
3. Screenshots of non-free software which have a proper rationale
4. Screenshots of non-free software which do not have a proper rationale
5. Screenshots of free software which include non-free content (including Wikimedia logo, other copyrighted programs, copyrighted text or images, Windows interface, etc.)

What action to be taken on the image depends on which category it's in. #1 is out of our hands, #2 and #3 are probably fine. #4 should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:dfu}}, or similar, and #5 should be tagged as {{PUI}}. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt modern UI elements would be considered simple enough to not merit copyright protection at least in the US. Of course I think this question is somewhat academic in the sense that whether to allow those images or not is only a Wikipedia policy question, since they quite certainly would be fair use. But the bar for copyright protection is usually quite low. Old black-and-white UI widgets with a cross as a close button would not be copyrightable, but I'm fairly certain if we're talking about more artistic wighets, and e.g. having the Windows logo in one of the widgets (as I think is often the case in Windows) and more stylish widgets, then the UI at least as a whole would get copyright protection. (And how about the Windows panel... bar... whatever the thing in the bottom part of the screen is called?) I also think showing a Windows logo wouldn't be any different from showing a Google logo (for example the small site icon in a browser), even if it's embedded in the standard UI of Windows.

In any case, the nice folks at Commons seem to have discussed this issue quite a bit. --SLi (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

History of graphic design

This article is a glorified gallery/slide show. And it is peppered with non-free images. For some topics, there are 4 non-free images illustrating the exact same point. And it isn't even clear to me why we need so much non-free imagery. Many of the non-free images have little relation, if any, to the the text of the article. It seems like massive image abuse. I wanted to get other opinions on this, and perhaps solicit help cleaning up the article's images.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a mess. I'm going to see if I can FFD some of the images. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are likely to be {{PD-old}} actually and are mistagged as non-free. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Apple Computer Logo.svg

Does the use of this image on Rob Janoff and History of Apple comply with WP:NFCC#8? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Apple I would say certainly: the coloured logo was iconic of the height of Apple's first success in the 1970s and 1980s.

Rob Janoff I would say also yes: it is his most famous work, and currently the article on him is substantially devoted to discussing what may or may not be symbolism in the logo.

I question whether the logo needs to be as big, though. Smaller logo with more white space might be better. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it would be legitimate on Rob Janoff, if that content was a little better sourced, but it would be better in section rather than at the head of the article (where an image of Janoff himself would be best). The lack of discussion or even, as far as I can see, mention is not consistent with the claim that the logo is "iconic"- I cannot see why it is being used in that article. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before Stifle added the CSD notice, there was a caption which read "The Apple logo in 1976 created by Rob Janoff with the rainbow color theme used until 1998."

IMO showing the original form of the logo, naming the creator, describing when it was changed, taken together as a package does add significantly to the subject of the article, "History of Apple".

As for it being "iconic", that was just my automatic reaction having been around at the time. It's an assessment of significance being offered by me as an editor, and as such germane to the discussion. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption is not enough- it's fairly obvious that the caption describes the image. This reminds me a little of Russell's paradox- using the logic that the caption describes the image, you're basically saying that, if the image is there, it is needed- if it isn't, it isn't. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An image caption can be entirely enough. There is no requirement at WP:NFCC for any text at all discussing an image. The requirement is for the image to significantly add to the understanding readers get from the image. This image does that. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While a sourced discussion is not specifically mentioned as a requirement in WP:NFCC, the significance still needs to meet WP:V, which would require discussion sourced to a reliable source. Otherwise, simply claiming that an image is of importance to an article would be WP:OR or WP:POV. --Mosmof (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and OR are content policies - it's just fine to make unsourced statements in a meta-discussion like this. We all know (anyone who was around at the time) that the rainbow apple logo was an icon of its era. If we want to improve the article with a sourced statement to that effect, surely it's out there somewhere. The general take on historic logos is that they're okay if used to illustrate a sourced discussion of the branding, logos, and identity of a company (where that is germane to an article), but not okay as a mere gallery of images. By comparison with other visual artists, it's okay in the bio of a graphic designer to include a few well-chosen examles or famous works, if accompanied by sourced discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me - I was talking about content in article space. My point is that:

1. Non-free content needs to be subject of critical commentary
2. Critical commentary, like all article space content, needs to be sourced to meet WP:V and WP:NOR
3. Therefore, there is an implicit requirement for non-free content to be accompanied by sourced commentary.

And if we wanted to use the rainbow Apple logo as the designer's representative work, we would need a reliable source to verify that it is considered to be the defining work of the designer's, right? --Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Who I was just about to quote, from this discussion, and even more on-point the one immediately following it, in the archives at WT:NFC.

WP:NOR is about text in article space. It does not apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy space, etc. The question of significance is a judgment for the community to come to. It does not depend on citing sources. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. If the logo is as important as you claim, it will be worth discussing in the article. If there's discussion in the article, it may be worth including the image. You can't cut out the middle man and slam in a non-free image just because you consider it iconic. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for the community to consider whether they find it iconic (or more precisely, significant). Per WP:BRD "slamming in a non-free image just because you consider it significant" (and expect the community to agree) is exactly what you can do. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Yeah, wow indeed. I think the comment is a pretty good illustration of exactly how not to approach non-free content use and the fair use principle, that I see with many editors. They think of images as an afterthought or an accessory that you add to an article. Rather, non-free content needs to be an integral part of the content, so much so that the discussion couldn't exist without it. It's not so much that non-free content requires accompanying commentary, but rather, the non-free content must be part of the commentary. --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

back to the game. Like many who were around at the time, the image is significant to me though for what it reminds me of rather than what it tells me. There should be sourced commentary in both places (not hard to do) as without it, particularly in History of Apple the logo adds precisely nothing to the uninformed. I just got someone here to read the section with the logos as an experiment (someone too young to remember the logo)...result was that the inclusion of the logos was meaningless. To those arguing that things are significant, without commentary in the article, this sort of experiment is most instructive. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of galleries to display former Apple logos in the Apple Inc. is disgusting, and without a doubt, does not meet the criteria for non-free content. Fair use images of any kind shouldn't be in galleries at the end of the section, they should be in the context of articles. Not only that, but the article only talks about the original Apple logo and the rainbow colored logo. And in the article is says:

In 1998, with the roll out of the new iMac, Apple discontinued the rainbow theme — supposedly at the insistence of recently returned Jobs — and began to use monochromatic themes, nearly identical in shape to its previous rainbow incarnation.

Bearing that in mind, why do we have to have 4 apple logos that nearly look the same in gallaries when the current logo is in the infobox? — ℳℴℯ ε 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Images used at Jayne Mansfield

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Four questionable photos have been deleted, and one more was removed from the article. The two remaining non-free photos are iconic and supported by critical commentary.

---

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Jayne Mansfield#The lead image about the specific use of File:Jaynemansfield.jpg in the infobox, and the use of images within the article as a whole. The article currently uses 11 images. 9 include Mansfield and 2 are of her grave. Of the 9 that show Mansfield, 2 are free images from Commons, and the other 7 are included on the basis that their use is fair. Questions have resulted from the discussion.

1. If an unfree image is being used with a fair use rationale, can it be used in the infobox if a free image is available? ie Does the fair use rationale determine where in the article the image can be used?
2. Is there a maximum number of unfree images that can be used in one article?

