Wikipedia:Non-free content review

Bibliotheca Teubneriana

Completely decorative, and replaceable. The files are used to illustrate font changes, which can be done using limited non-copyrighted samples. Note that none of the images are supported via sourced critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: we can use Lorem ipsum in the appropriate font to mimic the layouts. Now, that said, the text itself is suggested to be "ancient" writings - eg clearly in the PD, so the question is if the unique formatting / layout adds copyright to that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the assertion that the images are "completely decorative". In fact, the nominator contradicts this assertion by saying that the images illustrate font changes--the images therefore shed light upon a matter discussed in the article text. In fact, the typeface of the Teubner editions has been the subject of several discussions in secondary sources, at least one of which is quoted in the article. So it's not as if the fonts are irrelevant to the article's subject--they are an important part of the history of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, and images of the text are crucial to showing this history. Nor do the images simply show "font changes"--a sensitive viewing of the images on the page should make clear a basic principle of book design, namely, that the choice of typeface affects the relationship of every element of the page. This is especially the case with a critical edition of a classical text, whose layout is much more complex than a basic literary text, and which has a high density of information, especially in the apparatus criticus.

I also find the assertion that the images can be replaced by using lorem ipsum bizarre. First, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia editor unfamiliar with the specific design choices made by the Bibliotheca Teubneriana could replicate the kerning, wordspacing, linespacing, and relationship of the elements of the page, even assuming that s/he has access to the typefaces used over the years. I'm fairly adept at generating ancient Greek text on my computer, but replicating the Teubner editions' double line-numbering system seen in [1], not to mention the line in the margin between lines 8 and 9 of the Pindar passage, plus the mark under the ἀε in line 7 of the Pindar passage are beyond my ability (this is assuming I even had access to the typeface they use, which I don't). But replacing all of this with gibberish, which seems to be what the suggestion to use lorem ipsum means, would render the images useless. In particular, I'm thinking of the apparatus criticus at the bottom of the page, which has a very particular relationship to the text above--it lists, in very abbreviated form, variant readings of words or phrases in different manuscripts. To replace this with random text would destroy the connection between the apparatus and the main text. It would be like taking a mathematical proof and replacing all the symbols with Zapf Dingbats, and then claiming that it looks the same. (Never mind that lorem ipsum, as a mangled form of Latin that is total nonsense, is especially annoying to those of us who know Latin...)

As to the copyright issue, it's my understanding that the features of a classical text covered by copyright is the material uniquely contributed by the modern editor of the text. That would be things like punctuation, the apparatus criticus, and the choice of variant readings. So much of the text in these images is probably not under copyright, since there's little indication of variation in the manuscript tradition. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no critical commentary that what you suggest (all these tiny font differences) is that significant to require seeing every iteration. To an average reader (one not familiar with fonts or Greek), the changes are not very obvious and would simply seem like slight differences in printing. If the font and formatting changes are that significant to understand the work (which I would argue presently are not even at that level - it's like having a long discussion about a change in article layout for a modern-day magazine - trivial in the long run), then you need a lot more sourcing to show that to justify the image use. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of book covers from Bibliotheca Teubneriana at Wikimedia commons. Their image are in the public domain because its copyright has expired (under license PD-old, - life of the author plus 70 years). It seems to me that a similar license applies here in WP. --Odysses (○) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the book covers in question, it's the sample pages, like File:Teubner_Gk_type_Griechische_Antiqua.jpg. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the text itself is (since that was written ages ago), but it is given a specific layout that may qualify the specific format as copyrighted. That I'm not 100% clear on. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There are examples of old scanned pages with text, maps and diagrams at the Commons under PD-old, but one can never be sure, since they change the rules quite often. If not permited in WP, perhaps, images could be uploaded at the commons under PD-old. --Odysses (○) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, and at least on the images on this page is an PD-old version. The problem is that the page is set up to describe these "significant" changes to presentation that occurred since mid-last century (eg if they were copyrightable, they would still clearly be under copyright). If those explainations were not necessary/present, we easily could us PD imagery for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The article presents and discusses changes in the typography (presentation of the text on the page) in these books. To do so, it uses non-free images that are pertinent, non-replaceable, and minuscule in extent. So the images satisfy Wikipedia's non-free-content policies. Masem's comment immediately above mine seems to get it absolutely right--alongside the PD images, the non-PD images give non-replaceable illustration of the "explanations...necessary/present." Wareh (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I lean to the side of thinking that these are PD-text and/or PD-old (for the older versions). I do not think there is anything creative enough in the layout of the text to make the images eligible for copyright. If these are determined to be free, I do not see any reason they cannot stay as they are the subject of commentary, and would therefore, in my opinion, pass WP:NFCC#8 (and the others). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico

I cant see justification for 8 non-free files for a single album Werieth (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some images, and three short sound clips. I'm not familiar with NFCC as it applies to audio files, but I think the number of cover art images could easily be reduced by half. There are three key ones for the vinyl release, all duly sourced and useful to reader understanding (or whatever NFCC8 says these days) — the iconic banana, an image with the banana sticker peeled off (the case is slightly weaker here), and the back cover. The article goes into some detail on lawsuits involving all of these. In my opinion, nearly identical images of the CD cover are superfluous and could safely be trimmed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The two covers in the infobox are fine. The original back cover is discussed in text, so that's fine. I do agree that 3 sound files aren't needed (since these songs have their own article), one or two samples are only needed for representation. The CD cover comparison is unneeded (its not even discussed in text). The acetate label may actually qualify as free - it's just text. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Velvet underground album cover 2.png is essentially a pealed version of File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg and therefore redundant. File:The Velvet Underground and Nico back cover.jpg is critically discussed and therefore fine. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG duplicates File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg with only very small differences and is therefore unneeded. Are the colour effects at File:VU 1 acetate label.jpg caused by damage to the disc, or are those effects printed there? In the first case, retag as {{PD-ineligible}}. There is significant discussion about the music, but the songs have their own articles, so this is essentially WP:NFC#UUI §6 with the caveat that it says "image" and not "sound". I would assume that the people who wrote WP:NFC#UUI typically meant to include non-image files even if it says "picture" or "image" but that this was overlooked as almost all files on Wikipedia are images. You can even refer to sound by using the "Image" namespace name: Image:TheVelvetUndergroundI'mWaitingForTheMan.ogg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The "peeled version of" comment, intentional or not, wins the Wikipedia free content wry humor of the day award, thanks :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would actually put forth that the "peeled" pun used for naming the alternate cover may be okay. May, being the key word, though I personally would have not included it and just mention the alt cover shows the peeled banana as part of the pun on the cover. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The peeled version is pretty important, given that it's the one version that's hard for a record buyer to see otherwise: it's not only "peeled" it's a 40+ year old cover. Few copies still exist, even fewer unpeeled ones are likely to have their owners allow a peeling. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• • It's absolutely not "redundant", it's an important aspect of the collaboration between Warhol and the band, and a rarity. Plus saying it's just a different version of the unpeeled cover shows a surprising ignorance of pop art. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG per WP:NFCC#8.

  Heroin (song) contains a media sample of the Billy Idol version but not the one cited here. All 3 audio files could potentially be included in Heroin (song), I'm Waiting for the Man and Venus in Furs (song) and removed from The Velvet Underground & Nico, where they are WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:NFCC#3a.

  -- Trevj (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  That's a strange application of WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia allows for editorialising of music (and other media) samples. This goes beyond non-free use, Florence Fuller is currently at FAC, is the media there UNDUE? - hahnchen 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Move song samples to their respective articles. Keep the peeled and unpeeled cover images as they are essential in creating a contextual significance for the iconic album cover. Delete the comparison. John Reaves 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG. I'd probably move Heroin out to its respective article. The other two give an idea of the lyrics and instrumentation, although I'd prefer it if one of them featured Nico. - hahnchen 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Music samples should be moved to their appropriate articles. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG should be deleted as it fails WP:NFCC#3a in its similarity to the infobox image. The other CD covers can remain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg

The file name suggests that this is ancient (making it PD) but there is no source. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see very little reason to even believe these remain under any type of copyright, given the looks and purposed age. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful about this one. In the rationale it is stated that this is from Company archives, so while this makes it appear as if this leads to compliance with WP:NFCC#4, I'd argue the opposite is the case. Material from private collections or archives has a high chance of being unpublished, so this image might violate NFCC4. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The material is certainly published now, as a google image search pointed me back to the Heming jewelry page with these images. When they were published, that's different. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. They are both displayed here, which means they comply with NFCC#4. So now it would be interesting to know whether that was the first publication or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was created in 1765 and not published before 2003, then it would satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If 1765 is the creation date, then I don't think that it would be copyrighted. There could potentially be problems if it was first published between 1923 and 2002, but if it was made in 1765, this seems unlikely. The only question is whether it indeed is from 1765. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is no good evidence that the image satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or that it was made in 1765, we should leave it as non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is left as non-free, then the image should be removed from Heming (company) for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This was clearly addressed at the general public in the 18th century, and mass produced. It was therefore published. It is therefore clearly PD now. Jheald (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg

Also File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which one is better for white bikini of Ursula Andress: the file in heading, or the other image below the heading? By the way, one of the image is used in more than one article George Ho (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg for me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• The bikini pics are also used in bikini, Bikini in popular culture, Honey Rider, and Ursula Andress. Obviously, to which pages must the image that you picked belong? --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• It has NFUR for Bikini in popular culture. Any reason not to create NFURs for all? --Lexein (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I meant, do such uses meet WP:NFCC, especially the criterion 3 (minimal use) and criterion 8 (contextual significance)? Rationale or no rationale won't matter much, as long as rationale is created, easily resolving "no rationale" issue. George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg should be used in white bikini of Ursula Andress. Neither image should be used in Bikini, Bikini in popular culture or in Ursula Andress. I'm not sure about eithers use in Honey Rider. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• The color of File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg seems better. It should be FURed. Content at Bikini seems to support its use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion immediately following seems to have a similar situation. But, the comments are different. Worth taking a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg

Also File:Raquel welch 1millionyearsbc.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This image is the black-and-white copy of the famous Raquel Welch bikini poster. One of them is used in more than one article. We are trying to minimize the use of non-free images here, so which of these images must be kept: color or greyscale? And to which page does the fur bikini image belong? George Ho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as a fair-use rationale is properly completed for each article each image is used in, there shouldn't be a problem. One is used for the film, the other is used for the BLP, because it was a very widely published cultural artifact of a notable person, and is even notable WP:N in its own right. The black-and-white version appears a bit clearer, but the color version of her pinup poster is certainly more true-to-life. Tough call. Worth discussing. If there are any defects in the NFUR, let's get that fixed up. --Lexein (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The black and white version is not necessary in any article. The color version should be kept. It can be used in Raquel Welch where there is critical commentary. It should not be used in Bikini in popular culture at all. and I am not sure about the other use in One Million Years B.C. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for excluding the black&white version? It was certainly published in both forms. The black&white poster was cheaper. Just curious. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lexein:, good question. It is part personal preference and part policy mixed with common sense. We do not need both. Actually, policy prohibits both being on Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC#3a). And if we cannot have both, the color version does a better job of actually showcasing the bikini. This is an online encyclopedia, and cost of color is not an issue, therefore the color image is more relevant to the mission of Wikipedia. Also, one could argue that the color version plays more into the accompanying text therefore helping to better satisfy WP:NFCC#8. But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion above seems to have a similar situation with very dissimilar comments. Worth taking a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the National Coalition of Afghanistan.svg

Image appears to fail WP:NFCC#3b: unreasonably detailed for a non-free file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this affects that at all, but the detailed interior image itself is the National Emblem of Afghanistan. The only real difference is in the addition of the blue band with the party name. I don't know if maybe that then means that the party logo isn't creative enough to merit copyright? MrPenguin20 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The interior image isn't exactly File:National Emblem of Afghanistan 02.png, but is clearly a derivative of it. Might there be copyright inherent in the imperfect derivation of that image? If not, I agree, the blue band is not creative enough to cross the TOO. Though, I would also say, someone should look at the licensing of the files in Emblem of Afghanistan, which are mostly/all marked as own works, despite certainly being based on some official emblem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove/Delete image as it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is far too much detail in the SVG file. The image should be smaller where all of the detail is not necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Clara Bow

Blatant violation of NFCC, given the number of free files we have depicting the person. Werieth (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bow's life and career passes across the 1923 copyright divide, so we have a large number of free files in connection with her life and career prior to 1923. The fact the pre-1923 images are free and abundant shouldn't have anything to do with the usage of post-1923 images, which, in general (with a few exceptions), will be non-free. These should be evaluate in that post-1923 context, and not in the context of her life as a whole, or, for that matter, for the article as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

/headdesk. NFCC is evaluated at both a per image and article as a whole. Lets take a random example of the non-free files, File:Plasticagemp.jpg there is nothing visually unique or necessary depicted in that image that is critical to understanding who Bow was. It is a movie poster in which the actress starred in, We don't include those in the biography articles, See WP:NFC#UUI#6,9. Especially given that the file is also being used in the article about the film (which we can just link to, which would violate WP:NFCC#1) Werieth (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(hmm, "/headdesk". Now there's a rational, logical and persuasive argument!! What a minute.... ah -- /slapforehead. That'll show you, buddy!!!)

Werieth, you don't write articles or improve articles or create articles, you do basically nothing but delete images, that's your chosen Wiki-shtick. So it's wrong of me, or anyone else for that matter, to expect that you would understand how the use of images in an article helps the reader in understanding the subject of the article. Given that, I think you had best restrict yourself to straight-forward and objectively obvious violations of the NFCC policy, and leave any subjective evaluations which require a nuanced understanding of context and purpose to other, more empathetic editors. That's because, as shown numerous times recently, when you start doing that kinda stuff, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing, and when people object to your badly thought out decisions, you get all upset and edit-war over them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are too many non-free files in this article, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. File:Gritstrip bow hunter 1923.png could possibly be in the public domain, or if it is not currently, it would be soon, I would suspect. Until that date as it is proven to be in the public domain, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance within the article about the cartoon/comic. File:FMorgan JHarlow 1933.png fails WP:NFCC#1 as this image is replaced by any of the free images around that time. There is nothing that the image shows that could not be replaced by text within the article (it could be replaced by its own caption). File:Plasticagemp.jpg and File:It1927clarabow.jpg (the film posters) should only be used on the film's article. There is consensus that posters should only be used on the actual article about the poster's subject and not on actor's or director's (etc) articles. File:Bow1933c.PNG might potentially be useful in the Hoop-La article, if there was not already a poster. As it stands, this image is purely decoration. All of the remaining images on the page are acceptable in their use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Scott (artist)

I had four images on this article which have been deleted. I believe the use of those four images meets critera 1-10 on WP:NFCC. In particular I think their presence "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and (their) omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is an article about a visual artist and to me greatly lacking without those pictures of his work which were previously there.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Given, like I said 1-2 examples are valid, not the 4-5 you where using, I think that the Ian Scott (artist)#Controversies section would be a great place to both provide an example and use the sourced commentary about the images (the controversy ) as a good compromise. We don't just sprinkle an artist article with their works to make the article look better. Our policy on non-free media is very strict, and it may mean that an article cant be illustrated to your preferences, but policy is fairly strict. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The two images of works from the "Girlie Series" (Leapaway Girl) & (Track), were both illustrating not only commentary (by the curator of the national gallery, and an important historian respectively) in that section of the article, but they also best represent the 'controversies' section, as they are from the same series, but those two works are far more widely known & representative. (For instance, Leapaway Girl is one the few New Zealand paintings on the Goggle Art Project.). There is commentary throughout the article (35 cited art history publications/journals) so I can't for the life of me see any reason why the only image warranted would be in the controversies section? The other two images there (Quiver) & (Lattice No.58) are totally important to understanding the two different modes of Scott's work, realism and abstraction, local & international influence, which is really the core/theme of the entire article.

I really think using 4 images to illustrate 12+ series of work over a 55 year period of work is 'minimal' as per the regulations & would appreciate the input of a few other impartial people here. Chriscs26 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Mathematically, you are wanting to put nearly 25% of the artist's work on their article. I think two pieces is a fair compromise, but personally I think two pieces that show the styles of the artist's work would be the most beneficial. I believe with critical commentary about the style, including reliable sources about the style and the specific paintings chosen would be the best path. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Scott only produced 16 works? The work titled Lattice No. 58 suggests otherwise. Four images over 55 years is minimal. I'd much rather defer to the subject expert who wrote the article - than those going by mathematical principals. Note that the author already compromised in allowing File:Ian Scott Air Disaster Over Mt Sefton 1967.jpg, an image of his early work to be deleted. - hahnchen 04:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, it's not how many works of his he made (and published/displayed publically) or how many we used. Since each were published individually, that means that we are using 4 separately copyrighted items in full (albeit low resolution to respect commericial opportunity). If it was the case that the first and original publication of these works were in a single collected book, then the argument of what %age of the original work would apply. The only number that is important here is that there is more than zero non-free, so we have to just the inclusion of any non-free based on the need to understand the topic. And for examples of an artist's work on the artist's page, we consider a minimal number of examples that have been quoted as strong representative examples of the artist's work, otherwise relying on either standalone pages for the specific pieces of art that are notable, or external links that may be in a much better shape under Fair Use to showcase the artist's entire body. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The decision shouldn't be based on a bartering system of "good compromise" but based on what is needed to illustrate Scott's key output. Scott's obviously a NZ artist of note who produced work over many decades (though I'm surprised there's no sign of a newspaper obituary). The Leapaway Girl is an obvious "keep", being described by the Museum of NZ as probably his most important work of that period. Lattice No.58 is probably a "keep" too, being a representative example of his 'lattice' paintings. As for the other two paintings illustrated, well, I can't see any reference to their importance in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, editorial discretion should have bearing on the inclusion of images in articles pertaining to visual art. I concur with the comment above by Hahnchen that we should be deferring to Chriscs26. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

His user name suggests he is the son of the artist. We generally go on what reliable independent sources say. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there's enough coverage of all four works in the article to justify their inclusion. - hahnchen 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien

Zero sourced critical commentary on the extra emblems. They where originally in a gallery format and witched to right alignment when I removed them for NFG Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur the images fail WP:NFCC#8 as they are not necessary to the article. There is now a section on emblems that describes what the emblems look like, therefore causing the images to fail WP:NFCC#1. I personally do not feel that the emblem section is at all notable nor encyclopedic and the whole bit should be removed, starting with the images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree that there is no commentary. There is commentary. Please review the article again. --evrik ^(talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is zero critical commentary. The only text about the images is describing the emblems and none of that is sourced. In fact, with full descriptions of the emblems (although not encyclopedic) we do not need the emblems themselves per WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Debra Morgan.jpg

File could be replaced by the free alternative File:Jennifer Carpenter 2010.jpg, which shows the actress in costume as the fictional character. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably true, but it has been argued before (and particularly in this case as a notable character) that a promo non-free shot of the actor in the poise and manner of the character has some intrinsic weight it carries compared to a free shot of a character outside of the role, even if the actor is wearing the same clothes, etc. Having just binged on Dexter, for example, I can tell that the poise the promo shot here is an element of her character that the free image doesn't capture. This is acceptable only in the case of a standalone character. If we were talking a list of characters and the character wasn't notable in any way, I would otherwise agree that the free image trumps the non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a similar example can be found in Trip Tucker. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, personally, I'm on board with that, but the consensus from the last discussion (proabably 3-4 years ago, and likely at WT:NFC) was that for notable characters, even for how close the character looks to the actor, a promo image of the character (the actor, in the role), is more encyclopedic than a photo of the actor in the same/similar outfit but not in character. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Masem wrote. The file shouldn't be deleted.  InfamousPrince  21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The image should be deleted. It is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) by the actress in costume. There is not any specific difference in the actress in the free image and in the non-free image that could not be discussed by text in the article or in the caption. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Lecter, Hannibal.png

Image collage seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a as three of the actors in this collage are duplicated in other non-free photos in the same article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, either that article can use that collage and ditch the other 3 non-frees on the Hannibal Lecter page, or drop this montage, keep the 4th image that isn't duplicated by the other three, for four images total. (and even then it is arguable if you need non-free for each given that there's little makeup involved from the actual actors). --MASEM (t) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that four non-free images of the different actors is too much. I think they could be replaced with free images of the actors. If we do keep some, which is better to keep, the collage, or the individuals? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree only one non-free is really necessary and that's of Hopkins version of the character which is the most recognizable - the others can all be done by free images of the actors involved. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

Moved from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

I'm wondering if this would qualify for {{PD-simple}}. Apart from the shiny gold foil effect, this album cover is just made up of a simple typeface and a monocolour background. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically it would be, but because of the "shine" effect of the letters (which depending on lighting can be copyrighted by the photographer), the best way to assure a free image is to have someone provide us a free photograph of the cover. (the present image does not appear to be). --MASEM (t) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that would effectively make the current image a replaceable fair use item. I wish I had bought a physical copy of this album a few years ago and not just the download version... De728631 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, but that's my read of how the concepts interact - without the foil effect, the cover is clearly PD-text, but the way one positions the light can influence the final result thus making the photograph's copyright come into play. A question is how this cover is presented (if presented) at places like Amazon and iTunes? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The one on Amazon looks like it has a little shine, but I could be wrong. It is closer to PD-simple. The one at iTunes is not reflective, but adds the words "ebay queen" and some odd dots that make it pass TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The iTunes cover seems to be some double album re-release of Peekaboo and E-Bay Queen, so that's not what we need here. But as a side-effect of this review I've now found out that the sleeve is actually an award-winning design [2]. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting fact and the whole package is rather nifty. If there were another reliable source maybe saying why it won silver, you could almost justify a non-free image of the whole package (since there would be contextual significance that the cover alone would not suffice). But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One pound (British coin)

I cant see justification for 23 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked to try to see if there's any discussion of why the given designs were picked across the years but I'm not seeing anything to support that. As such, most of those images in the table need to go. If there was a way to explain why they chose a particular emblem for a specific mint year, that might be something but that doesn't seem to exist. Also, I tried to see if there was a pre-made gallery of these mintings from the Royal Mint, but they don't appear to have one, but if that did exist, the single montage would be sufficient to use. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep It clearly serves the interests of the article to include pictorial depictions of the coins. The Royal Mint has this to say about pictorial reproductions of their coins: "The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste." Going by that the Royal Mint obviously wouldn't have a problem with their use in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • FAir use has nothing to do with it. They are copyrighted images, and harm the encyclopedia's free content mission. (Within fair use, their use is certainly fine, but we employ a stricter requirement than fair use). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was truly committed to the use of only free content that it would limit usage to just free content. However, Wikipedia's primary mission is to educate and disseminate knowledge and it accepts that the use of non-free materials supports that aim. Our fair use guidelines are in place not to support a "free content mission" but simply to protect the foundation from legal proceedings. They are more restrictive than the legal definition of "fair use" simply because editors are not copyright lawyers so it's safer to err on the side of caution. In this case, the article is certainly better with the images than without, and the Royal Mint's explicit guidelines on the reproduction of the coin designs easily fall within the scope of their use on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no "fair use guidelines". We have "non-free policy" which is aimed not for legal protection of WP (though through it, it assures fair use defense for US law is met), but to encourage free content and avoid the excessive use of non-free where it is not fundamentally needed. It is completely wrong to think of NFC as a fair use guideline. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the images in the table for violation of WP:NFTABLE. Several of the images are even used multiple times in the same table. This case also seems similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14, except that we are talking about coins instead of logos. The infobox images look fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't violate NFTABLE which states "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified...". The exception invoked here is that the Royal Mint explicitly allows not-for-profit reproductions, provided the usage is not in bad taste. The guideline permits us to judge these things case by case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Royal Mint says or allows (unless they say it is under a compatable free license, which is not the case); the images are non-free, and thus NFTABLE fails here; we're looking to meeting the free content mission and minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Let's get down to fundamentals:

(1) The images substantially can't be replaced with other images that are more free. Yes, in some cases photographs by the Royal Mint could be replaced with photographs by Wikipedians -- and that is something that should be done. But that is not what the more fundamental discussion above is about, namely the Royal Mint's copyright in the design of these coins, which is something that we cannot work around, if the coins are to be shown.

(2) These images are not free; but there is no purely legal problem with us showing these images, on the basis the Mint's stated position above, which amounts to a clear licensing of use, even if not a licensing to create derivative works.

(3) Given the Mint's position above, use of these images will not in any way inhibit dissemination or reproduction of the Wikipedia page.

(4) The purpose of the encyclopedia page is to survey all aspects of the coins, including the different designs that have been applied to them -- something of particular interest from a numismatic perspective (even if the coins are not particularly rare), in common with a similar purpose in other numismatic articles across the encyclopedia as a whole. This purpose would be essentially gutted by removing the images, turning the article from being a valuable resource for this purpose, and an integrated part of the wider valuable resource that is WP's articles on numismatics, from that into something essentially informationally useless for the purpose. (In my view, removal of the images would therefore fly in the face of NFCC #8).

The bottom line, to me, is that if you take a decent comprehensive article on a topic, and essentially gut it in an irreversible way for no good purpose, that doesn't encourage people to upload free images. It makes people frankly less likely to upload any images, or lift a finger for any other article they might otherwise have been tempted to improve.

These images are not harmful to Wikipedia, and cannot be substituted by free ones. It is not in WP's best interests to remove them, and gut an otherwise decent article -- and it certainly is not in our readers' best interests. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion about the individual designs, so as such they fail contextual significance - one can understand that the Royal Mint has used several different designs in the past w/o images, while showcasing the current circulating design. Inclusion of excess images that do not meet a free license fails the free content mission and non-free resolution, irregardless of how useful the images may be. We can link to the page on the Royal Mint site that have all these designs pictured to avoid using them in a manner that harms the mission in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be discussion.

The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the reader need to know what the designs were while reading this article on Wikipedia? The lack of any text to show the importance of these old designs belie this need. We can certainly point the reader that if they are curious to the old designs (there is a single page at the Royal Mint that does this just fine) but as a tertiary source we do not need to document these old designs if it harms our mission. Hence the need for contextual significance, as would be the case for old logos and the like. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any text to justify the presence of entries on Timeline of information theory either. The point is that if a reader wants to know the sequence of discoveries in information theory and who made them, we have an article for them, and that is the article. Similarly if the reader is looking at the different one pound coins in their pocket and wonders just how many different designs there have been, when they were made and what they look like, then we have an article for them too, and One pound (British coin) is that article. We're an encyclopedia. That's what we do -- we provide information, and we present it in a systematic organised way that anyone can edit. We bring together information and do it ourselves, rather than just leaving it to pages on external websites that may be here today and gone tomorrow, none of them at all systematised with any of the others in the way that we can be.