My opinion is that each image of Mansfield does not show her in such a different guise as to justify using so many unfree images. As the infobox is to provide a basic summary of the person and a basic visual identification, a free image should suffice if one of satisfactory quality is available. From what I've observed in various discussions, including FA and GA reviews, the infobox image is the one on which most weight is placed, because it is the one seen first when accessing the article, and is the one most prominently displayed, and therefore should be free if possible. Does anyone know if there is any policy that specifically mentions this, or is it more a case of "common practice"? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we use images that illustrate the text and the context adequately and appropriately, or should we use random images just because they come free? I'm asking this in lieu of emerging events at the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested using "random images just because they come free". I have said that I believe the infobox image needs to be the free one, simply because the only thing it needs to do is identify Mansfield. A free image will achieve that. If there are compelling reasons to use the unfree images in the article, accompanied by appropriate supporting text, and strong fair use rationale, I have no disagreement with that. I feel you are misrepresenting what is being discussed at the article talk page. None of the unfree images have a strong and specific fair use rationale. They are all fairly weak and generic, and generally support a brief mention in the text, rather than a detailed discussion that would require illustration. The FURs say what the image is, which is self-evident, not the reason why the image is being used, which is not so self-evident. What I did say that nobody has bothered responding to is "Not everything needs an illustration." Your objective should be to make the fair use rationale on the image description page and the discussion in the article, so interlinked and so compelling, that a fool like me can't come along and question it. That's what you're not doing, and that's why I've brought this here so that someone else can look at it impartially. Rossrs (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that none of the non-free use rationales is adequate. The rationales need to make a strong case that its image significantly increases readers’ understanding of the article. (Adequate rationales would be easy for the Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt—and probably impossible for anything else.) Instead these rationales waste verbiage mentioning things like her being dead. (The only point of her being dead is that a free image could not be created, which is moot considering that free images already exist.) —teb728 t c 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this forum is of little value for such a disputed discussion as this, for the forum has no process for reaching a conclusion. The forum is effective only if there is a consensus to keep (which isn’t going to happen with these images) or if an image is a candidate for speedy deletion or for FFD. Indeed, I just may nominate some or all of the images at WP:FFD if only to get closure. Based on my experience with FFD, here is what I think would be the result if they were nominated:

• The Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt would be kept as iconic images with ample sourced critical commentary.
• The lead and Playboy photos would be deleted as undoubtedly being replaceable by the free photos already in the article, and because they do not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article. (But of course the lead image will be speedily deleted long before the FFD is closed.)
• The album cover would be kept only for use in the infobox of the album article.
• The Hargitay photo might be kept only for use on his article, assuming no free photo of him exists.
• The family photo would be deleted because it does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article.

In reply to your specific questions: This is not exactly an answer, but if there is a free image, a non-free image cannot be used simply for identification of the subject, and the use of a non-free image anywhere requires sourced critical commentary (like that which accompanies the Loren photo). There is no absolute maximum number of non-free images allowed in an article, but the more non-free images there are, the stronger the rationale must be for each one. —teb728 t c 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't expecting a conclusion but an opinion from an editor or editors who are looking at it impartially from a non-free content standpoint, rather than an article-specific standpoint. I think your comments are valuable, and I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. I was thinking that each time an unfree image is added to an article it effectively weakens the non-free aim of the overall article, which is somewhat in line with your comment that the rationale must be stronger for each one. Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Just two observations - (1) I was under the impression that "significance" was a criteria and that was provided for the lead image; (2) I was also under the impression that playmates do have their playboy pictures as historically "significant". Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aditya, I think what you are referring to is: (1) There is a community consensus that identification of the subject of an article satisfies the significance criterion, but that doesn’t mean that a non-free image could be used when a free image would serve that purpose. (2) If there is no free image of a woman who was a Playmate, and none could be created (because she is dead), a non-free image could be used for identification. (This is just a corollary of the identification consensus above, and it doesn’t affect JM because there are free images of her that could be used for identification.) Notice, for example, that a Playmate picture is used for (dead) Dorothy Stratten but not for her (living) predecessor nor for Marilyn Monroe, for whom there are plenty of free photos. Notice also how all of the MM photos are free except the first issue of Playboy and Happy Birthday, Mr. President—both highly iconic and accompanied by substantial sourced critical commentary.

I support the identification consensus, but it creates a lot of confusion for editors because the identification rationale seems weak whereas any other use rationale must be very strong.

I sympathize with the sentiment in your first post that Wikipedia’s preference for free images means that a free image is sometimes used when a non-free image would be better. The reason for the policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and non-free images make reuse more difficult. The policy makes editors more motivated in finding free content. —teb728 t c 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:NFCW-Uniform-ARI.PNG

The use of this image in the articles about the 2008 and 2009 AZ Cardinals season is seriously questionable. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The use in the season articles is n ot needed. The images should be removed from those articles. Rettetast (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? They are self-created works used to represent uniform images in a given year. Pats1 ^T/C 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They are “self-created” in the sense that you (and other users) created the actual drawings. But drawings are copied from the original design which belongs to the Cardinals. Since you don’t own that design, you can’t license Wikipedia to use the image. And that means that it can be used here only under Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. One restriction of that policy is that non-free content is allowed only if its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic. There is a consensus that a drawing of the uniform in the infobox of a team’s main article does significantly increase readers’ understanding by visually identifying the subject of the article. But there is no such consensus for an article about a season. Indeed the uniform does not identify the season; you can’t make a picture of a season. —teb728 t c 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor can you make a picture of a team, other than a logo. Current unform images are used in team infoboxes. But take the New England Patriots for example; I have separate images for each season (i.e. uniform change) that are used on every individual season article, from 1960 Boston Patriots season to 1977 New England Patriots season to 2003 New England Patriots season. In all, there are more than a dozen unique images. Using these in individual season articles makes a lot more sense than putting them in a logos and uniforms gallery on the main article. I also have a uniform image on Tuck rule game to show the uniforms the teams wore in that game. All of these images are used only in those specific articles. Are you proposing the removal of all of those? Pats1 ^T/C 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've always felt these uniform images are inappropriate per season. They do make sense in a main article, or in an article specifically about the logos and uniforms of the organization. Per season is excessive and unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? They are capable of changing from season to season and are one of the main identifiers of a team's season. Pats1 ^T/C 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I generally think this overuse falls into the same category as team logos being splashed on every season, as we have dealt with most recently on college football teams. In particular, I think the use on Tuck rule game is completely indefensible. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you can't provide photos of the game, the next best option is to use illustrations of the uniforms to provide readers an idea of what the game may have looked like. Pats1 ^T/C 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the uniform might be relevant is if there were some uniform-related controversy attached to the game. If, for some reason, we can show that it's impossible to find a free image from the game, then the proper non-free replacement would be a photo from the game, not the uniforms. In this article in particular, I could definitely see the value in some photographic description of the "tuck" situation, but it doesn't matter what the quarterback was wearing when he tucked the ball. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could buy showing the uniforms in-use during a particular season on the season pages. But not for games; that's not generally information important to the specific game (if the uniforms were relevant to the particular game, it's possible a good fair-use rationale could be written, but such cases are very very rare). Powers ^T 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Libertarian Party.svg

This non-free logo is currently used on 45 articles. The use in Libertarian Party (United States) should be ok, but I don't understand wy it is needed on all the affiliate state parties, such as Libertarian Party of Arkansas. I note that the democratic and te republican party does not need the logos on the state parties. 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetast (talk • contribs)

I agree. Some (if not most) of those individual organizations have their own specific logos independent (or derivative) of the national logo. Seem similar to sports teams/seasons. National article should clearly have the logo. Each state should not (though having their own state logo for that one article would seem adequate in those cases). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shells' Written Roads album from WeThreeRecords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The covers have been removed from all articles, and the discussion here has died out. —teb728 t c 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg
• File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg
• File:The Shells Written Roads Album Cover 3.jpg

These images are all being used in various places on The Shells, WeThreeRecords, and Written Roads. I believe (other than cover1 on the actual album page) these images fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8. There has been some discussion on the talk page but the uploader does not agree that there is any violation and they city the Album fair-use as a rationale for why these images are acceptable. I would appreciate an even-handed review of these images.  ~ Paul^T+/_C 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I removed all three from The Shells. Someone else beat me to removing covers 2 and 3 from Written Roads and cover 1 from WeThreeRecords. —teb728 t c 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. I also tagged the cover for a size reduction, and I believe the other images have been tagged for deletion. I consider the issue resolved, unless someone feels the need to add them back. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the use of covers that is being considered here was consistent with the uses in [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and [33] as well as (from what I can tell) the vast majority of the thousand or so images at [34] and [35]. Indeed, it was in part because of the widespread use of such images that I thought that my use must certainly be fine -- it was in accordance with what is already on Wikipedia. Are they ok because of some other exception I'm unaware of? --VMAsNYC (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't care that other crap exists, but secondly, no, it isn't. Those usages are mostly to illustrate the article on the band when the band has broken up. These usages were to illustrate the article on an active band (therefore, the image would be replaceable) and random decoration in an article about an album. J Milburn (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The very second example here demonstrates that even if the band/singer is no longer around, there can be other photos -- see [36], where it is just one of a number of images of Nick Drake in an article about him. And repaceablity is just one of the 10 requirements -- how do they meet the critical commentary requirement? And finally, where is this rule written in the guidance?--VMAsNYC (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but it can't be replaced with a free image. I admit, as I scroll down the second article you link, it is not awfully clear why those other images are required. And, there is no "critical commentary" requirement- only a requirement that the image significantly increases reader understanding. There is a longstanding consensus that a single image of the band/singer in an article about the band/singer significantly increases reader understanding (the same applies to any biography). As such, if we have no free images and it is deemed that we will not get any, we may use a non-free image in the article header. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, even though in fact free use pictures clearly exist of Nick Drake (both on his article and on flickr at [37]), because he is dead you (falsely) presume otherwise and allow use of the back cover image of an album on his wikipedia bio. But with the Shells, where I can't find any photo on flickr or Wikipedia, I can't use any album image -- so the article about the band is photo-less? Wouldn't it significantly increase reader understanding to allow use of the band image on the band article? The image is already up (on an article that the reader of the band article might not read), the band article contains critical commentary about the album from Seventeen magazine, and the picture is reduced to a level where there is no risk of commercial re-use. And if I delete the album article, can I then put the image on the band article? And again -- you speak of a longstanding consensus -- but where is this reflected in the guidance?