But nobody would seriously suggest gutting timeline of information theory "because people can just look it up at the IEEE". So let's get down to the other half of why you suggest we gut this article, namely your claim that it "harms our mission". To remind ourself, lets look up m:mission to remember exactly what that mission is:

"... to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Now, this is not free content. But nor is it threatening or harming or diminishing in any way our ability "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Instead, it seems to me, that our ability to provide articles that give a decent comprehensive treatment of a topic specifically does engage people to come and develop free content here (of which, for example, the (free) article text is a not insignificant 1/4,000,000th of what just en.wiki provides), whereas gutting such an article is specifically likely to make people feel dis-empowered, and less likely to come here and collect and develop any more educational content under a free license for us.

So it seems to me your citation of m:mission is entirely spurious here. This material is not supplanting any free content; and it is by encouraging and empowering people to build articles, including articles like this, that the free encyclopedia is most likely to thrive. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't use non-free images because there happens to be no free images for replacement, as no images + text is considered a free replacement for a non-free image. Note that we're not talking about stripping away the table, which the second column states the textual description of the mint design, so between that, and the Royal Mint page, the reader that is trying to go the reverse way (they have the coin and want to look up what it was) has enough resources to do that (and of course the number of people that actually might benefit from this use is very small, and violates WP:USEFUL). We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information, that's not even the purpose of the encyclopedia which is meant to summarize information and provide reference to learn more. We are being challenged by the Foundation to minimize non-free and that means we have to think of different ways that information can be grouped and presented that minimizes non-free that would otherwise be acceptable in other works where fair use is the only limitation. This is a very clear case where, as presented, there's no reasoning to include that many images of the old coins. If there was a single image produced by the Royal Mint that showed that so that it would be treated as only one non-free, there might be reason to include that, but I've yet to be able to find one, and to show every single coin via multiple non-frees is not an appropriate approach. The Foundation is very clear our goal is to use non-free exceptionally, and that means being very discriminating and coming up with ways to avoid using non-free images on WP while pointing readers to find non-frees they may be looking for, and here's a prime case. Yes, it is very unlikely we're talking any legal harm to the Foundation, but the point is that if we allow cases like this, that creates the slippery slope of allowing non-free documentation without discussion of any type of historical media that can only be presented through non-free images. That's why NFLISTS exists is to prevent this type of gross misuse. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to recognise and identify the coins in your pocket, those images are going to help you a lot more than the text in the table ever would.

There are fundamental good reasons to keep strong pressure on the use of non-free content -- to encourage alternate free content; to minimise legal risk, both ours and any for our commercial reusers; to maximise re-usability; to uphold WP's reputation. But none of those are issues in this particular case. So we should not gut a decent, useful article. Jheald (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"It's Useful" is not a reason to keep an article or an image when there is more harm to the mission in keeping the part that is considered "useful". Again, this thinking presumes that people will come to WP first to look for information when we should not be that high a priority for information like this. We are a tertiary source meant to summarize information, not fully document it. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm to the mission by keeping this material. It's wanton removal that's more likely to do harm (as argued above).

And I'm sorry, but I stand by m:mission. I want to document as much of the world as I can in freely reusable educational content here, in as much detail and comprehensiveness as we can -- because that's actually what m:mission calls on us to do: to build, rather than to destroy. Nobody ever came to a website for the articles it decided not to treat properly, and it doesn't encourage editors and contributors either. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are using non-free where it is not necessary to document, in a summary tertiary manner, a topic, we are harming the free content mission. That's the reason the Foundation's resolution exists, and why we have NFC, and why this is the problem here. There is "utility" but no readily-apparent educational value - as written - to retain all but images of the current front and back of the present coin. Since we can defer the utility to a easily-linked page, we can keep the rest of the educational value of this page while reducing non-free, avoiding any harm to the mission. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analysis. If you look at WP:NFCHIST the fundamental drivers of the NFC policy were practical considerations of the sort I listed above, at 21:59. And as I wrote then, none of those are issues in this particular case.

And I reject your view that this page is somehow harmful to our m:mission. Our mission is to encourage and empower the development of free content. The presence of the images takes nothing away from the free content on the page. It might have done, if it involved the considerations listed at 21:59. Then we would have had to weigh its presence very carefully. But it doesn't. If you take m:mission seriously, what is most likely to empower and engage people around the world etc to come and build, it is keeping a decent article in the decent shape that it is now. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As soon as the Foundation set the resolution, using NFC as a example, that changed the purpose of NFC from being a means to keep fair use in check to minimizing non-free. The same rules apply in terms of documenting all that but now we have to be more refined about what is kept. And while the goal is to help create free content and draw more editors, we have to be aware that in that potential pool of editors are those that do not even attempt to adhere to what the encyclopedic purpose is; they complain already that we don't use more images or don't spend the few minutes to understand non-free before uploading more. Our mission is clear - to create free content that is freely redistributable - not to draw in more editors, and even if our NFC policy is driving away editors, that's better in the long term because that means a larger percentage of editors that do understand the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I believe in free content as much as anyone. I've spent much of the last four weeks of my time slogging away trying to create an index in an effort to make over a million PD images the British Library just dumped on Flickr even vaguely accessible or usable. With the result that coverage is now almost 40%, from nothing.

If these images really did affect the freedom of redistributability of our free content, or represented any kind of legal theat, or in any way prejudiced our reputation, or could be replaced with free content, then fine: that is exactly what the NFC policy is drafted to control. But here none of that is the case. Instead -- as is typical with currency articles -- having the images directly does add to reader understanding (NFCC #8), and the same encyclopedic value would not be achieved with fewer (NFCC #3). So this is the kind of use the NFC policy is drafted to protect -- a policy that it should be noted was fundamentally confirmed by the Foundation licensing resolution, and changed hardly one iota in response to it.

These images do not harm the m:mission. (Which is to create free content, not to remove non-free content). They were not added by people who "did not understand NFC". There is none of the practical benefits listed above that getting rid of them would serve. Doing so would merely make a valuable article significantly less valuable. (And it is the value that it can give to the world which is what makes the freedom of our content worth fighting for in the first place). So lets keep the value in a valuable article, keep up the motivation of the valuable people who created it, and (per policy) resolve to keep the images. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The mission is to promote the generation of free content; that might not seem much different from just creating free content, but it weighs the freeness of material extremely heavily. We should not be using non-free where its use is not clearly aiding in the educational goal. That's why we outline a lot of what Wikipedia is not, and one of those is that we are not a catalog, including ones around numismatics, which this table in this article borders on. There are plenty of other resources for those seeking details on coins to refer to and that we can point them to in the context of an encyclopedia, but a listing of the out-of-mint coins presented without any other comment is pretty much not what should be included, serving a very narrow purpose. If there were reasons why the various symbols were used (as likely can be documented on the US State Quarters series), that moves the table out from being a simple catalog to something of educational value. Otherwise, we're just listing for the purposes of listing and without considering summarizing and highlighting important information for the reader. Again, we have to keep in mind, we're not the only site on the internet that documents this, and it is not WP's goal to document everything. A page (or at least, in this case, the table on this page) does not serve the larger purpose of the encyclopedia as it stands; even if we had free images of the coins, without any discussion of the various iterations, that would not be an appropriate table to keep here.

What's important here is to understand the slippery slope problem. Everyone things their area of expertise in subject matter is important that we can relax the policy to make these stand out. But that creates the situation which has repeated over and over that "Hey, this article uses non-free images in a table, my subject is just as important so I should get so too." And thus we get people using non-free images completely inappropriately because they saw them being used in a somewhat stronger location, and creates larger problems over time. No area of WP is more important than any other area in terms of NFC allowance, and that's why I point to the fact that the Resolution challenges us to how to present information in the free-est form possible with the necessary exceptions to make a topic understandable as presented on the page. If that means that we have to use novel approaches that other works don't have to employ, or rest on third-party sources and links to delve into information more than we can, we have to take those. I know the table format used in this article is likely common across coin collector books, but it does not work considering that we are 1) an encyclopedia and 2) have a requirement of reducing non-free usage. And this is a point that applies to all fields of WP, not just numismatics. There is a balance of course, which is why I've said if there was a single image from the Royal Mint (the ones that own the copyright I believe) that had all the old coins in them in one shot, that's reasonable to include, but not all dozen-some variants. I've said it before elsewhere, this all may seem like intellectual wankery to minimize non-free but it is the type of thing that if we are not vigilant in identifying where non-free should not be used, it will become a point of abuse and hence the need to close off holes like this. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your view that because either sites exist, we shouldn't try ourseves to give as detailed and comprehensive survey as we can of a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest.

As for your view that we need to remove these images because that is what the Foundation wants, I have asked Jimbo for clarification. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be detailed - we're supposed to be summarizing at a reasonably high level with links to sources of more detail. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what policy says. There are limits to what should be included, but level of detail is not one of them - proper weight of coverage is the major criterion for inclusion within a particular article, i.e. you can also summarize "low level" details if those are relevant. And I'd say that the various versions of the coin released throughout its history are very much relevant to the article covering that coin as its only topic. Diego (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)]

NOTPAPER is only directed at topic inclusion, not the level of detail of coverage, which is more detailed by WP:UNDUE, and of course, by the definition of what a encyclopedia is (a tertiary summary of topics). Have there been other third party sources that go into detail about the historical significance of these coins beyond the Royal Mint? If not, that probably points to the inclusion as undue and putting the external link as a reference for readers to learn more. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems a perfect example for WP:EL: "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".—Aquegg (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons stated by Betty Logan and Jheald. It's also worth remembering that the call to minimize non-free content has always been conditioned to the possibility to replace their usage with free content of acceptable quality, for the same purpose. I'd also point out that slippery slope arguments should be dealt with at policy pages, not individual image discussions - these are expected to weight the particular aspects of the image under consideration. If the same rules could be used as a general template for all similar cases we wouldn't have NFC review, we would have delegated enforcement to administrators with no need to discuss each image. We don't accept "this other article uses non-free images as a valid reason to keep a non-free file; therefore the opposite shouldn't be valid reason to delete them either. Diego (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Someone says above that "The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose."

I agree that that's legitimate. The problem is that the policy is broken. The policy only permits multiple non-free images if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary. If the text is about one pound coins, you're only permitted to have a single image of a one pound coin. In order to have multiple images of various types of one pound coins, you would have to have text that talks about each kind of one pound coin specifically.

Furthermore, this situation seems to be clearly covered by "non-free usage in galleries or tables". While some people have tried to justify this above, I don't see how these justifications wouldn't apply to pretty much every case where someone makes a non-free image table; they don't really explain why the coin table is exceptional compared to those other cases.

I am tempted to say IAR, but this isn't an edge case, it's an intentional decision by the WMF. If we were to IAR this there would be equal justification for IARing every case of "the purpose is to show what the designs were".

So I'd say delete it, because it's based on a clear policy that you can't IAR away, and maybe put some pressure on the WMF to loosen the policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does policy say that multiple non-free images are only permitted if "if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary" ?

NFCC #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", and NFCC #3a says that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Arguably both of those are the case here. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Each piece of NFCC is evaluated on its own as well as in context of the article. So each individual image has to meet NFCC#8 (among the other NFCC criteria). Given what is discussed about the historical mintings (read: little to none), what is the harm in replacing the images with the Royal Mint link (a free replacement) where they are pictured in a single place? Why do the images need to be on this page on Wikipedia to understand the rest of the details about the One pound coin? --MASEM (t) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply, because our articles ought to be self-contained and self-sufficient -- for one thing, so that people can print them out if they want to; but that's not the only reason. As stated above, what the different designs of the coins look like is directly relevant to the topic of the article. And it has a direct practical relevance as well, because it is what makes the coins that people have in their pockets readily identifiable. Given that Jimbo himself has now said he doesn't have a problem with these images, I'm surprised you haven't dropped the stick. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it important? If you took that section out, the article is still "complete". If you took the table out and replaced it with text to point out that different back designs and sayings have been used over time, it would still be a complete understanding of the coin. Knowing the history of the coin designs does not aid the reader to understand the history and importance of the one pound coin itself. And saying that its needed to identify the coins in their pocket shows that the only purpose this table serves presently is as a coin guide, which is something we are not. Again the idea of having to be detail-complete is the wrong type of thinking for an encyclopedia. We are not meant to be the only resource people will ever use, by design. We are here to provide the broadest level of coverage so that we get readers familiar with a topic and gain enough understanding, and then when we get to more detailed information that may only be of interest to a small subset of that readership, provide them with the approach references and links for them to learn more, particularly if we can offset non-free use to these areas. And to note, Jimmy's opinion is only one voice with regards to anything on en.wiki, and has no weight compared to anyone else unless he said he was specifically speaking on behalf of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How can you say that a reader adequately understand the topic when she is not able even to tell whether what's in her pocket is a one pound coin or not? Understanding a coin in common usage passes at the very leat by being able to identify it with some confidence. Diego (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If I have a strange coin in my pocket, I would not be turning to an encyclopedia to identify it, I would be looking for a coin catalog that is specifically designed for this function. This is a common failure - people expect WP it be something it is not, considering the type of feedback I see regularly on pages (eg for fictional works, people want full fledged fan guides; for video games, full strategy guides, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a miserably small perception of what WP is for, a 'failure of ambition' as I put it on Jimbo's talkpage.

No, we'll never cover everything. But in every article I contribute to, I try to get in as much of the topic as I can. That's the ambition that built WP, and the ambition that it needs to survive and to continue to grow. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a reason we have WP:NOT and why one of the 5 pillars is about indiscriminate information. It's valid information, but its not the type of information that an encyclopedia would necessarily cover as it is better suited to a coin collector's catalog/guide. Add in the non-free issues with presenting that information, and that makes it even more a point to use a reference link than to include. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's for the community to decide of course, but I don't see the systematic organisation of relevant information about a topic remotely as indiscriminate information. To me this seems a world away from the examples of indiscriminate information presented at WP:IINFO. Last night when I went to the cornershop, there were five pound coins in my pocket, each with a different design. It seems not at all unreasonable to want -- and to expect -- to be able to be able to find out more about them.

More generally, I see your definition of an encylopedia as a "tertiary summary of topics" as unduly narrow. Something we excel at -- and which encyclopedias have always excelled at -- is to collate and organise primary verifiable information about the present and the past of the world in a systematic organised accessible way. Just as this article does. Verifiability is non-negotiable, but whether I am writing about Quantum Mechanics or about the London Underground, the ambition is the same: to describe the world, not to describe what others have written about the world. Jheald (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And that would be original research - we are meant to be writing about what others have said about the world, as a tertiary source, not what we feel is important. We are supposed to mirror the coverage of a topic by sources, and not give undue weight to small details that may be verified by not widely covered by sources. From the standpoint of these coins, I have tried to look for other sources that talk about the history of the minting but while certainly not a thorough review, have come up blank save for Royal Mint hits, telling me this is an interesting detail but not the type that would be in an encyclopedia. (I am not saying there is no such information out there, but it's not obvious to locate). It would be undue weight to use the dozen-some non-free images to illustrate something that is basically datum (that varieties of mintings have been done over the years) and not discussed in depth. If this information could be found, that would be something. If a single image from the Royal Mint with all (or most) of the coins pictured (as to keep it to a single non-free use image as opposed to a user-created montage), that would be something. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; we have policies that (for good encyclopedic reason) require us to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources". This is especially important in the case of NFC—we have to use the works of secondary sources to be able to determine if NFCC#8 is satisfied, without them, we have to assume that it's not.—Aquegg (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Significance for NFCC #8 is something that is assessed by the community using its sense and good judgement. Secondary sources can be helpful in that, but it is not a requirement. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But without any sources to discuss the matter, and without the use being clearly obvious (eg those identified at WP:NFCI, the need for the images will always remain in question. Providing sourced commentary about non-free images is the most objective measure of meeting NFCC#8 and one that few can dispute towards the NFCC#8 end (there may be other reasons beyond that). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, don't give me that. Non-free images are regularly deleted that nevertheless have sources covering the topic described in them, even for cases directly accepted at WP:NFCI, because "the topic is not of visual nature, and can be described with words". That line of reasoning would be much more solid if those arguing for deletion actually changed their opinions, when sources describing the topic identified by the image are provided (you sometimes accept those, but I think you might be the only one; and not consistently). Flip-flopping between "doesn't have references" and "can be described with words" is a common technique used in deletion discussions to win arguments when NFCC#8 is the only contentious subject at hand and every other snippet of policy is met. Diego (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And you completely ignored the caveat I said, that sourced commentary assures NFCC#8 but doesn't assure the other points are met. If an image can be completely described with text even though the concept is described by sources, that meets NFCC#8 but fails NFCC#1. There are 10 requirements that have to be meet for all non-free. This concept is even spelled out at NFCI, that while those cases will generally be appropriate, there are still other NFCC conditions they could fail. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of a single photo covering as many coins as possible is a good one; though the result would still be non-free, so it won't trigger NFCC#1 (text wouldn't serve the same purpose) nor #3 (all coins should nevertheless appear for identifying them all, which is the point for which they're used) - so it's a "nice to have" if that image can be created, but not a must - and all the other points are covered. My point is that deciding whether any criterion at NFC, and NFCC#8 in particular, are always subject to editorial discretion during the review discussion, as Jheald remarked. Diego (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is editorial discretion, but local consensus does not trump global, so when it comes to deletion discussions, what the interested editors feel is correct could be proven wrong by the global involvement. That's why the idea of critical commentary as objective evidence that there is contextual significance is the best way to show that NFCC#8 is at least met, though that doesn't necessarily speak to the rest of the terms. If there was discussion about all or even some of the historical mintings, my arguments that this fails NFCC#8 would be very flimsy. But without discussion, there's very little obvious reason to keep them, since NFCC#8 is not clearly met. This is why even a single montage image with some of the coins as taken by the Royal Mint would at least be more suitable; it may not cleanly meet NFCC#8 as much as we'd like, but now you've met NFCC#3 much better (you'd have 2 + 1 images instead of 2 + dozen images) and still give the reader an idea of what these other designs looked like, since the table includes a verbal describe of the mark. (And as a possiblity that just came to mind, since the latter part of this series has used heraldic marks, is there a possibility the heraldic symbols might be in the PD - not on the coins but as a standalone image?) --MASEM (t) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only hope that you hold on to that sentiment for the deletion review of Jessica Alba's Playboy cover, which is coming anytime soon. ;-) Diego (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On that, as previously mentioned, the image of her in Playboy wasn't discussed in a critical manner - that she had an image in Playboy, yes, but you didn't need to see the image to understand the text as nothing directly commented on that image. So both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 failed. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't really mean to base the evaluation of the criterion (significance of the image with respect to the topic) on the availability of sources then? It still depends on how you choose to interpret what the sources say? Diego (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. In the Alba case, the issue with her photo being used by Playboy was certainly covered by sources, but there was no specific critical commentary from sources on the actual image used by Playboy discussing the photo. If there was that, the image would have certainly been kept. So now the question falls to that while there was sourced discussion from secondary sources about the overall incident that happened to involve a photo, is the photo necessary to document that? And the answer was no - it showed Alba, which we had images (free) of already, and the concept that there was a controversy about a photo on Playboy is understood without seeing the specific photo, thus failing NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. This is why we generally ask for sources discussing the actual image or concepts in the image itself, which did not happen here. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that you're moving goal posts. The NFCC#8 criterion requires "contextual significance", which could be decided by editorial judgement, yet you're here claiming that it should have "sourced commentary" of the topic depicted. But when pointing out that you still opposed an image that included sourced commentary (and there were sources commenting on the content of the photo, they can be still found at Jessica Alba#Public image), you change the criterion again to "specific critical commentary of the photo itself", even when this discussion started you didn't consider the content of the image itself to be significant enough to provide understanding to readers. You have to make up your mind - either the content of the image is significant to the understanding or it isn't, but you can't have it both ways. Diego (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are missing the point. The first test for the Alba image is if the image itself was the subject of sourced commentary, not the events around the image (there is a difference here). If there was sourced commentary on the image, NFCC#8 would have been met, and in considering all the other NFCC, those all would have been met. But without sourced commentary on the image itself, that considering with NFCC#8 fails. Thus, the next step is to consider if there was sourced commentary about the events around the image as to meet all NFCC. There certainly was sourced commentary about the event, so that helps to meet NFCC#8 but, as pointed out by the FFD, NFCC#1 wasn't met as "a nude picture of Alba used on the cover of Playboy" is easily described by text, and that the other part of NFCC#8, the omission of the image, wasn't deterimental to the reader's understanding of the situation. Thus it failed there. The counter example is the image of OJ Simpson as used in O._J._Simpson_murder_case; the booking photo of OJ isn't what is the subject of commentary but how Newsweek purposely darkened to cover the story, and this is a visual aspect to the overall issue; there is no such thing with the Alba case. Getting back to the coins here, again, there is no sourced commentary to necessitate a need to see the historical versions of the coins or the situation around the coins, and as the reader's understanding of the Pound coin in general is not harmed by their removal due to this lack of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. There is no double metric going on here, it is straightforward application of looking for criticial commentary to give the most support to use images. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If the topic is visual in nature, to the point of requiring sources to cover the image itself and not just its content, then it cannot be replaced with text. In any case, you've crafted a collection of requirements that you're passing as mandatory; even if you manage to make them coherent, they still are way stricter than the already stricter-than-free-use criteria that were agreed by consensus when the NFC policy was written. Diego (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that is visual in nature needs to be seen to understand it, if the visual appearance is not discussed and the only manner to show it is NFC. Hence why the Alba cover was not necessary - it is a (ymmv) an artistic visual work but there was no specific discussion of the visual aspects, just that it existed (this was sourced). Ergo, you don't need to see the image to understand it existed. Of course, if the image was free, no one would stop you including it, but non-free policy requires a strong metric to include. Similarly, while we know and validate historical versions of these coins exist, there is no discussion on the importance or visual nature of the design, and given how many NFC images would be needed to show them all, it would be inappropriate to include them. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changed my !vote to "Keep" because WP:NFC permits images of "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." It is plausible that "currency" includes coins, so we are permitted to have images of coins to show what they look like, even though the policy does not permit that in general. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To comment on that, each case listed in NFCI (which is a guideline) does note that all other NFCC have to be met still for those conditions to apply. There's no question from NFC that the front/back images of the current minting can be kept per that reasoning from NFCI - the coin is being discussed at length. But all additionaly images weight on minimal use (NFCC#3) and lack of any significant to be kept (NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NFCC 3 and 8 do say minimal use and significance. NFCC does not, however, say that in order to meet those you must have discussion. That's your interpretation and is not in the rule text itself. Moreover, the list in NFC has a "stamps and currency" item which conspicuously omits the requirement for sourced commentary, or for any commentary. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, then the likelihood that the omission of the images will not harm the reader's understanding of the topic (this being the general concept of the one pound coin, not any specific historic minting) is very very high. And NFCI still requires all other NFCC requirements to be met; by NFCI it's reasonably to include the front and back of the current pound coin on a page discussing that, but no other images meet that without better rationales. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It will harm the reader's understanding of the topic because the reader will not know what all the different varieties of one pound coin look like, and a picture is much better at describing that than words. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a fallacy, as that reasoning would allow tons of NFC to be used elsewhere. What text necessitates the need to show what the old coins look like important to the average reader's understanding of the one pound coin? There is none, the current front and back images show what the coin looks like that's appropriate for identifying the currency in discussion of the coin in general. The different variations on the back are not subject of discussion so omitting the images do no harm. --MASEM (t)

To put it bluntly, the idea that there must be discussion is something you made up. It does say that for some types of image, but it doesn't say that for coins. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCC#8 requires contextual significance. For coin images, one front/back pair are fine in contextual significant in the topic of the one pound coin to show what the coin looks like as the identifying images. All other images of the same coin do not get that freedom; there has to be contextual significance that the reader needs to see that image to understand the topic (in this case, "the one pound coin"). This is not the case for the old minted backs which are only described but not discussed. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, for numismatic purposes, images are required to see the historic designs. Also, NFC 3, stamps and currency.  The Steve  11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Coins. Herostratus (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Americanchamberofcommercejapanlogo.gif

I am unsure whether the red stripes on the letters are enough to push this above TOO or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe this logo is any more complicated than those listed at Commons:COM:TOO for the US. It is just text with lines drawn over it. But since the company for this logo is located in Japan, I am not sure how the strict the TOO is for Japan in this regard. Not much evidence in COM:TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Epica - Design Your Universe.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Symphonic metal and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Nightwish - Nemo.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 on Tarja Turunen and Symphonic metal and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ridin Dirty.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 on Chamillionaire and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif

Violates NFCC 1, because an image serving the same purpose could reasonably be created, and NFCC 3, as it uses the same resolution of the original work published in a commercial publication. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

At first impression I thought a free replacement could be created. But then I noticed that the designs themselves are also copyrighted, so an editor-created drawing would still be a derivative work.

And the image is merely line drawings and text. How could you reduce it more without making it unreadable? The half-size version created automatically makes the text labels too small and blurry to read. Diego (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• USA only has FOP for buildings which have been constructed. Aren't some of these unconstructed variants of a constructed building? Only those variants which actually have been constructed would seem to qualify for FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that one could remake this drawing as a free image, using highly simplified versions of the five buildings, even if simple rectangles and triangles. At some point in the future when all buildings shown are constructed, a new version can be remade using photo representations of the buildings. Note that this does NOT apply to the fine text on the drawing which cannot be replicated in full, but the data - heights, years, etc. - are uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here. Only the building on the far right will be constructed. The other four are proposed buildings for the same building. The whole image itself shows how much the building proposals changed until the finalization of the plans. I'm not sure if any of the image could be remade, as there is specific discussion of the changes in the building's various designs which would cover WP:NFCC#8 and would therefore not be replaceable by anything short of a derivative work. Overall, it is my opinion that the image be kept as is. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg

Close as No Consensus due to no discussion in two months. No prejudice for later relist if discussion is necessary. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

In the Western Wall entry there's only a passive mention of the picture with only one word “iconic” qualifies as commentary. This most likely does not qualify for free use as the rational "The photograph is perhaps the most famous representation of Israel's participation in the war." implies that there are many photos on the subject so it is unlikely that all pictures about Israel's participation in the war meet NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" in the sense that illustrate Israel's participation - a free picture may be just enough to express the idea that Israel participated the war. The section that mentions "Images with iconic status or historical importance" (NFCI#8) explicitly states that it does not override NFC.

In the Six-Day War entry there are some commentaries about the picture, however they are in footnotes, not in body text. This probably fails NFCC#8 "Contextual significance".

The Tank man picture was iconic to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, but the result of discussion was single use only - not even allowed in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article.