How in the world are people like me supposed to ferret out what the rules are, if: a) they are not set forth in the guidances (took about long!), b) they are unwritten "its generally accepted" rules, or "longstanding consensuses" and the like that a small coterie is aware of, c) the facts on the ground don't reflect the guidelines or the consensuses (you may not care about the "crap" of what exists, but given the flaws in the guidelines it is not as crazy as you suggest for me to try to figure out the rules by looking at similar articles), and d) the people who are the guardians of those unwritten consensuses only share the facts piecemeal and with a distinct air of inconvenience?

BTW, I read other crap exists. It says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." It also suggested that your terse answer to that wasWP:VAGUEWAVE--VMAsNYC (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fucking expert on any specific case you happen to cite. You have an issue with other uses, go and deal with it, stop moaning at me. I'm not responsible for every image on Wikipedia. Oh, and guess what? Shorten your comments. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolling up off-topic discussion, please do not continue it. All further comments should be constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. How's this? Given your tone, you may want to either lighten up or, alternatively add {{User DGAF}} to your user profile.--VMAsNYC (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about both of you calm down? VMAsNYC, J Milburn was just trying to offer input (for which you should be glad—in the past I've listed things here and had them pretty much ignored for weeks) and there's no reason for you to attack him for things outside his control (i.e., the lack of standardness across articles). Maybe both of you should go on to other things and wait for other editors to comment here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ... I thought I was being funny by responding to his cursing (admins really do that?) and request for terseness by using a style closer to his own. I'm calm, and I don't blame him personally for things outside of his control. I do think this nook of wikipedia is a very byzantine one though that makes it difficult for a new person to know what the rules of the game are, for the reasons stated. It's like an electric fence where nobody tells you where the borders are until you run into them -- and then they use profanity while doing it to make you feel welcome.--VMAsNYC (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're offended by profanity, I advise you to avoid the Internet, whereever possible. I found this conversation somewhat irritating- basically, you asked for help, and, when it was offered, starting ratting on about how you weren't happy with the help, and running around trying to find someone else to give you the help you wanted, while posting big blocks of text and making rather odd assumptions. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that Wikipedia:Civility would provide some protection from profanity. I posted on the album wikiproject because I was seeking advice from people expert in the area of album images. The only reason that I posted here subsequently was because I found (only subsequently) that discussion on the same topic had been opened here. If it was odd for me to assume that there may be free images of pictures of former bands extant, or that it might assist editors new to this area if the "generally accepted understandings" and "longstanding consensuses" that have been shared with me were written into the guidelines, I apologize.--VMAsNYC (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) VMAsNYC,

• Thank you for pointing out a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake. That bears looking into. You say there is a free photo on his bio, but I don’t see it: where is it?
• The Shells does not need to go photo-less: You or someone else could take a photo of them and release it under a free license, or you could get their management to release a photo under a free license. (Do I guess correctly that you are connected with them?) Inasmuch as their first album has not even been released yet, there is no urgency to add a photo to the article.
• You can’t delete the album article unless you can show the album is not notable.
• Wikipedia’s policy for non-free content is set down at WP:NFCC. Most significantly for you, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” [emphasis added]
• Wikipedia’s guideline, interpreting that policy, is set down at WP:NFC. Most significantly for you, unacceptable usages images include “Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.”

Hope this helps. —teb728 t c 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The way things are looking now, all these articles will be deleted soon anyway. Once the articles are deleted, the images can go as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lumberjack Song.jpg

Only has a fair-use rationale for Michael Palin, but is included on four articles. Plus, the rationale for use on the Palin article claims the image is discussed in the text, but it is not (the sketch is mentioned, very briefly, but not this specific image). In my opinion, a valid FUR could be written for "The Lumberjack Song" and maybe Monty Python, but not for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Powers ^T 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a fair-use rationale for The Lumberjack Song. I agree there doesn't seem to be one for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from articles that failed NFCC #10c. It was once restored at Monty Python, where I noticed other NFCC abuses. We may need eyes on there. As for the specifics, if someone can write an adequate fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, then good. Uses that fail the most basic of criteria need to be removed from those articles. We could argue back and forth regarding how much that image significantly increases our understanding of Michael Palin/Connie Booth, but until rationales have been written, that point is moot. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A FUR has been written for Michael Palin, so I would like to discuss whether it's valid. Powers ^T 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate that the point Andrew mentions regarding the how much the image increases our understanding of Michael Palin is not moot as he indicated it was, but rather very relevant here, and in fact is the very FUR I was disputing when I introduced this discussion. Thoughts? Powers ^T 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Drake photos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Two non-free photos have been deleted - one kept for identification of the article

---

VMAsNYC points out above a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake:

• File:Nick Drake.jpg a promotional photo
• File:Nick drake way to blue.jpg album artwork
• File:Nick Drake Pink Moon Insert.jpg album artwork

Since none of them is accompanied by critical commentary on the photo, two fail WP:NFCC#3. VMAsNYC also points to this flickr image, which is ostensibly {{cc-by-2.0}}. But that may be too good to be true, for the same flickr uploader has other content at here that seem to be copyvios.—teb728 t c 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I FfD's all three with the recommendation that the promotional photo be kept and the two album photos be deleted. Does anyone know what to do about possible copyvios on flickr? —teb728 t c 07:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a page on commons (Commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images) that deals with this, and you can list questionable flickr users there. As for reporting the images on Flickr, I am not familiar with those mechanisms. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:JJam.JPG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