--Skyfiler (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I could have sworn this photo has come up before either at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: It looks like it was take to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_8#File:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg where it was closed as no consensus for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Kata'ib Hezbollah flag.svg

Not sure this file is free, and am unsure about the claims made in regards to its license. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the reasoning is right - Iraq is one of the few countries US does not have reciprocal copyright terms with. However, per this, we've been asked to respect copyrights of even countries like Iraq. So while the image technically would not have copyright protection in the US and thus the free SVG version made here (and can only be stored here due to that nature), I would think it be better to treat this as non-free per request of the Foundation. Meaning that this SVG is completely improper (as a user-made non-free SVG), and we should be using a reduced raster image and called out non-free instead. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Network

File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg deleted per WP:NFCC#10a. Other files might be public domain, but no further discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I cannot see justification for 12 non-free images Werieth (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg is sourced to newspaperarchive.com which is not a sufficient source per WP:NFCC#10a. Apart from that, it is likely that all matchbooks and advertisements in the article are both {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Howlin' Wolf - How Many More Years.ogg

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Does this sample really need to be on 6 different articles? Werieth (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:James Cotton - Cotton Crop Blues.ogg

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this sample really needed on 5 different articles? Werieth (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Palpasa Cafe by Narayan Wagle.jpg

Backcover fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the backcover if not the frontcover? Call me stupid (but in educated English please if I may insist). Just curious. Some sort of backdoor issue perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b says "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." The back cover does not identify the work as well as the front cover does. Therefore Stefan is saying that an image that is just the front cover would fit within policy better than one with the whole cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can take that as authoritative? That you are as fluent in Urdu as you are perhaps in Russian? Indeed you have me at an advantage there. It's a fracking cover Timothy. Come on. It would be a real pity if it was mutilated just because of Stefan's backdoor issues. Is he in by the way? I would really like to have a word with him about his Mickey Gove post. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I can say with 100% confidence that I am as fluent in Urdu as I am in Russian. But I'm sure that you know that by now. And its not relevant here. If there was critical commentary about the back cover, then it may be useful, but as the image is only used to show the cover of the work (under WP:NFCI#1) we still should only use a portion of the image. The image is not "mutilated" because we only show the front cover, actually that is what the standard is here, and what is currently in use in most articles that use cover art (whether it be a book, film, album, etc). I don't know what you are talking about with "backdoor issues" or a "Mickey Gove post," nor do I know if Stefan is in. I'm sure you could try to reach him at his talkpage and ask him about these. Cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:BalikaVadhu.jpg

Image of dubious purpose. In Balika Vadhu, it says that the image is a promotional logo image for Balika Vadhu. On the other hand, in Chinnari pellikuthuru, it says that it is a promotional logo image for Chinnari pellikuthuru. It probably can't be both at the same time. Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one of the articles. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in the article about the show for which it isn't a logo image. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the image is a promotional photo for both but I believe they are different names for the same show. From the article Balika Vadhu, it states that it is also telecast on on Maa TV as Chinnari pellikuthuru. Most likely the articles should be merged as they seem to be talking about the same show. This would also eliminate any issues with failing WP:NFCC#8 & 10c. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jutsu (Naruto)

The article contains the following non-free images

• File:Chakra generation in Naruto.png
• File:Chidori.jpg
• File:Rasengan.jpg
• File:Byakugan.jpg
• File:SharinganSasuke.jpg

I am not sure the images satisfy WP:NFCC in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg

Given that this is a 1898 photo I would think that it would qualify for a PD-old. I guess it depends on how we define "published" in respects to a photograph. I would consider it published after the photographer prints and gives it to the subject. But I may be wrong in that respect. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all fronts. PD-old is applicable to unpublished works and is based on the date of author death, not date of creation (here, 1898). This image is published, so PD-old cannot be used. Publication has a formal definition as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Merely "giv[ing] it to the subject" is not a distribution to the public. Эlcobbola _talk 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we known when this photo was published? If it was still pre-1923, PD-old still applies, otherwise we'll have the usual bank of tests on the photographer to check. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PD-old never applies to published US works. The US only considers date of author death for unpublished works. As a published work, {{PD-US}} could apply for pre-1923 publication, but, as the image description says, the publication date is not known (thus the fair use claim to avoid misrepresenting the copyright status). Эlcobbola _talk 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If we have no idea of publication date or photographer, but we do know the creation date, then it's 120 years from creation (in US, natch), meaning it is not yet PD until 2018. (and we'd use PD-old-70 for that, see the small text in that license). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is also only for unpublished works. We know this is published (just not when) so 120 cannot be used. That consideration also requires genuine anonymity, which is quite distinct from merely not being known to us (i.e., just because the source website failed to attribute an author does not mean the author is not known to someone). Эlcobbola _talk 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the evidence, the photo appears to be from a collection of material relating to Pound from a close friend [3] acquired by the UTexas Harry Ransom Center (HRC) [4]. Thus the first "publication" is 2008 (best guess). But the author still remains the photographer (assuming that they never published it), as since they are unknown, I'm still getting 120 years from creation as when this will be PD (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm#Footnote_2, under "first published in US", "after 2002"). --MASEM (t) 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, be careful; that footnote applies to "Unpublished works registered for copyright since 1978". Registration for copyright is not the same as publication, and the 2008 date gleaned from the HRC source only speaks to the latter. If the HRC did indeed also register, then you'd be correct, but I'm commenting from a position of not assuming facts not in evidence, so to speak. That gets back to the central issue here: we simply don't have enough information to determine copyright status, thus a fair use claim as a precaution. Эlcobbola _talk 18:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the second section "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.", "after 2002" line --MASEM (t) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically the way I'm reading various US copyright summations, and irregardless of the publishing situation , if you known when a work was created by cannot, reasonably, identify the photographer, the work is considered anonymous, and the term defaults to 120yr from point of creation. This makes this work obviously non-free for 4 more years. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• There seem to be two sources of confusion here. Some people seem to be using "PD-old" to mean that something is in the public domain because of age, whereas other people seem to be using "PD-old" to specifically refer to the template {{PD-old}}, which says that the author has been dead for 100 years. To make it more confusing, Commons has a template with the same name, {{PD-old}}, which says "70 years" instead of "100 years" as on Wikipedia. The other source of confusion is the copyright term of the United States. These are the current copyright terms in the United States:
  • First published before 1923: in the public domain (maximum term: 75 years from publication)
  • First published 1923-1977: 95 years from publication (regardless of the year of creation and the year of death of the author, so 18th century works first published in this era may still be copyrighted)
  • First published 1978-2002: 70 years after the death of the author. If the author is anonymous or if it is a work for hire, then it changes to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter). Also, regardless of the year of creation and the year of death of the author, works first published during this period will under no circumstances enter the public domain before 2048.
  • First published in 2002 or later, or not yet published: 70 years after the death of the author. If the author is anonymous or if it is a work for hire, then it changes to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter).

Apart from that, works first published 1923-1989 may be in the public domain because of non-compliance with copyright formalities, and non-US works published at any time may be in the public domain due to lack of copyright relations with the source country of the work. Note that the definition of "anonymous" differs compared to most countries. Instead, the United States uses a definition of the word "anonymous" which looks strikingly similar to the definition which Sweden was forced to drop in 1961 due to being incompatible with a modification of the Berne Convention. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to say is that no one seems to have an idea of who the copyright holder is - that is, the original photographer. As per US law, this is an anonymous work: "An “anonymous work” is a work on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author." Therefore our best advice is 120 years from established creation (1898). If the author becomes identified, then we apply life+70, working on that the first publication was in 2008. I do agree we may want to normalize templates with commons to be clear. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This assumes that the image wasn't published anywhere before 2008, which doesn't have to be the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but again, I point to the above history of that photo that suggests it was pretty much in a box until 2008. 120 years still applies unless it was published from 1978-1989 w/ copyright notice, or from 1989-2002 without notice, in which case its copyright defaults to expiring in 2047. And given the minimal reuse of that photo, I suspect that we're still looking at a 2008 publication date. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, late to the discussion. If it makes a difference, the photograph was published in a 1987 biography which I have sitting next to me: Tytell, John. (1987). Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano. New York: Anchor Press. ISBN 978-0-385-19694-9

– Victoria (tk) 01:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in 2048, provided that the book has a copyright notice (I don't have it myself so I can't check). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - can you cite the page # on the File page (or just list it here?) And perchance does it name the photographer? --MASEM (t) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If it was first published in 1987, then the copyright expires at the earliest in 2048 (due to creation before 1978), which presumably is well after 70 years after the death of the photographer. From a copyright point of view, it is therefore unnecessary to know whether the photographer is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be good information to have just in case we find a potentially earlier publication. We can play it safe by assuming the 2047 date but this might help clear it earlier if the photographer is known. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The photograph is being used in Ezra Pound, currently at FAC. I don't know how this page works, but I'm wondering whether it's rude to ask that the FAC nominators be alerted about this deletion request there so as to have a chance to research the issue? Thanks. Oh, and btw - no, Tytell does not claim copyright. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This isnt a deletion request, its to clarify the licensing. the important thing is that this will be considered non-free, which might impact how FAC sees it. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think FAC is acknowledging it may be non-free. The problem is the intervention here when the chances of proving it is free are extremely slight. For example, the publication must have been lawful to count as publication. Am I wrong in supposing that? Do we know it was published with the copyright-holders authority? How can we tell? Thincat (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, considering what I found before, this photo, at the time that book was published, was very likely in a book of personal notes and mementos held by a friend of Erza Pound; Pound was dead, the photographer was likely dead. So I doubt there's any way to prove the publication was unlawful. For the FAC purposes, they should treat the image as non-free and thus consider NFCC otherwise from that point (this section is not considering the validity of the rationale) --MASEM (t) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry if I appear to be rude, but that's incorrect. I've spoken to curators at two museums and to Pound's literary executor regarding this photograph. The original photograph was in the possession of the Pound estate, papers of which are curated at Yale University. The museum in Idaho has had it in their possession for a number of years and claims to have acquired it from Yale's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Perhaps they acquired a copy; that I wouldn't know. The literary executors claim it's a family photograph, photographer unknown, and would be extremely happy if anyone can identify the photographer. The photograph was published, as I indicated above, at least as early as 1987, in the unpaginated tipped-in photograph section of Tytell's book. Tytell credits it to the Idaho Historical Society, so it was in their possession at that time, and most likely the biographer, as all biographers do, secured permission from the family. Can someone explain why this discussion has again been resurrected? All these facts were established in 2010 and at that time following elcobbola's suggestion it was kept with the fair use rationale, given that we can't identify the photographer. One more point, in his 2007 biography, David Moody describes it as a circa 1897 "studio photograph". It was almost certainly taken in a studio in the Philadelphia area, was in the possession of the family, and is displayed in Idaho. It has nothing to do with a friend. Victoria (tk) 15:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This information should have been added to the photo's file page (if not now) only to assure what is known of the history of the photo so that we can accurately judge the copyright term on it (that is, now until 2047). The reason this discussion was opened was likely because this information was not stated on the file page, and Wereith, fairly, asked if a 1898 photo would still be within copyright as to make this a possibly free image (which makes its use at the FAC even better if that was the case). It's still non-free and will be for many years but the more assertions that can be made on the file page to explain its history (this is what the "Source" field should be for) will prevent this discussion from happening again. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Which goes to my question why the uploader, me, and the FAC nominee, me, was not notified. As for adding to pages or my involvement with Wikipedia, take a look at my talk page. When I get a chance, I'll update, but I wasn't the only person in possession of this information, I passed it to it at least elcobbola, nor was it ever suggested earlier to add to the file, so please don't chastise me about misuse of the source field. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't meant to sound like I was coming down on you - it just should have been a step done last time when it came up, and that's a misstep by all those in that discussion. In terms of the bearing on FAC, it shouldn't affect it - it was non-free at the start of the process and making it free would have simply strengthen the reason to include if the non-free was already accepted. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle If you are in contact with the estate, would you mind asking about a release of permission for as much historical documents as they are willing to provide? These types of opportunities often have the potential to make both parties to a win-win partnership. We can provide better coverage via images and text for the subject and as a side bonus get that material released under a free license. I can easily see a very positive outcome to this incident, if we are willing to take the needed steps. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not anymore and no, though thanks for the suggestion. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies if the following has already been ruled out. This image has not been published with a valid copyright notice that I can see. Does that not mean that {{PD-US-1978-89}} applies here (per Commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart)? (The earliest publication we can find is 1987 in John Tytell's book.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The book was registered for copyright in 1987 (search for TX0002173790 at www.copyright.gov). This was within 5 years from publication, so it does not matter if the book contains a copyright notice or not; it would still be covered by the registration.

Above, there was also a question about whether the publications were with the consent of the copyright holder. If the photograph at some point was published without the consent of the copyright holder, then that publication doesn't count as "publication", with effects on term length and notice requirements. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tytell, the author of the book, does not claim copyright of the image. No publisher has claimed copyright of the image. The photographer is unknown (almost certainly a studio photographer in Cheltenham Township, PA, where the Pounds were living when the photograph was taken). So is the copyright not "None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities," as the Hirtle chart says? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This statement in Victoriaearle's comment above I think is key: "Tytell credits it to the Idaho Historical Society, so it was in their possession at that time, and most likely the biographer, as all biographers do, secured permission from the family." Yes, it is a guess at its history, but its also a very educated guess, and because there are a lot of ambiguities to the image, it is better to play the safest game and consider that the publication of the photo for the first time in Tytell's book was with permission of the copyright owner (the family at this point) and thus the book's copyright extended to the photo, and thus the work remains non-free until 2047. It very well could be a free image but there is no harm considering an image non-free if it really is free (the reverse is not true in mismarking a non-free as free). (Well there is harm if people are considered the non-free inappropriate for the FAC, but that doesn't sound like that's the issue). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize it's guesswork, but I would doubt that the family owns the copyright. That would normally reside with the photographer, or if the photographer was an employee of the studio (rather than the owner), then with the studio. Studios would usually hang onto the negatives and the copyright, because selling copies is how they used to make their money.

There appear to be two physical copies from the negative in circulation. One was held by the Idaho Historical Society (perhaps obtained from Pound's family) and copied by Tytell for his 1987 book. There is also this one, which was held by Marcella Spann Booth, a friend of Pound's in the 1950s (who almost certainly obtained it from Pound himself), and who gave it to the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 (see the image page for a link to the acquisition news release).

It's possible that it's the same copy, and that Marcella Spann Booth lent it to the Idaho Historical Society, then gave it to the University of Texas at Austin. But I'm guessing there are two copies. It would be interesting to try to find out (a longer term project; no need in the short term). But the point is that, no matter how many physical copies there are, and who has or had them in their possession, that has no bearing on who owns the copyright. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree. We just make ourselves look silly by trying to achieve near certainty in areas where rarely does any certainty exist. Old photos are published all the time without definite knowledge of whether or not they are in copyright or who any copyright holder might be. How many people know who holds the copyright on childhood photographs of their grandparents? Thincat (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should be careful, as once you mark something as "free", the cat is out of the bag, to speak, and if that was later proven wrong, then it's our fault that a copyrighted work was marked free. In this specific case, as I read it, even if non-free the image well passes NFCC and in no danger of being deleted, so I'd rather we be secure in the copyright claim. If it was more the case that this was a fringe case and the image on the cusp of being deleted, I would really want to assure which way this falls on copyright to see if it could be made free in good faith. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Does the following change anything? The earliest publication date found so far is September 1985, when the image appeared in an Associated Press story by Susan Gallagher, discussing a Pound exhibit in Idaho. This was published by several newspapers, including the Victoria Advocate, p. 3, and the Reading Eagle, p. E-18. There is no copyright notice, not even a false one (e.g. copyright Idaho Historical Society). There's no reason to believe that it was published with the permission of the copyright holder, who it's reasonable to assume is the photographer in the absence of evidence to the contrary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, I really do accept we should not be tagging as free unless we have strong reason. But I also think we shouldn't tag as non-free unless there is a basis for that. We desperately need "no known restrictions after a diligent enquiry" (as sensible organisations have) and then a nuanced policy for how we may use this sort of image. Whether an image is free or non-free is sometimes only known unto God. Thincat (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyright makes this very nuanced. It might be worthwhile to engage commons in this discussion since they have people generally a bit up to speed on the PD side of things. I think we have done all of the necessary due dilliance that is reasonable possible, but there remains a maze of confusion through copyright law to figure this out. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get elcobbola to chime in again. I do have email, from 2010, from the Sun Valley Center for the Arts (who possess at least one of the photographs) and from Pound's literary executors telling me that neither claim copyright, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, would you mind if I were to write to the Sun Valley Center to ask if there is anything written on the back of their copy? Or you could do it if you prefer to be the one who's in contact with them, for continuity. There was some information on the back of the copy held by the Harry Ransom Center (the date, which was useful). It's possible that there's a photographer or studio name on the other copy. This isn't connected to the FAC, by the way (I'm not trying to complicate things in that regard). It's just that it has me interested now, trying to track down author name or first publication date. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can try. I asked them and either they didn't want to take it off the wall and out of the frame, or they'd already done so and still weren't able to identify the photographer. Sorry, that's all I can remember of a four year old phone conversation. They did however confirm in writing that they don't claim copyright. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll give them a try. You're probably right that if it's in a frame on display they won't want to dismantle it. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was on display then at the Pound House in Hailey, and, no, the curator didn't want to take it off the wall! But you might have better luck, because I just remembered that, either someone told me or I read somewhere, the Pound House was sold and the museum was closed, in which case it might be packed up. I hope I'm not making that up! Anyway, I think we've established a lot about a 117 year-old photograph! Victoria (tk) 01:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That would jive with how UTexas claims they got the materials, though it's not a sure thing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I think two copies of the same photograph exist. If I'm reading correctly, UTexas acquired the collection in 2008, but the photograph we're speaking/writing about was hanging on the Pound House wall in 2010. If I'm correct about the Pound house, and when I'm less tired I'll look it up, it was last year that I heard about it closing. And just to clarify too, the Pound House is/was part of the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, which is still in operation. Victoria (tk) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: yes, I'm right. The Ezra Pound Museum in Hailey, which displayed the photograph in 2010 has been closed and is now the Hailey branch of the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, [5]. Victoria (tk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As the description says that it was published by the Victoria Advocate and the Reading Eagle in 1985 without a copyright notice, it is acceptable in Commons under PD-US-1978-89. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have evidence these were published with the copyright owner's permission, which throws a wrench into the works. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

None of the instances of publication that we have found so far (earliest, Associated Press 1985) have been with the copyright owner's permission, so far as we know. The copyright owner is unknown, but was almost certainly the owner or an employee of the studio that took the photograph on 3 May 1898. (Note that neither the Pound literary estate, nor the Idaho Historical Society, which owns an original copy of the photograph, claims copyright.)

According to this 2012 article by Peter Hirtle (who compiled the Hirtle chart): "For publication to have occurred, the work must be issued with the authorization of the copyright owner." The Hirtle chart, footnote 6, says: "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority."

Unless we take "publication" to include the sale by the studio of the first copy to the Pound family, the above may mean that this is an unpublished image, for the purpose of determining copyright status. Unpublished anonymous works are protected for 120 years from the date of creation, which in this case would be until 3 May 2018. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that copyright periods based on an event always are counted from the first day of the year after the event. This means that the 120-year period began on 1 January 1919 (1st day on the year after creation) and ends at the end of 2018, not in the middle of the year. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. This case has now been discussed on Commons here where the most interesting remark, for me, came from Carl Lindberg, who knows what he is talking about. He said "Under older case law, the copyright to studio photographs were generally deemed owned by the sitter (i.e. the person paying for the photograph). They would be the "first copyright owner" but not author. That is no longer the case, but it seems to have been at the time.[6]" (Works made on Commission, page 130). Second comment: following a request at WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works, I have suggested this case as an example of problems with orphan works. Thincat (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This may be related to Pushman v. New York Graphic Society. If the only copy of a work was transferred to someone else, the copyright was implicitly transferred to that person. When you go to a photographer to have a photo of yourself taken, then you will usually own the only copy of it. Note that the law changed in 1978, so copyright has not been transferred with copies since then.

Note that Ezra Pound lived in Europe during part of his life, and this photograph might have been taken in Europe. Under US law, this means that you would normally use European laws to determine who is the copyright holder in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Coburg

Im not really seeing anything critical in the images selected for this article, they look like eye candy to me. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:François-Joseph Gossec, composer, Saint-Georges’ teacher and mentor.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is clearly {{PD-old-100}}. Any reason why it is listed as unfree? Any reason to dispute that either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply? Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefen2, In answer to your question, because I was confused by the questionnaire. I should have listed it as PD-1923. Please change it. Thank you, Dsteveb (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Of course "Original publication: not published, cca. 1802" was my error. Dsteveb (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Le Théâtre Italien in Paris.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says "Original publication: 1771 print". If this was published in 1771, then why would it be unfree? Typically, anything published before 1923 is {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sefan2, Sorry, my mistake, as above. It should have been PD-1923. Can I please upload it as such? Dsteveb (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Mme. de Montesson, employer of Saint-Georges.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says: "Original publication:cca. 1770 print". If it was published in 1770, then why is it listed as being unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Because I made a mistake, however, as I located and uploaded a substitute of Mme. Montesson from Wiki Commons, the old file is now irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsteveb (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Palais de Soubise.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says "Original publication: 1775 print". In that case, why is this listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Sorry, the answer to your question is that I misunderstood the questionnaire. As a print cca. 1775 it should be pre1923 item.Dsteveb (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Print of Young Saint-Georges.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says: "Original publication: Le Mercure de France,, Paris newspaper Feb. 1768 issue". In that case, why is the file listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Regarding Young Saint-Georges,published in a French magazine in February 1768, your colleague, Ron Jones said: "You already fixed it. It should be a free image with Pd-old." Does this mean I upload it now? Dsteveb (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

American Tractor Corporation

In Special:PermanentLink/598538436, there are several images uploaded by User:Njchronicaler which were later removed by User:Werieth. Are these in fact free? What are the chances that a catalogue like this was renewed? Also, do the images show all pages in the catalogue? I don't see any copyright notice on any of the pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2 as far as I know they were copyrighted when published in the early 1950s. The company was bought out by Case which abandoned the company name and only keep a couple of key innovations (not represented in the brochure). I've been trying to get the photos restored to the article I created, but Werieth removes them as quickly as I restore them.

This is because you employ forcing one revision over another. Discuss the matter, like you are beginning to do; it will reach a better end.—John Cline (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:The Angelos' Fencing Academy. jpeg.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Claimed to be from 1830. It also says "Original publication: Reminiscences by Henry Angelo". Was this a pre-1923 publication? Why does the uploader think that this is unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Sorry, another one of my mistakes. However, this file is now irrelevant. We replaced it with a better one in Wiki commons. Dsteveb (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Title page of Saint-Georges concertos.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is apparently from the 18th century and seems to contain a price tag in ancient currency. Does this mean that it was published somewhere before 1923 and that it is therefore in the public domain? Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Yes, of course, same as above. Thanks Stefan2.

It is also true of the page of music taken from the same volume as the title page. When you get to it, please let us know if we are free to go ahead and upload them.

Finally, the painting of the Duke of Orleans by Sir Joshua Reynolds in 1785, we will be using is listed in commons.

Looking forward to your reply. Dsteveb (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:TVNZ TV2 logo.svg

Discussion effectively closed when User:Coat of Many Colors moved file to Commons. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The image appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. The logo is below the threshold of originality, but the vectorisation is maybe not. Replaceable by a different vectorisation of the same logo. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, this should be free. It is (apparently) the logo's owner and this is their SVG which they can't copyright. If it was the case the logo SVG was made by some third-party, I'd agree that a true free version made by our graphics lab or something like that would be better. But this is out of their own hands, and thus is uncopyrightable to start. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, anyone who makes a vectorisation of a logo can hold the rights to the vectorisation, provided that the vectorisation meets the threshold of originality for computer software. Note that User:Olliechick has overwritten the file with a different file from an unknown source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The logo itself is just a simple numeral, which does not appear to be eligible for copyright protection, so a non-free SVG is clearly a violation of NFCC#1 and should be replaced with a free version. My understanding is that although the logo fails TOO, the XML code of the SVG may be copyrighted. I don't know if it is possible to create an SVG of this logo with different XML code, or if a new file is created which produces the same or similar XML from scratch, whether that could be considered a copyright violation or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I' transferred the file to Commons per Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_logos_that_just_consist_of_basic_text_in_the_userspace. Can someone close this please (I didn't raise here). Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Guides and Scouts Movement of Belgium

Excessive use of non-free images. Only the infobox image is needed in this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Clifford Chester Sims.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC#1 per FUR. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The FUR tells that this is replaceable by free content, so the image seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Also, wouldn't {{PD-USGov}} material normally exist for people like this? Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Club Brugge KV.png

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2004–05 Belgian First Division. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SBS One

Images fail WP:NFG and WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Abuse of NFG Werieth (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether such a detailed section about the logo is really encyclopedic or needed in the article. Also note that the second citation in that section is a deadlink. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Eastern Airlines logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The underlying graphic looks like a {{pd-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree as a US company, it would be too simply for copyright. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Pan Am Logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Not sure if the underlying graphic is a {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we have more complex logos from US companies that are considered PD, so this hould be okay. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Endeavor Global Logo.png

Image is PD-textlogo as it is below TOO. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Too simple for TOO to apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say this doesn't meet TOO. Simple typefaces. I suspect that the modification of the first e is only de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Philippe, Duke of Orleans.jpg

Image is in the public domain per PD-old. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says that this is from the 18th century but also that it is copyrighted. This seems contradicing. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's first publication date may be more recent, but there's no way going by age of the (late 1700s) that any type of copyright can still exist even if published, like, this year - it's certainly more than 70+life/95+life/120 years considering the painter. PD-old applies. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a photograph of a 2D work of art and the photographer has no rights per Wikipedia policy. Best dealt with by transferring to Commons. I've templated accordingly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Doctor Octopus

This article contains seven unfree files:

• File:Doctoroctopus.png
• File:AmazingSpider-Man3octopus.jpg, which doesn't have a fair use rationale for this article
• File:Superior Spider-Man 1.jpg
• File:Panelultimateockdoc18.jpg
• File:Doc ock23.jpg, which doesn't have a fair use rationale for this article
• File:Spectacular Doc Ock.jpg
• File:2826 DocOck.jpg

I cannot see any justification for keeping all seven in the article. Certainly File:2826 DocOck.jpg would be a suitable image because it is the most recent and probably the best known. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, the character's design really hasn't changed over the years that one such as the present infobox one is sufficient. I don't see much discussing the visual changes of the character to need that many different versions. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Busted in 2002.jpg

As the band has disbanded, it is acceptability that the file is not replaceable by a free image. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Fails NFCC due to being replaceable. Perhaps we can't have photos of the three together, but a collage of free images would surely be possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we've got agreement that a disbanded musical group can have non-free - even if it is possible to group three separate images together. In this case, the image appears to be also showing part of the "attitude" of the group. That said, a group that disbanded in 2011 might have free imagery around (a quick flickr check doesn't reveal any) but this should encourage people to find some. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:CSUSB seal.png

Image is not PD-CAGov as the school is not part of the state government. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it would as while the CA college system is state-ordained, it doesn't make the schools part of the state government. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Ura logo.gif

The logo is from a Singapore company (maybe the Singapore government), and therefore would most likely be created in Singapore and subject to local copyright laws. As Commons:COM:TOO has no information on the TOO in Singapore, I'm closing this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this {{PD-textlogo}} (or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}), or does it get too complex when two letters are written inside another letter? Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that internal lettering thing doesn't affect that it's still just text, so PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:CovelliCentre.PNG

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this PD-textlogo, or is the "R" decoration too complex? Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the United States copyright office would not regard the decoration as de minimis (it forms a visually recognizable part of the logo) and as such I think it might be creative enough for them to register it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree - the curvature is not simple. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg

I cant see justification for usage in Kunstschutz Werieth (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the text (my bolding):

• "Adolf Hitler was an unsuccessful artist who was denied admission to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. Nonetheless, he thought of himself as a connoisseur of the arts, and in Mein Kampf he ferociously attacked modern art as degenerate, including: Cubism; Futurism; and Dadaism; all of which he considered the product of a decadent twentieth century society. When in 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he enforced his aesthetic ideal on the nation. The types of art that were favoured amongst the Nazi party were classical portraits and landscapes by Old Masters, particularly those of Germanic origin. Modern art that did not match this was dubbed degenerate art by the Third Reich, and all that was found in Germany's state museums was to be sold or destroyed."