File deleted

---

I think the FUR for Michael Jordan is fine, but I dispute the FUR for David Falk. I don't think this meets NFCC #8, which requires the media to contribute significantly to understanding. Powers ^T 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO it is if anything even less significant in the Jordan article than in the Falk. But it is not needed for reader understanding in either. —teb728 t c 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd it. —teb728 t c 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed from all articles other than UCLA Bruins, UCLA Bruins football, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, and UCLA Bruins women's volleyball as failing WP:NFCC#8. Using the team logo to decorate the many articles about various seasons' versions of the teams isn't a viable fair use under our criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. As I did with Arkansas and LSU previously, I've created File:UCLA athletics text logo.svg, which should be an adequate text-only (i.e. PD-logo) image with which we should replace the non-free instances.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem there is that it is frequently the case that such logos are not the actual logos of the university in question. In this case, and this case only, it can be considered to be so. See page 14 of this document, where it says "The UCLA script, with or without a tail..." and this is the UCLA script without a tail. People should avoid making logos that are not actually the logos of universities. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would never create a logo that was not the universities (at least not on purpose). I agree 100% with your sentiment, but resent that some of it may be aimed at me personally. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• None of it was aimed at you personally. I've seen people create logos for universities before that were not in fact the university's logo. That's fine if it's a userbox. Not fine when it's article space (and yes, I've seen this done). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed. Even if there isn't a PD-text replacement, the non-free image needs to leave those individual season articles. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed too. But, 100% agreement doesn't exist. It's time to take this to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the sports logo dispute never got resolved, but isn't this a pretty clear-cut case that we have a free logo that can serve the same purpose (identify the school) as the non-free one? howcheng {chat} 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom will accept this, I can hear "decline, content issue" immediately. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I already felt them out about this, and I think it would be accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. I don't believe this logo is eligible for copyright protection (argument made on image's talk page, so I'm not going to rehash it here), so NFCC#8 doesn't apply
2. If it did, I would have no problem replacing it with Andrew c's logo as it is one of the UCLA logos and sold on UCLA merchandise, but the problems remain as to how to define things like this so we don't have these arguments (or at least minimize them to images that are complicated).
3. 100% agreement (or even 70% agreement) doesn't easily exist on how they should be treated. I would like to take another shot at Mediation. Hammersoft and others didn't like the way I phrased some of the last request. I recommend at least trying to do another mediation before going to ArbCom; feel free to phrase it how you so desire. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with BQZip on this. I don't see how any of the letters, including the tail on the "a" are anything more than typographical ornamentation, which is not eligible for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Andrew C, what font did you use to create that new image? Stifle (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  No font, auto-traced a logo. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine image you've created, Andrew c, and it illustrates another protection of copyright, described here in Derivative work.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying my image is still a derivative work and therefore not PD? Derivative work of non-copyrightable elements (i.e. text-only) is still not any more eligible for copyright than the original constituent parts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, with all that above, it's got me second guessing myself. What I did was take the largest logo file I could find on google images, which was a helmet drawing from here, that has the tail. I then cut the tail from the trace, took a smaller non-tail logo, and hand traced the terminal of the "a". I finally added the outline, but no drop shadow (similar to this). But now I noticed that the helmet logo, which isn't outlined, seems to be thinner than the basic text used in the outlined versions. So I believe I may have done what I was talking against above, creating a logo not used by the university (A thin, outlined logo.). While they do officially accept versions of the script logo without a tail, I have not been able to locate any from an official source, and a google image search apparently comes up with not-so-official logos. I'd be totally fine with scrapping my version altogether because of this, or re-doing it or making modifications if others can offer suggestions or better source logos to use. Maybe if I simply removed the outline it would be better, but then again, are there any uses of the thinner script without a tail? Sorry about all that. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've created another file, from scratch, using a different source. I still had to draw on the terminal of the "a" by hand after removing the tail. Not sure what others think about this new one, or if the previous one was even problematic. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the PD claim: the Copyright Act requires that a typeface must have an "intrinsic utilitarian function ... for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". While the "UCLA" or "Bruins" elements would certainly meet that requirement separately, the work must be evaluated as a whole and it seems incorrect to conclude that this is a mere "compos[ition of] text" or "cognizable combination of characters" (the latter in terms of the spirit of the definition). Admittedly this is a grey area on which reasonable people may disagree. It is important, however, to err on the side of caution as, among other reasons, not to misinform our readers. Although a much more clear-cut example, ASCII images demonstrate that the whole, at times, can be more than the sum of its parts (i.e. in certain instances, collections of elements themselves ineligible for copyright may become eligible by virtue of sufficient creative arrangement, etc.) Эlcobbola _talk 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Elcobbola, your opinions are certainly important here. I concur that reasonable people may disagree, but the question remains as to how we should proceed. I have to say that I based most of my opinion on your page, so clarification about your points is certainly important. I agree that ASCII art such as this is a clear-cut example to the contrary. You agree that the "UCLA" and "Bruins" components each are PD, correct? It seems to me that adding two PD images result in another PD image. The "U" is being used as a "U" and has no other function than a "U". The same goes with each of the letters. Writing letters on a circle doesn't suddenly make it copyrightable. Why would writing it on another letter? Where am I wrong on this?

  As a further example, what would you think about the PD-ness of this image? Should it be PD? I am unaware of a key that combines a K, Y, and another Y. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with that is someone can take PD work, change it a bit and give it a new copyright (at least on the new work). Copyright is automatic now; I do agree that some elements alone are public domain, but from looking at the total package, I believe the image is copyrighted. As for the season articles...hmm... User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]" I view the elongated tail of the "a" as a variation of typographic ornamentation, hence it is not eligible. The same goes for the "Bruins". — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  I see where you are coming from, but I just don't see the tail design as simple ornamentation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  It doesn't mention "simple" ornamentation, but ornamentation in general, much as in the Coca Cola logo (another example of a PD image)...and while we're on the subject, it is extremely similar to the ornamentation on that logo, only that it goes in the opposite direction.

  On a related topic, you unilaterally deleted the UT&T logo. Why? Even having the wrong license is correctable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Texas Tech or something else? The Coca Cola image is PD due to age, which is a different reason all together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  The Coca-Cola one may be old enough to pass that magic 1923 mark, but it has been a PD-trademark for some time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, the Texas with the U and T overlayed; it is restored as of now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  There are also several others:

  File:ASUinterlock.gif

  File:AzSt.gif

  File:Colorado.gif

  File:Tulane shield web.png

  File:Akron.gif

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  File:Tulane shield web.png was not me; it was also not claimed in any sort of PD license. The others, I will look at it later. It's almost 2 am, I need sleep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "PD-Trademark"? Yes, it's PD, and yes, it's a trademark, but please try to understand that the Coca-Cola logo is not subject to copyright because of its age, and not because it is too simple. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is labeled as such (and only recently so), but as numerous people have pointed out, labeling somethign doesn't make it so. This is logo is made from a specific font, by any definition a typeface, and is therefore completely ineligible for copyright. Its date of creation is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

←There's a suggestion above that a combination of PD works remains PD. This isn't true, because the composition and arrangement of the PD works, and any modifications made thereto, attracts a copyright. Reminds me of the proof by induction that all men are bald. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, but there are certain things that cannot be copyrighted. A square is not copyrightable. The letter "A" when used as an "A" is not copyrightable. Putting an A in a square is merely an arrangement of things that are not copyrightable. Take a collection of letters and make them into art and you have ASCII art which goes beyond its use as an "A", beyond its utilitarian purpose. Take a collection of squares in various colors and you get the basic construct of a bitmap image. The question is, was, and remains, where do we draw the line? There is reasonable disagreement on where we should do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a deeply disturbing, shocking, and unnerving thought; has anyone thought to contact UCLA for their opinion on the copyright status of their logos? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the sarcasm.

We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image. Like I've said ad nauseum, spend the same amount of effort on a mediation request and we can take this whole issue there and either resolve it or go on to ArbCom and be done with it much sooner. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go to ArbCom to settle the issue, as long as no one is going to have editing restrictions or any punishment of sorts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BQZip, there's no reason to conflate this issue with the issue regarding copyrighted logos on season articles. Further, asking the holder of a work about the nature and extent of copyrights they hold on that work is hardly out of line. If you don't want to do the work, fine. But, don't extend that to mean we shouldn't, can't, and that it is against our principles. There's nothing about asking a source holder questions about the source that is against our principles. Zscout, arbitration is probably premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to just this logo. Six others are mentioned above as well and they apply to all of them. It also applies across Wikipedia and it isn't simple.

ZScout, you and I do not agree on this, but I think we could work together and present an accurate discussion to start the ArbCom process. Are you interested? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom won't take it, BQZ. I talked to a few last night and they told me they will not legislate copyright law. Plus, I took image issues before the ArbCom and it was rejected. I am dealing with some IRL issues at this moment, so even if they would take the case, I am not sure what I can physically do in the next few weeks. But I stopped any of the edits to images and began asking a few questions off wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about legislating copyright law, but to define what we use within Wikipedia as free and non-free images. I personally don't care one way or another, but we need to have something concrete to make appropriate edits. Current discussion is about 60-40, not a clear consensus, but we will continue to have these problems until a solution can be worked out (either directive from ArbCom or throught agreement by a sizable percentage). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is how they see it, but I will try again soon. If I had my way, I would not use college logos in userboxes or anything like that, and I frankly not concerned about trademark whatsoever. Trademark law makes my head spin. But as an admin, and one who deals with images, I need a clear boundary to say what is good and what is no go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're not going to get a concrete line in the sand that says "This is free and this is not free" on these logos. Why? Because there's no concrete line in law. It's a case by case basis. In this case, we can't agree if it's free or not, so it needs to be marked as non-free. The only way around that is to contact the rights holder (UCLA) and find out their stance as to its copyright or lack thereof. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  That is how I was told to operate; assume non-free unless otherwise proven. Is this written somewhere in Wikipedia policy? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  I went looking for it recently and couldn't find it coded per se. But, it's implied in things like {{nld}} and {{nsd}} and CSD F11. It is how we operate here though. If we can't prove something is free, we delete it unless we're using it under a fair use claim. I think we can make reasonable assumptions of something being free. But, when the community can't agree something is free (and we don't here), we have to either use it under fair use or be done with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  "If we can't prove something is free, we delete it..."

  1. You have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy to make such a statement
  2. The problem is that even if we accept this is that there is no standard for "proof". Making such a demand isn't appropriate as this isn't policy. I have no problem with creating such a policy, but let's set up some basic structure by which to come up with this proof or give guidance to other Wikipedians. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. That was how it was explained to me in the past, but I cannot seem to pull the quote given to me. But if I can make it simple, if it cannot go on the Commons without certainty, we should assume unfree until we get evidence. However, a lot of our license changes came from people above me. It took a Jimbo order in May of 2005 to get rid of images used under a license of non-commercial. It took the Foundation itself to talk about the EDP policy or your upload will be disabled (thus forcing it to the Commons by default). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone who believes we are a free until proven non-free project fails to understand what our basic ethos is. It's blatantly obvious. BQZ, you've been shown this multiple times. It's like everyone is telling you the sky is blue, and you're insisting it's a neat shade of green. It's pointless to debate this further with you. Baring consensus, this image will remain tagged as unfree. I fail to understand why the proponents of this image being free refuse to contact UCLA. What harm could it possibly cause to ask, you know, the people who actually OWN the thing? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted Texas Tech about their logo to solve the issue. If anyone else decides to contact a school about a logo, do say that we KNOW it is TRADEMARKED, but what about copyright? As I pointed out constantly, copyright is automatic under US law and we need to show proof that it is indeed non-eligible for protection in the first place. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing; I was pointed to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others tonight. I wish for all to read this quote: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." This is a statement that we must treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the quote. My point is that they fall into the public domain. We don't treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. We make the call on many of them where copyright status isn't explicitly stated, such as statues created prior to 1923.

Hammer, I do not believe we are a free until proven non-free, period, but you (and no one else in this discussion) has provided an avenue to prove whether this image is free. If I contact UCLA and tell you that is what they said, then I would expect that you would then demand an e-mail and subsequent OTRS verification stating this. It simply isn't how things are done. These are your personal standards, not Wikipedia's. Demanding that everyone acquiesce to you and cave to your demands for proof (which you haven't even stated what would prove it to be so) isn't appropriate, IMNSHO. Barring consensus, it doesn't mean we default to what you want and nothing in Wikipedia states so (feel free to prove me wrong). I'm not saying it means it should be PD, but a lack of consensus doesn't mean we default to non-free. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about OTRS because I'm part of it. So if UCLA tells you it only has trademark protection, then I will believe you. As you mentioned, a lot of the problems with fair use is because A agrees but B disagrees, like in this one. I don't think this specific UCLA logo is in the public domain (the sports one with the tail; the new UCLA logomark is in the public domain due to the font issue you mentioned). I just think with the design of the tail and the way the letters are arranged, it is does have some copyright protection. For some of the images, such as the publication before 1923, we generally go by a checklist mentioned by Cornell University. If you have not seen the checklist, I will send it to you on your talk page or any other method. But this checklist will allow myself and other users to just be able to see if it really does fall under PD-US-1923 rules (such as known author and publication date). If the author is unknown, there are more requirements. If the publication date is unknown, we have more hoops to jump through. I think my own personal problem is one, I used to be very crappy at copyright and everything is a learning experience to me, two, a lot of fair use issues were discussed when I was away from WP (which I need to study up on, including the RFC in June) and three, I come with a mindset as a Commons admin (which we are very harsh to images). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As an OTRS agent myself, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to forward correspondences in, and we can reference that ticket # on the image page. It may help quell any future issues that may come up, unforeseen, years down the road. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Echo that. I personally would rather have the correspondence passed through OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, this isn't a simple way to use such images. Are you seriously proposing we cannot use PD logos unless each and every legal department from every Univeristy/sports team/corporation/etc respond via e-mail? That isn't workable and provides significant problems. While you "prefer it", it is your own preference, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I'd love to see the checklist Zscout. Pls e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yet we're in disagreement over this logo. So you would have us presume it's free and make no attempt to contact UCLA to ascertain its status? If we're all in agreement something is free, there's no debate. We treat it as free. That's not the case here now is it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• So someone has to make a phone call on every logo for which someone disagrees that it is non-free? That's thousands of unnecessary calls. Follow the guidelines that have been established by consensus: text and/or simple geometric shapes=PD (no matter color, arrangement, or ornamentation). It really is that simple. If you don't like that, that is fine. Please start a mediation on the subject. You didn't like the "format" of my request. Fine. You are welcome to submit your own, but it's been almost 6 months and no proposals. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "you would have us presume it's free" No, I wouldn't have you "presume" it is free (that is twisting my words), I would have you listen to my rationale and agree that everything in this logo is text. The fundamental purpose of this logo's components is to provide letters, no matter how ornate. Those letters do not form other images and they are not used in other such capacities. As such, the letter's "intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text" (this is verbatim from the 1976 U.S. copyright law) and is ineligible for copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The tail of the "a" forms an image of a banner/flag, a very common motif in design, which isn't simply a geometric shape. Take for instance an image like this. It seems like you are saying that if the banner in that image was attached to the tail of a letter, it somehow stops being a decorative element, and becomes entirely utilitarian? Regardless, this seems very similar to the topic below Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Four_images, where comments like "Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template" and "It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go." seems apt in this discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about the banner image mentioned above: it is a ribbon of some kind. As such it certainly is an object and not part of any letter. Ergo, it is part of a drawing, not a geometric shape.

As for the tail of the "a", it is part of the letter and is ornamentation of that letter. One could argue that it is simple a variation of underlining and, in any case, is part of the text. "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]". I don't believe it to be a "shape", but rather ornamentation as it is clearly connected to the letter. I am not arguing that another image, if changed, would be part of another letter. I would handle it on a case-by-case basis. At some point, an artistic drawing connected to a letter would certainly meet the criteria for copyright status, but in the case of the UCLA logo, this isn't it. Other logos are also in the same category and have the same type of flourish: Cal logo Idaho logo. If they were copyrighted, there certainly would be a copyright lawsuit over the matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument that this image should be free of copyrights too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is an essay (not guideline) on deletion discussions, not copyright status. Moreover, citing examples of other free images is the only way to make a comparison to illustrate certain points of view. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes think using other free images with the confusion we have right now over what is simple or not is, in my opinion, not the smartest move in the world. If we were comparing images based on a standard that is clearly defined, such as location and time, I can see that approach working. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ, I'll simply state this; this is yet another permutation of our lather-rinse-repeat arguments on this project. You insist you're right. I insist I'm right. There's no in between. This is why discussion with you is futile from my perspective. It never gets anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been talking about this now for more than a week. Not one person but BQZ believes this image qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. BQZ, I know you disagree, and feel you have strong reasons for your disagreement. But, after more than a week of you being the most prolific poster in this discussion, not one of us have been convinced you are correct. I think this discussion has run its useful course. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it is PD: [38][39].

As for me convincing anyone, ZScout and I have come to an agreement on several other restored logos.

Why would anything I say sway you in any way after a week? This discussion has been ongoing for nearly a year, but you seem to dismiss any form of dispute resolution. Let me ask you point blank: Will you submit a proposal to mediation or ArbCom? I prefer the former than the latter.

I have asked dozens of questions above with no answers other than "You're wrong" as a response (I'm paraphrasing here). I've quoted policy, law, precedent, examples, legal opinions, etc, but all have been ignored. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• And once again you attempt to conflate this issue with that of fair use logos usage. They're not the same issue, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BQ asked me elsewhere a few days ago to take a look at this. I'm not able to support his position as regards use on English Wikipedia (sorry BQ! :) In my very humble and massively confused opinion after the last twenty browser windows, I feel that the "tail" comprises a sufficiently artistic element that copyright devolves. Someone appears to have done more than just arrange simple text, they've put some thought into how to unify the text using a novel arrangement of graphic elements (well, putting text into a tail isn't exactly novel, but neither is it a slavish copy of extant work). The text shadowing is much more iffy, but the "tail" seems clearly designed to connote an actual animal tail (though it's more of a beaver-tail than a bear-tail). More broadly, I don't feel that our role here is to conduct "shadow litigation" to determine these points, when we already have fairly well-defined procedures on how to act.

I'll remain open to persuasion if specific outside legal opinions or even better, precedent-setting case law on this can be presented. In the absence of specifics, I feel we're better off to follow SOP. Also, I'm not good enough with the UCLA site and the TESS system to find which actual RTM's of UCLA incorporate the various elements.

Even more broadly, I'm not clear on exactly what the distinction is between copyrighted and trademarked images as far as non-free content criteria goes. We explicitly license our content for commercial re-use, but I read in Section F [40] here "All commercial use of Campus Names and Trademarks... is permitted only by license or authorization...". So the use at this site seems to me clearly NOT FREE, unless we have license or authorization - so why aren't we using strict application of NFCC? I'm even more alarmed by Andrew C's adaptation which preserves the sacred circle-R in what appears a non-trademark-registered copy. If I was an IP officer at UCLA I would go nuts when I saw that - but I'll address that elsewhere.