Of course it's contextual and of course it significantly aids understanding. You do know I take it that the whole subject remains highly topical today?

So why did you post Werieth? Did you read the text critically? Or do you dispute that it significantly aids understanding? If the latter would you care to enlarge?

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coat of Many Colours: What visual elements of File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg is being discussed in the Kunstschutz article? Why do you need to display the image on this article? Why wont a link to degenerate art suffice? Werieth (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: You raise meta-questions which are not actually advanced as tests in policy. Of course you can debate meta-questions endlessly, and incidentally raise the same questions for the use of this image in the two articles you do not contest. The rationale here is that it is an historically significant image and the policy objection can only be contextual significance as per Stefan below. Do you dispute the image is contextually significant? That it doesn't aid understanding? Why in this case and not the two others you don't dispute? It seems to me that you are determined to be argumentative. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure you understand the policy. Those questions are just basic easy to understand versions of several of the key points of policy. Specifically, points WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8. Just because something aids understanding doesnt mean that it has justification for inclusion. Also if non-free media is used on one page, the justification for usage on additional pages becomes more difficult (Minimal usage clause). And you need then to ensure that a link to the article about the topic where the file is originally being used cannot suffice to serve the same educational purpose (NFCC#1). Lastly that there is sourced critical commentary about the contents of the image by reliable third parties (NFCC#8). Werieth (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I understand the policy. In assessing it, it would help if you linked to the full content WP:NFC Non-free content (to which I've recently made significant contributions) and not to a summary of its criteria WP:NFCC Non-free content criteria. §1 refers to replaceability, but the full policy qualifies with 'reasonably suppose', and indeed there's no reason to suppose there is a free equivalent (and the same objection applies to the two uses you do not contest). §3 plainly refers to minimal use in an article, and there is only one use of this kind of image in the article. Finally §8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" does not say anything about "sourced critical commentary about the contents of the image by reliable third parties". It says exactly what it says and the third use you contest here plainly satisfies it as well as the other two uses you do not contest. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFC is not policy. It is rather an attempt at explaining the policy and how its implemented. NFCC#1 refers to replaceability. We may not have a free image to replace the file, but if text, or a link to a different article can replace the image then the link or text should be used. NFCC#3 refers to minimal usage, both in the size of the image, number of articles where the image is used. How can the removal be detrimental if there isnt any sourced discussion about the contents of the image? (NFCC#8) Werieth (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you suggest your reader doesn't understand a policy then you should link to the document describing that policy and not patronize her with a document you say "attempts" to explain the policy (it doesn't - it merely summarise part of the policy to do with criteria). As for the rest I don't frankly think there's any point wasting my time repeating what I have to say about this. I shall watch the file and archive this discussion. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. There is no critical discussion about what it looked like when Hitler visited the exhibition. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "It" being the Willrich and Hansen installation, I take it? Neither is there "critical discussion" about what it looked like in the other two uncontested rationale. Do you dispute the image is contextually significant? That it doesn't aid understanding?

Can I ask you, Stefan, in future to adopt what is accepted good practice in Wikipedia - rather than just referring to WP:NFCC#8, please pipe it with a description thus contextual significance, so that we may better and more immediately assess what your objection actually is. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That clause is more than just contextual significance. One can have contextual significance, and still not meet #8. #8 has two parts, meeting the first is almost always achievable, however the second part and the part that is most often ignored is the most crucial part. The easiest way to see if an image meets #8 is to ask why does this article require this image? Werieth (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The heading is "contextual significance". This is what we (and especially those of new to these discussions) want from Stefan, an indication of what is at stake. I did challenge Stefan on "aiding understanding". Of course this image does that as it displays an example of the kind of art work that was regarded as degenerate. If Stefan wants to pipe it as contextual significance and aid to understanding that's fine with me too. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I find that piping stuff just makes things more confusing. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2014

Yes, but that's just you bleating along isn't it Werieth? The fact is that experienced editors do pipe links to help others not so familiar with the material. That you don't is, I suspect, because you want to preserve the argot of a privileged few. It's an amazing conceit is it not? A few pages of guidance the likes of which are routinely assimilated in their dozen of pages every day by administrators such as civil servants and the like (not only lawyers ...) here assumes the status of a cult. What nonsense! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Werieth's point is right -just because we have a main article space on contextual significance doesn't mean that it directly applies to NFCC's take on it. (It has long been an "issue" that WP's notability policy is not congruent with a standard dictionary entry, but we deal with that). So there's no need to link to a non-WP-space page to talk about policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't construe this Masem. Can you point me to the "issue" please? Are you saying that WP:NFCC non-free content criteria is not applicable? Eh "not congruent with a standard dictionary entry" [new to Google] (yah, we both like Firefox)? Likewise "so there's no need to link to a non-WP-space page to talk about policy and guidelines"? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that NFCC is critical, but the content of the mainspace Wikipedia article contextual significance has no immediate bearing on how to handle NFCC#8. So don't try to use what contextual significance says to try to argue NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Or to the main point - WP:NFCC#8 is a sufficient link for pointing anyone to the proper policy page and making it clear it is proper policy page. Using easter egg links confuses the matter when policy is the core issue. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are perhaps being satirical or something regarding red-linked contextual significance? Feel free to push some of whatever that is you're on down to me on port 563 (I'm doing a couple of Stellas and two thirds of a bottle of Morrison's cheapest Chardonnay before beddy byes, but I could definitely use something more congruent with totally losing it). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Or to the main point - WP:NFCC#8 is a sufficient link for pointing anyone to the proper policy page and making it clear it is proper policy page. Using easter egg links confuses the matter when policy is the core issue. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Easter eggs" being code for something you pick up on Silk Road perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth mentioning I think that this is a file that was first uploaded by Tyrenius, an active and committed member of the visual arts project interested in the coverage of women artists, in 2007, and that he/she is on a wikibreak presently and hasn't been notified about the issue. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

I've also established that the photograph appeared in the 17 July 1937 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (see here). This newspaper was the official organ of the Nazi party and I think it's quite possible it's in the public domain. At any rate there's a Völkischer Beobachter category at Commons with one of its two files widely reproduced in projects. I'm aware that Stefan2 is far too busy tagging files for deletion to actually do anything constructive in the way of maintaining them, but if he could perhaps confirm the PD status of the file I will transfer it (along with others from the source) to Commons as a service to the community before I retire (as I mention on my Talk page I'm retiring from editing Wikipedia, no longer one of the 100 things I want to do before I die, because of Stefan's harassment and stalking). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why we have the commons:Commons:Hirtle chart to figure things out. If we know published in '37, as a foreign work (and yes, Nazi publications are still considered to be eligible for copyright by Germany), and if we assume that it never meet the US copyright requirements (markings, etc.), then it would be public domain if it was in Germany's PD by 1996. Germany's copyright is creator life + 70 years, which means that the creator would have had to died in 1926 to make this even a chance of PD, which of course is impossible. So that defaults to 95 years from publication date, which is 2032. So this is a non-free image. (And I did check the two photos in that category in commons and both "claim" the life+70 term but give no evidence for that, but I'd need to check more. Remember, Commons, too, does not have a automatic license check process so just because something is at commons doesn't mean it is a proper image use). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I'm certainly aware that photographs dated as early as 1890 or even earlier can still be in copyright. I was thinking more along the lines that by 1937 the Nazi party was in fact governing in Germany and thought possibly there's some deal with government works being in PD. I might check with Commons if I have time tonight. No doubt Stefan2 in his emanation as Stefan4 will be flagging those two Commons files for deletion. A huge result for him because the second appears in dozens of Wikiprojects! I trust he will have the courtesy to thank me for the heads-up. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already actually tagged that category at commons as questionable due to the logic above (both images are 1930s, so same logic says no earlier than 1920 PD). Note that nom'ing the category is not asserting deletion, and I'm sure in the case of one of those images that if it is found to be not PD that commons folks will inform and help upload the image to projects that can support the image under their appropriate EDP - there's no requirement that whatever happens on commons has to be broadcasted to all other projects. And the act of maintain non-free and making sure works that are reported stated as free are truly is in no way harassment or stalking, it's a requirement to keep our noses legally clean. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pity. Not one to turn a blind eye then, eh Masem. I doubt either image will make their way through the English exemption doctrine policy because of §15 in the section "on unacceptable use of images: "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the Wikipedia article in textual form, with a citation to the newspaper article". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of one as the identifying cover image would be acceptable (also to note that we'd avoid the legible text issue by reducing the resolution), that wouldn't be in question if they turned out non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed that's true. On reflection I thinks it's a significant issue for the reasons expressed by the Bavarian Ministry of Finance, so I would support deletion from Commons and re-using on a Fair Use rationale. I'll watch the issue and deal with it as appropriate (I've copied the second image and documentation to my files) i.e. if I'm still here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I researched the position. This article refers. It appears that the copyright of Völkischer Beobachter is held by the Bavarian Fiance Ministry, who own the copyright on works by its publisher Eher-Verlag, and who do defend their copyright vigorously: "The ministry owns the copyright to publications by the Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag, which include National Socialist newspapers such as the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff as well as "Mein Kampf," and has refused to allow reproduction of the titles. It justifies its decision by arguing that straightforward reprints without critical remarks could be used by neo-Nazis for propaganda purposes. Germany's influential Central Council of Jews has also condemned the republication of the Nazi papers by Zeitungszeugen." Over to Stefan then, good luck with it Sfan ... erm, on the whole better don't let on you heard it from me first ... cheers (*finger to side of nose*).

Or another thing we could do Masem is just sort of forget we know anything about this and upload File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg to Commons ourselves! Someone with your authority might just get away with it. I'll see how it goes with those two other files and maybe do it myself. One in, all in, eh, as we are wont to say in good old Britannia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Big Lots.svg

Moved here thanks to AnomieBOT.

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy #1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Added a free equivalent to the article in this edit and which was reverted in this edit by an IP editor who wishes to assert that the SVG version is superior. Well it is superior, but it's also non-free, and I would much prefer someone do an SVG version of the JPEG picture I uploaded instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a text logo, which is insufficiently original to be copyrighted. Cnilep (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you even take a look at the image replacement? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I did not. My comment relates only to 'Big Lots.svg' as a logo. Masem's comment below seems to supersede my (comparatively uninformed) point. Cnilep (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The Big Lots logo is uncopyrightable, but I do see that the SVG here is one pulled from Brands of the World, and so it is questionable if that SVG is "free" since it was created by someone else (SVG, being XML at its heart, could be copyrighted at the code level). The JPG is free and a suitable replacement for now. It would be best to have someone (like the graphics lab) remake the SVG cleanly so that we can clearly claim it is a free image, and then replace the JPG with that. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, I would also like to have someone from the Graphics Lab create their own SVG rendering of the JPG I uploaded, but for now can we replace the small SVG with the larger JPG since it already fails NFCC #1? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I agree with all of Masem's points. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, the JPG should replace the possibly-non-free SVG until a for-certain free SVG can be made. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Savatage group.jpg

Although the rationale lacks replaceability information, speedy deletion was earlier declined on the basis that the band no longer performs together. The article does contain free images of the various band members, though. I'm not sure if an image showing all members is necessary. If consensus says it is, the rationale should be updated. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A non-free group shot of a disbanded group can be reasonable, particularly if it helps to capture the visual appear/style the group wanted to present, even if each individual member can be captured by free media separately. However, this should be a factor discussed in the article. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Old-gmpte-logo.png

Is this {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As it is based on the UK, it's going to be non-free here even if the US would consider it non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Commons. It only has to be PD in the U.S. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Blatant abuse of of NFCC, usage of non-free media in a list, and are missing rationales. Ive attempted to enforce policy but Spshu‎ (talk · contribs) has insisted in edit warring and to violate WP:NFCC to keep these logos. Werieth (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Blatant false claim of NFCC. "usage of non-free media in a list" is only a guideline not the 10 points of the policy. He has only point out that NFCC#8 applied in denying. To which was replied:

One image cannot meet "8. Contextual significance." or "3. Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." in a multi-organizational article as one logo cannot represent all these organizations. So, your statement isn't true that it "doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations." Spshu (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am point out that multiple images in an article does meet WP:NFCC#8 (the item you claimed above is the one reason for the rejection) particularly in this case. Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own "contextual significance". Item 3 specify and directly denies your statement: "As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid." as it does allow multiple image to be used. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy item NFCC#8 was met with Werieth unable to defend it further. Thusly, Werieth, doesn't really care what the policy really states because he has a preset notion and cannot seem to deviate when the policy would actually dictate multiple images.