I understand all of BQ's points and agree with most of them. BQZip01, I do disagree with you on your "literally thousands of phone calls" comment - since that's something we can actually do, it's what we should be doing first. And in that same post, where you say "We don't need a lawyer's input on every image" - well, yes we do, but we'll never get it. :( What we have to do instead is establish broad guidelines, then show due diligence in enforcing them, then we will never get sued over some stupid and arcane point of law that takes every single donor's cash to defend for two years. It would be great if it was all different, but it just plain ain't...

Anyway, long and rambling, but there's my opinion on this. The interpretation of wiki-policy is purely my own, but I'll stand to be corrected if I've misunderstood the relevant US law and rulings of precedent. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my version alarmed you. Would it be better if I hadn't copied the logo 100%, and left the ® out of the image? It is really simple to delete elements from SVG files. Please forgive me for failing to find out how a completely text element found in the source image, when copied, somehow discredits our claim of PD-text. Could you explain that one to me? Do you feel like the image would never qualify for PD-text, or that by adding the circle R, then made it ineligible for PD-text? I'm sorry that I don't get it, but I really want to learn more. I'm just familiar with other logos that we either copy directly from the source, or convert to SVG, and claim PD-text: i.e. File:Copernic-Inc-logo.png, File:Auburn-logo-Transparent.png, File:Blackstone Group logo.png, File:CHTV1.svg, File:Converse logo.png and not the R, but TM File:Cuse_logo_ubx.jpg, File:Colorado.gif, etc. So I'd really like to know if there is anything I could do to the image to improve it in your eyes (like remove the circle R), and what is the basis of that view. I think if I where a company, I'd be more appalled to see my image being used on a site with the registered or trade mark notifiers removed. But I may be missing something. Thanks for the feedback. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that unless UCLA has registered the exact graphic you present (in which case it must always be represented with the R), then yeah, you should remove the R from your clipped and modified version. and explain on the image description page that it is a modified and clipped version of a registered mark of UCLA. It's quite possible that UCLA has in fact registered a mark with just the "ucla" script, but then that's the one you should be copying. I wasn't able to find such a registration in the USPTO database, but like I say, I don't understand it that well. I also couldn't find anything on UCLA's site. Basically, the R applies to the entirety of the registered mark, not individual parts of it.

You're absolutely right that mark-holders want to see the notifier preserved, in the case of the R, integrated into the graphic image, for the TM, preferably on first or most prominent usage but at least in footnotes. My concern is whether or not what you've uploaded is indeed a registered mark of UCLA. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you are saying. The official design guidelines PDF linked to above only has a picture of a "with tail" logo, but specifies that version without the tail are approved. That said, I've found versions of the tailless logo online with the registered mark, but they do not necessarily come from an official source. I'd gladly remove it if you think it is best, but I wanted to note it is present in some sources (i.e. [41] and [42] and [43] and [44]). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on those examples, I did a little more digging and found this, where I can find "UCLA® by itself requires a ®", and the script logo is included under the definition of "UCLA", so I'll withdraw my objections. I also found some other stuff about appropriate use of Pantone colours, not altering graphics &c and I'm still a little concerned about you having [possibly, and in good faith] synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo, but it's far enough down the scale to not matter. Maybe you could just include a link to that FAQ on the image description page so that others would have a convenient link to read. Other than that, I'm fine with it. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added [bracketed cmt] in response to cmt below. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The PDF guide provided colors, in pantone, RGB, and CMYK, and I chose my colors 100% based on their specifications. I really do take "synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo" very seriously, and I myself have been highly critical of users doing this and even deleted files in the past based on cheap knock offs. I'd gladly make any changes to my file that you or anyone else seems fit based on those lines of arguments. I really did try my hardest to be true to the brand. But all this talk is probably off topic. So sorry for derailing conversation and thanks for your constructive criticism. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the semi-diversion above, I did discover this link. It contains the text "Bruins by itself or separated from UCLA® by distance or a design element does NOT have a ®". Since the Ucla script and the BRUINS text don't appear to be separated by any distance and the ® appears next to Ucla, it seems clear that UCLA itself thinks that this logo contains a "design element", otherwise the ® would be near the "BRUINS" part of the logo. Whether or not this "design element" constitutes a creative work to which copyright would accrue is an open question. I'll reiterate that IMO we should not be litigating these questions here. There are two easy ways out: treat the logo as NFC; or contact UCLA directly for their opinion on whether or not they feel copyright holds. It's not like UCLA hasn't faced this question before, and it's not like an unsatisfactory answer from their IP office would prevent anyone from finding someone in UCLA tenured faculty who would be willing to stand up for the truth. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ's response to that is "We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image." I suggested interested people contact UCLA before, and that was his response. I doubt his opinion has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Do we need 10 cover images in the infobox? Se also talk. Rettetast (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell no. The latest cover is sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos

This list article includes 11s non-free image. Most are covers of Videos and DVDs. My removal of all the covers was reverted. Is it necessary to show the covers in this list. Is it comparable to discographies where we don't allow images of each item. Rettetast (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed and watchlisted. Clearly abuse. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I (author of the Glen Campbell videos article) have been in debate with J Milburn and Hammersoft for more than a week now. We thoroughly disagree whether the use of non-free images on this page is violating the non-free content policy and guidelines or not (see User_talk:J_Milburn#Glen_Campbell_videos and User_talk:J_Milburn#Continuous_restoring.2Fdeleting_of_links_to_images_for_Glen_Campbell_videos if you have a lot of time). To make a shortcut to the current status of the discussion: Hammersoft told me he had a similar discussion about the same subject which resulted in the removal of the images, based on the principle: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I remarked that this cannot be found in any current policy or guideline. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT). The reply of J Milburn and Hammersoft was that non-free content policy can never cover every type of article. My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on... This does not answer my question why the images have to be removed. Who can shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I thought (and expressed at J Milburn's talk page), you want your article to be in a special class of articles, all on its own. Yet, it isn't. It's a videography. Pure and simple. If these videos are so insignificant that they are not notable for an article of their own, there's little argument to be made that they deserve to have the covers on a summation article, such as this. This isn't how we work. Even if we did allow this use because it's supposedly not a summation article or videography, there'd still be what, 11 fair use images on this one article? Serious overuse. We target articles with over ten on a regular basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to paraphrase you, Hammersoft, when i said "My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on..." (see Milburn's talk page), but that apparantly wasn't clear due to my limited knowledge of the english language. My fault. You actually talk of zillions of types of articles that are not covered by policy... Just my luck my article apparantly happens to be one of them! Next, I already replied on 1) your claim this article is the same as any other videography (it isn't because besides a mere listing of the releases it also contains sections with detail information on those releases) and 2) the guideline which says that notability determines the use of non-free images (there isn't such a guideline). What's new to me is the fact that you target articles with over 10 non-free images. You almost make it sound like no matter what the policy and guidelines allow or don't allow, 11 fair use images is just too much. However, policy only speaks of over-use if one item can convey equivalent significant information, which isn't the case here. Or would 1 picture showing let's say 3 front covers be better than 3 separate pictures of those front covers in your view? Lumdeloo (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is blatantly obvious to me that you are an extreme literalist vis-a-vis policy here. Unless the policy explicitly states "in the Glen Campbell videos article, no fair use images of covers are allowed" you will presume that policy does not apply to your special little article. Myself and two other editors have tried exceptionally hard to educate you on this matter. You absolutely refuse to be educated and insist that we're all wrong, every last one of us, and you are right. I'm fed up with you. Over and over and over again we keep showing you how you are wrong, and you absolutely fail to get it. NOBODY can show you how you are wrong; because in your mind it is absolutely impossible for you to be wrong. So I'll state what was said on J Milburn's page; restore the images to the article at your own peril. It's vandalism, and you know it. Your move sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate you trying hard to educate me on this subject. However, if you would actually address the points I bring forward, we probably could have ended this discussion a lot sooner. The discussion goes something like this:

• You: the article is a discography and therefore fails WP:NFC#Images 2
• Me: I have asked for examples what a discography article is in your opinion. Without exception, your examples only list the releases but don't describe them in detail. An significant difference in my opinion. What does the guideline say? Two relevant points: WP:NFCI#Images point 1 and WP:NFCI#Images_2 point 1. Front cover art is allowed only the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Not allowed is an album cover as part of a discography, as per the above. To me it's obvious that this means that you can use front covers when you provide critical commentary on the album/video/DVD, but you cannot use front covers in discographies because there you don't provide critical commentary on the listed albums/videos/DVDs.
• You: your article fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, all the images have to be removed.
• Me: I cannot use one item (image) to identify 11 separate objects so the article doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3. If one front cover is considered to significantly increase readers' understanding of an article describing one album/DVD/video, why is this suddenly not the case when one merges several of these articles into 1 new article? (I have also given additional reasons why images in this case significantly increase readers' understanding, but I didn't get a reply on that either.)
• You: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article."
• Me: there is no such guideline.
• You: I repeat, you will not succeed. That's just how it works around here. You're an extreme literalist. Restore the images at your own peril. Your move, sport etc. etc.
• Hammersoft, is it any wonder I keep believing I'm right? You never give any real answers at all! Lumdeloo (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This use of cover art fails 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.” Although there is a consensus the use of a non-free image in an infobox to identify the subject of the article does increase reader understanding, this consensus applies only to that restricted case: It does not apply to non-free content within an article to identify a subtopic. Unfortunately many people are confused by the acceptance of non-free content with the seemingly weak rationale of identifying the subject of an article. But any other use requires a very strong rationale: the article almost certainly would have to have critical commentary on the cover art such that showing the cover was necessary to understanding the article. (The guideline does not explicitly mention videography, but a videography is essentially the same thing as a discography; and WP:NFC#Images 2 says explicitly that an album cover as part of a discography is not an acceptable use.)
  Having said all that, a content dispute is never vandalism. If Lumdeloo uploaded the covers again, the remedy would be to nominate them at WP:FFD. Having seem many similar cases there, I am confident that they would be deleted. And having failed FFD, future uploads would be subject to speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• teb728, thanks for your answer. You start off saying that the article fails to meet non-free content policy. However, then you immediately switch to consensus (not policy or guidelines) to prove your point. What's the official status of consensus when it has not ended up in policy or guidelines? Secondly, I already addressed the question whether this article is a discography or not (see above). What is wrong with my line of thought there? Thirdly, I agree that what goes for a discography, also should go for a videography. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• When someone willfully violates policy, in full knowledge that s/he is doing so, it is vandalism. Lumdeloo knows full well what the policy is. He's been directed to the policy, the guideline, categories hosting similar articles and prior discussions. Not one of those resources has supported his conclusion. Just because someone is in disagreement with a policy does not mean that when they violate it, it is somehow not vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• <Sigh> I am not in disagreement with policy. I am in disagreement with you. I have argued why I think policy and guideline allow this kind of use. I have argued why those "similar" articles are not so similar at all. And we both agreed that prior discussions are not the same as guidelines or policy. Are you ever going to address these points, or are you going to call me "sport" again? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I have repeatedly said, I'm not going to keep debating this with you. I will, teb's objections not withstanding, treat the reinclusion of these images as vandalism. You know full well what the policy is. Violate it at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you don't know what the policy is. It seems you're confusing prior discussions with actual policy. I'm still hoping there are people around here who can distinguish between the two. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• So far, not one soul has come to your defense. Odd, that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't expect anyone here to come to my defense. If only someone would give me a substantial reply... I can hope, can't I? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• <de-indent> You've been given multiple substantial replies. You just don't agree with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• True, at a certain point you did provide some useful background information. But when it became clear you were relying on your own made-up guideline ("if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article") instead of actual policy, you started chickening out. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yawn. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb Break

I know I've proposed the idea of allowing, in such list articles, the non-free cover image for identification of subtopics which would otherwise have complete full articles, albeit short, about them if the subtopics were written about individually, but for editorial decisions on comprehensiveness, have been keep as a single article. I don't propose the Glen Campbell videos above quality, but I recently encountered Music of the Katamari Damacy series which I do consider as falling under the exception for multiple covers in a "discography", as reasonably, each of those albums would stand by themselves in an article, but makes a better comprehensive article put together.

I would like to know if others believe this is the case, as this would further help define the dividing line when discographies/etc. can become exceptional to have those. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree. We had a debate about this recently regarding Music of the Command & Conquer series. That ended up with one image being retained. I think the line you're trying to describe is fuzzy at best. I think a much clearer line is whether a subsection of an article can stand on its own or not. If it can't, there's not much basis for an argument that we have to have a fair use image to describe it. We have processes in place regarding notability of subjects. There's AfD to cover articles. The case you describe has no supporting processes. We don't have Wikipedia:Article subsections for deletions, or any process for external review of the notability of a subsection of an article. I can see your point, but do not see anyway to reasonably enforce it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Of course, I would go further. When an album/dvd/videogame article describes more than one release, the use of an front cover for each of these releases is allowed, according to non-free policy and guidelines, for the same reason it is allowed for an article which describes just a single release. Whether the article is just a stub or of a very high quality doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter for an article about a single release. However, some editors (see above) claim that according to "consensus" or "longstanding practice" this is not allowed and drag in the concept of notability to avoid having front cover images in those articles. However, this is against notability policy and also not in accordance with non-free content policy. I don't believe this group of editors would ever agree with your idea (which in my view tries to restore the balance between quality and free content which got lost in current practice) but the truth is, we don't need them to agree. Consensus within a certain group does not overrule policy. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Muralbondgirls.jpg

Resolved

This is on Commons, but I thought I'd discuss it here first since I don't know how to handle Commons fair use discussions. This is claimed to be the uploader's own work, but in fact, isn't it just a moshing together of copyrighted images? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No. All four of the images are available under free licenses. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Close this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Four images

User:Sligocki is making a claim that the following four images qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}:

• File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg
• File:Spb metro logo.svg
• File:MetroSP.png
• File:MTR Corporation.svg

Comments welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an overly-liberal interpretation of PD-textlogo. It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maaaaybe the File:Spb metro logo.svg. The other three are obviously not textlogos, and I'm pretty sure that "a shape that is designed to look like an M" is not automatically given the status of typeface. Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no to all of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If any of them are close, I'd say File:MetroSP.png, because it is just Helvetica, some rectangles, and some lines. Graphic element on the left seems to be simple geometry, or composed of typographical elements (say a ^ and a | ). But it is pushing it a bit. I'd agree with the above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the latter two would be fine without their logos; the former two are not ok in any part. Powers ^T 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts:

File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg - this isn't a letter, or combination of letters, or any geometric shape. It has no grounds to be ineligible for copyright.

File:Spb metro logo.svg - This could be a letter. I'm not really up on my Cyrillic alphabet, but this easily could be a single letter with some artistic variation. If it is a letter (like the letter "M"), then it meets the criteria for {{PD-textlogo}} as its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..."

File:MetroSP.png - Arrows are not subject to copyright, neither are squares, rectangles or plain text. This one fits PD-text to a "T"

File:MTR Corporation.svg - Same as above, but even moreso as they are Chinese characters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Re File:Spb metro logo.svg, you said it yourself "with some artistic variation". So it's not straight text.
• Re File:MetroSP.png a square or arrow might not be copyrightable, but if you arrange several of them it can be. Again, artistic variation. There's several at play here.
• File:MTR Corporation.svg the icon on the left of the image is not a Chinese character. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You say discussions with me are "futile", yet you keep responding and twisting my words.

File:Spb metro logo.svg, "with some artistic variation" means it is still a letter "M" and therefore PD-text. "...copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation..." In short, if it is an "M", then it is text and its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." and it cannot be copyrighted. It really is that simple.

File:MetroSP.png "[XYZ] might be copyrightable" You seem to have no desire to delve into actual copyright law and learn what is copyrightable and what isn't. You are content with saying "it might not be, so we have to assume it isn't." There is no counter to that specious argument. Just because you personally don't know doesn't mean you just do what you want anyway.

Arrows (in both of the last two images, though the last one is of such small resolution that it is marginally useful at best) are not copyrightable: ...it is not possible to copyright...a standard symbol such as an arrow..."

You cannot make something copyrightable by placing a box around it much as you can't simply outline it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lather-rinse-repeat. All over the project. It never ends. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammer, it doesn't help to complain about bureaucracy, but it does help to show where I am wrong. I am quoting from the U.S. Copyright office which explicitly mentions the design feature here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• My point is that no matter how hard anyone tries, you don't ever shift your position. For the sake of happiness, I'll allow that from your perspective I'm sure you feel the same about me. You've reiterated the claim about the copyright office I don't know how many times. Honestly, we get it, we know you disagree, we know you quote the copyright office to substantiate your belief. In turn, we disagree with your position. The paradox and irony I find here is I think you'd prefer everything were free. That's exacly what I would like to see too, which is why I love this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts:

File:MetroSP.png – This is a simple combination of letters and geometric shapes. It is a textbook case PD-textlogo.

File:MTR Corporation.svg – The icon on the left is not a letter or a simple geometric shape. Unless this icon is a PD for some reason, the logo as a whole is not PD.

File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg – The S is distorted into a circle with a center bar and the M is superposed on the bar. Although it is composed entirely of letters, the artist has shown great originality. (The distortion and superposition are similar in kind to the Bruins logo we discussed above. Although this one has a bit less originality than the Bruins logo, it still crosses the threshold.)

File:Spb metro logo.svg – The side bars of the М are distorted into a circular shape. It is no more like a Cyrillic M than a Latin M (Indeed a upper case Cyrillic М is the same as a Latin M; lower case Cyrillic м is like a small cap Latin M, in cursive script with a hook-in on the left.) Although it has less originality than the Shanghai logo, it still crosses the threshold. —teb728 t c 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the logo on MTR Corporation.svg is not a simple geometric shape, but the one on MetroSP.png is. Powers ^T 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Zachman Framework Image

This image:

is claimed to be in the public domain as follows: "This image is a work of a United States Department of Veterans Affairs employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." However the image is simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman. I question whether simply because a US federal employee includes a copyrighted image within a presentation that they create, that this suddenly makes a copyrighted image in the public domain. I suggest that if this is viewed by Wikipedia as a standard practice, all that is needed to take a copyrighted image and place it in the public domain, is to have a US federal employee paste that image into a presentation and to publish it. I doubt that would pass a legal review. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The original work, even if used in a presentation that was put together by an employee of the federal government, can be encumbered with rights of the original copyright holder. The public domain assertion applies only to work created by the government, as opposed to used by the government. No rights transfer happens just because the federal government uses something that is copyrighted. It has to be created by the federal government. This wasn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: The assumption by SunSw0rd that this is "simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman" is simply not not true, as we are discussing here. There is a lot more to it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Psyren-char.jpg

It is a Scanlation. Non-free image which is an illegal derivative work. I'm pretty sure it should be deleted. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that it's not a free image; the only question is whether it qualifies for fair use. Right now it has no good non-free use rationale and doesn't seem to be adding much to the article, so I would say probably no. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so do I just wait and it gets deleted by an admin now? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chervona Ruta (film)

• File:Chervonarutafootageimmensitarotaru.jpg
• File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg
• File:Sofiarotaruchervonaruta1.jpg
• File:Rotarucervonarutafilm.jpg
• File:Rotarucervonarutafilm.jpg
• File:Chervonarutaactresses.jpg
• File:Chervonarutamusicalactor.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

I have removed most of the images. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Video cover art or a poster would be better suited for this function. Lacking that, this screenshot is marginally acceptable. But its rationale ("to illustrate the article") is inadequate; illustrating an article is never an adequate rationale for non-free image use.

The others (see use in this version) are clear violations of WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). The gallery of non-free images is particularly bad; non-free images are never acceptable in a gallery. —teb728 t c 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarudushaposter1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

As the lead image, I'm inclined to say it's ok- I did remove the non-free gallery and the DVD cover, and I also cropped the other image so that it can now be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that WP:FILMNFI and also WP:NFC#Images call for critical commentary, there is a consensus that a non-free image in the infobox fulfills WP:NFCC#8 by identifying the source of the article. The same applies posters used the same way in following sections.

With regard to this version of the article, however: In the presence of the poster, the video covers, File:SoulDVDsofiarotaru.jpg and File:Soulfilmsofiarotaru.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3. And the gallery images File:Rotaruboyarski.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskiperform.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskirehearsal.jpg, and File:Rotarusoul.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). —teb728 t c 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dniestrmelotitle.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Looks OK to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarusingwillalwaysbewithus.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Again, seems fine. A single poster in the infobox is generally going to be useful. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wherehaslovegonesofiarotaru.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarukaravan1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue3.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarumonologue4.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Port Militarization Resistance

Article about an anti war organization in the US that was started in 2006. The article uses 9 different non-free images, with the rationale that the images are historically important. However I can not see any critical commentary on the images themself. Any views on how to handle this articl. Rettetast (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them all as lacking rationales and adding little to the article. It's possible one or two of them are legitimate (though I doubt it), so I'm all ears if someone wants to defend them. This article is exactly the reason that stupid "non-free historical image" rationale was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Little People

Article about a toy. I removed some of the non-free images in this article and was reverted. Do we need nine different non-free images to show how the toy looks like? Rettetast (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd the gallery images, which IMO is the way to go instead of edit warring with people who insist on keeping unacceptable images. —teb728 t c 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gold

Article about a graphic designer. I removed all the non free movie posters from the article, but was reverted. Are all of these images necessary in an unreferenced biography about a living person? Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them again. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One or two might be acceptable to exemplify sourced critical commentary. But the way they were used was purely decorative. —teb728 t c 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay to remove, in this instance, I think, because they are available at the film pages themselves; though there is a case for showing some together, to allow readers to compare the wide diversity and variety of style in one place - and also for readers who are only going to print out or reproduce one article, not dozens.

But what is not okay is the amount of valuable text which has been removed from the article in the process. Please be a bit more careful in future, when there is significant material in captions which should not be lost, to make sure this gets retained in the article. Jheald (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GG-Jeanne Sauve.jpg

This non-free image of a deceased individual is currently five articles.

• Governor General of Canada
• Jeanne Sauvé
• List of Governors General of Canada
• 1993 in Canada
• Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces

I dispute that they can be used in any of the articles except Jeanne Sauvé. Some of these articles use a lot of non-free images and should be checked. Rettetast (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the image at 1993 in Canada seems superfluous. What is one to use for the other pages, though? The subject of the image has been dead for 16 years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed from 1993 in Canada but added to United States presidential visits to Canada.

I agree that the photo is acceptable only in her biography. In Governor General of Canada the photo decorates a mention of the fact that she was the first female Governor General. In the others photo is used in lists--esentially galleries. —teb728 t c 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you say "decorate" when you mean "illustrate"? The former implies complete inessentiality, while the latter has purpose, which the image clearly does on Governor General of Canada; unless you'd like to explain how the first female Governor General of Canada is insignificant. As for the lists: again, you make it sound as though the images are pretty decoration; yet, surely so many lists of people on Wikipedia employ images as illustrations, not simply to add some colour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she was first female Governor General of Canada is highly significant, and its significance is well expressed in the text. The use of the photo, however, is completely inessential. To put it differently, WP:NFCC#8 (part of Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content) says, “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.” If this photo were removed from the article, reader understanding that she was the first female Governor General would not suffer in the least. And if a reader wanted to know what she looked like, they could click on the link to her biography. As for the lists, the use there is also completely inessential: Everything that readers need to understand is expressed in the text, as is illustrated by the fact that understanding of the list of Governors General does not suffer in the least from the lack of an image of her predecessor, Edward Schreyer. —teb728 t c 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Shamrock wwf bigger.jpg

Non-free image of pro-wrestler Ken Shamrock used in the infobox accompanying the pro-wrestling-section of his article. There is already a free image of the subject, and while he is technically playing a character in this non-free one (which is what the rationale is based on) I don't think that warrants its use. The image also differs from the free image in that it shows a younger version of him which I guess could also be an argument, but I don't really think that is sufficient. The rationale given is "It is used to provide critical commentary on the character Shamrock portrayed in the content of the television program, and is also used to illustrate how the organization portrayed his character as intimidating, angry and fearless.". --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows Live Essentials

A short article about a software product. The article uses six different screenshots, and a total of seven non-free images. I can not see that all these images are needed to understand this article. There is no commentary on the screenshots in themself, and one of them are in the words of the editor who reverted my image removal; off "a completely separate product". Rettetast (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Images such as the screenshot of the download website has a very weak FUR, and the website itself is only very briefly mentioned in the article; I think their use are incompatible with NFCC#3a and 8. decltype (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say take the whole article to AfD. It's not even about the Windows Live software, it's about the install wizard for Windows Live. How is this notable? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge Antibody Technology#Design and Marketing

Bringing this here for additional reviewer's input... In this section there are 17 (if I counted right :) non-free annual report covers. As the article is about the group of companies, it would seem to me that one or two of the most unique report covers would be sufficient to get the idea across. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them all. The design of the front cover of an annual report is not important to the article. If it is important that have to be backed up by sources. Rettetast (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Elektra Records#Company logos

Is it OK according to WP:NFCC to have a gallery of eight old non-free logos that this record company has used in the past? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think yes, it is. Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Ignore Jheald. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)