The missing rationales would be in effect provide by the articles being redirect per item 10 footnote 1: "A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale." Spshu (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple note, we dont include logos in multi-organizational articles. We only include logos in the article about the company, If the company cannot support its own article we cannot justify inclusion of their logo. At last check there where 3 logos of the current 6 that do not have a valid rationale. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So the "we" is the royal we of Werieth. Sorry, you have not been able to point to any policy to that effect. Secondly, I am in the process of making them redirects. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1,3,8. You dont include a file until it has a rationale (10c). I doubt you can find a similar article that has such usage of non-free media. Ill just step back now and let others hammer policy into your head since you refuse to listen to me. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about NFCC 1,3,8. There are 1. "No free equivalent." given that organizations are active have right (c & TM) to their logo, so they met NFCC 1. Meets 3a. "Minimal number of items." as no one image can represent all organization in the list and the article doesn't exceed 1 image per organization. I assume since the images have not been removed under 3b after upload (as I did not upload them and they have been upload for a while) that they met 3b. As far as item 8 as before: "Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own 'contextual significance'." Spshu (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"No image" is a suitable free replacement for a logo of a non-notable (read: no stand-alone page) organization (by not having a standalone page, there is no requirement to have an image to identify the group), and by not using logos of non-notable organizations, we meed NFCC#8. The article is still understood by the removal of the logos, since there's no discussion about the images themselves. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"'No image" is a suitable free replacement for a logo of a non-notable (read: no stand-alone page) organization" No image doesn't replacement for logo that is just a lack of logo. Else then no copyrightable or trademark logo even on a notable organization's page would not be allowed if "no image is a suitable free replacement" as they would all fail NFCC#1.

Images are "worth a thousand words". "(by not having a standalone page, there is no requirement to have an image to identify the group)". Wereith could not point to this "requirement" either, since NFCC#1 as you and he read it would NOT permit any images what so ever on any pages on WP. An image as they say is worth a thousand words, so discussion of the logo isn't necessarily since you can see them. Also the logo are discussed on very few articles that are notable. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a standard exception about logos in the article about the company as it is the primary visual identification for that company and thus 1 image is normally allowed without discussion of the logo itself. If you take a look at WP:NFC#cite_note-2 gives a basic overview. When you look at the article as a whole (which must be done) it breaks down to a list of groups with marginal notability and a blurb about them. No where in policy does it say you can include logos in articles that are not that companies article. In fact WP:LOGOS asserts the exact opposite. When assessing the article as whole none of the logos come close to meeting NFCC#8. Werieth (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg

I found a black-and-white version of the logo in the 1920 work Story of the Knights of Columbus Pilgrimage by P. H. Kelly. I wonder (1) whether the image contained in this file is {{PD-US}} or (2) whether it is a derivative work of a {{PD-US}} image that is not sufficiently creative to obtain its own copyright. (In any event, the SVG will likely have to be remade.) RJaguar3 | u | t 20:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

Does this article really need 6 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The six files would seem to be the three entitled "On September 9, 2013, an internal NSA presentation on iPhone Location Services was leaked by Der Spiegel" and the three "In February 2014, The Intercept and NBC News released several GCHQ documents detailing the agency's propaganda and deception tactics". Can you clarify please where you think these breach the English Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy.

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need images of the nearly-all text files to talk about the content of the programs - eg, the publication by sources like Der Spiegel is sufficient validation to prove they exist, and the content of these slides have been or can be summarized in text (they fail NFCC#1 as text can be used to replace these) In addition, while Der Spiegel and others published them, they likely did it without permission/consent of the NSA, and thus these should be considered failing previous legal publication (NFCC#4, previous publication). Now, arguably the core NSA files would fall under PD-USGov, but again, they have not been published by that organization formally, so even if "free" they would fail copyright policy. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• The three images under British Crown Copyright appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: easily replaceable by text, and the article can easily be understood without the images (so removal wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the article).
• The three Iphone images also appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, for the same reasons. All of them are used in three different articles, and they appear to fail both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in those articles too. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the three iPhone images should go. One of the GCHQ slides can stay as a historically significant image imho. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Polonium.jpg

Can the usage of this image really be justified on 5 articles when it has its own stand alone article? Werieth (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm inclined to wonder what this image might add to an article, other than in its stand alone article. Course there can't be too may imges of Polonium around, scary stuff. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This image, then used in four articles, was listed for review on 30 Aug 2013 and closed as a keep on 6 Oct 2013, here. As far as I can see, the grounds for its use in a fifth article are identical. There are 344 articles that mention polonium. The five articles that use this image do so in order to illustrate their elusive subject matter, either self-referentially (polonium article) or in the context of related chemical elements (chalcogen; metalloid; p-block; and other metal articles). As per prior review, there is no free equivalent. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous review focused on the replaceability of the image, not necessarily how it was used. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Journal

This page should only need one cover, not three. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be there at all. I'm fed up with all these guru pages on Wikipedia. Someone should start an approved account to get rid of them all, they really should. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I see it survived a speedy delete, I'd better strike. I agree it only needs the one cover for visual identification. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It didn't, although an administrator decided to redirect the page instead of deleting it. The original author later recreated the article by removing the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I do actually think the defence that it's a bona fide journal is fair, but it's hard to find a convincing cite for notability. Gurdjieff himself of course a noted figure. I though this iffy researching incidentally File:Georgi Ivanovitch Gurdjieff -- The Man, The Teaching, His Mission.jpg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If the original author recreated the article from the admin-closed decision without seeking review to recreate or essentially recreating the same article, that's something that can be speedily undone (it's a CSD allowance) --MASEM (t) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the admin that redirected it to get his take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, but I shan't initiate that. Years ago I knew a rather brilliant lawyer totally into Gurdjieff. He's passed on of course, but perhaps he was right all along up there dancing in the fourth sphere. I've never understood how fantastically brilliant people can fall for this kind of stuff (Isaac Newton himself is an example) - probably I lack imagination, certainly the genius :(. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ray of Creation absolutely brill, Masem. Not to be missed and don't even think about tagging it (Morrison's plonk getting to me a bit earlier than usual ..., sorry). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Waheed murad.JPG

This file is being used in Waheed Murad. It was extracted from File:66arman1.jpg, which is used in Armaan (1966 film), a film that Waheed Murad stars in. Could the latter file be used for both articles? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To reduce non-free , it would definitely be better to use the latter in two articles instead of including the separate crop - making it clear that this is from the film and naming the co-star, on the presumption that this is the role the deceased actor is best known/recognized for. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Girls Generation I Got A Boy.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#3b. Should be reduced or deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Catchy tune, though. I downloaded it off Giganews. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Houstonleones.jpg

This image is in use on the Houston Leones article, but is this the same team as that depicted on File:Houston Leones Logo.jpg which we just received OTRS permission for? If so, it would fail Wikipedia:NFCC#1. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, plainly the same team. Here's yet another logo of theirs. But there may be a valid distinction may there not between the badge worn by players and their corporate identity? It's obviously something that ought to be gone into very carefully and thoroughly researched before jumping to a rash and ill-considered conclusion as some of us are only too wont to do here. A cat may look at a queen, and equally a lion at a king TeleComNasSprVen. Never forget that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not willing to call deletion of this file immediately until I have all the facts. Usually that involves slave-driving asking some editors more knowledgable than I in the field of sports to do some research here. BTW, I read your ping on Commons but I haven't fully considered a formal response to it yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what I'm saying, that it needs to be thoroughly researched. The 'ping' would be my comments at Stefan4's ANI I expect. Do feel free to make an informal response. I'm not one to stand on ceremony. They also serve who only stand and wait. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Houston Leones incidentally is part of the Texas Premier Soccer League who got sorted by Stefan2 above. I think you might have mentioned that, especially as you were querying OTRS permission. Is there a connection? Had TPSL sent OTRS permission that query? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think OTRS permission has been received but I'm just making sure the file is connected directly to this article before I replace the current non-free image. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Russian Cavalry Entering Trabzon, 1916.png

Historical photograph. May very well be PD (depending on publication history), but would fail NFCC#8 if non-free. Random scene from a war, not in itself the subject of discussion in the article and not required to make the event adequately understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Source is claimed as Ann Ronan Picture Library, part of DW Stock Picture Library whose business is licensing images as their terms of use confirm. So that would automatically fail §2 respect for commercial opportunity if it's not itself the subject of critical commentary, except in fact I can't locate the image there. Don't think there will be much joy chasing up its PD status. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The library is probably not the copyright holder. If copyrighted, then the copyright holder would usually be the author's heir, whoever that may be. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed that's true. But the library owns or manages the image for the copyright holder and the policy is about the agency's commercial interest. But as I say I can't actually find it in the collection and I see there are people below chasing its PD status. I'll try as well. There are nix images I can find in the internet on the Trebizond Campaign, so it would be nice to try and keep it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question is indeed when this had been published for the first time. If it already entered the public domain in the United States as unpublished work, then it is in the public domain in the United States now. If it was published in Russia before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States. It might be copyrighted in the United States if it was first published in Russia after 1923 and was still copyrighted in 1996, the URAA date for Russia. If the source given in the image description was the first publication, then this is likely copyrighted. (I guess then it could only be in the public domain if the author died before 1944 per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Unpublished works, which, however, seems possible). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• As it is from 1916, it is very possible that it was published before 1923, or that it is in the public domain for some other reason. However, we would first have to identify that publication before claiming anything about its copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• The book given as source of this image is available on Google Books (here is the link), though the page with this image doesn't seem to be available. On page 89 however, there is another image from Ann Ronan Picture Library, which suggests the authors of the book obtained it from there and so this book might be the first publication. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The page you linked to says "Kein E-Book verfügbar" which I believe means that the book isn't available online, at least not through Google, and all I can see is the cover. Did you insert the wrong link? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Please try this link. The one I gave doesn't actually work for me as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, that link works (although page 95 is missing): it still says that there is no e-book available, and to prove that, Google Books shows an e-book. Weird. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Doesn't "no e-book available" simply mean it's not at Google eBooks? As for not being available on a foreign server that's quite possible. I spend a fair bit of my time in Paris and I've often noticed Google books available in the UK but not in France. That image isn't on Russian pages, incidentally. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, this is right. Google has scanned in all these books, but only some books are available as e-books for sale; those that aren't or that publishers have requested limited access have some or no preview pages available but that doesn't make those ebooks. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still, the question remains whether the book was the first publication or not which, unless proven otherwise, we should probably assume. However, it doesn't actually seem to be relevant for determining the copyright status is Russia. The question is whether it was published in Russia after 1923 and still copyrighted on the URAA date, because if not, it is in the public domain. I am not sure whether in such a case we should assume it is copyrighted unless proven otherwise (as is usually the case), or whether the chance of it being PD is high enough that we can simply assume it is PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the book was published in 2002. If the photograph was first published in 2002, then the copyright status in Russia on the URAA date doesn't matter; it will still be copyrighted until the end of 2047. The copyright status in the source country on the URAA date is only relevant if the photograph fell into the public domain in the United States at some point before 1996, which could only happen if the photograph was published at some point before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the graphical user interface

I cant see justification for 21 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Carolina Silverhawks 2014.png

Shouldn't be used twice on Carolina Silverhawks. Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Roscoeholcomb.JPG

The rationale for Roscoe Holcomb does not comply with Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what is missing from it? --MASEM (t) 20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The guideline says that a non-free use rationale should state the proportion of the work used, what purpose the work is serving in the articles where it is being used and why the same purpose cannot be achieved by properly sourced text or a free work. The rationale present on the file appears to only satisfy the last point. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The license tag says what the purpose is (and it's pretty obvious too, to identified a deceased subject). Yes, it doesn't say what portion was used, and it is the same size as the original image, but really its already a small size to not be a big issue. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Still this needs to be stated in the rationale in order for it to be a valid rationale per WP:NFURG and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So, is the consensus that this rationale brings the file into compliance with NFCC#10c in Roscoe Holcomb? If so, then I am fine with closing this discussion. It's just that I don't think this rationale is sufficient and nothing in WP:NFCC supports the claim that the license tag is a sufficient replacement for a non-free use rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Education for Death.jpg

The use in Education for Death appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. The uses in American propaganda during World War II and List of World War II short films both violate WP:NFCC#10c and appear to violate WP:NFCC#8 as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is this {{PD-US-not renewed}}? I can't find any renewal. This was made by Disney, which is not the US government, so {{PD-USGov}} is not correct. {{PD-USGov}} can only be used if the author was directly employed by the US government, not if the US government asked a private company (Disney) to employ people to create a work. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've unarchived this so we can verify this. Yes, you're right - contract work is not protected though this is what commons uses for the film. I would agree that - like other Disney shorts of that era - copyright renewal wasn't done so it probably falls in that category. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Just checking around , Spirit of '43 (another similar disney propaganda short) seems to be called in the PD though again like this one the commons images are tagged with PD-Gov. It does look like lack of renewal. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Some of the Spirit of '43 images are listed as {{PD-USGov}}, although it should be {{PD-US-not renewed}} if the file is in the public domain. The film Spirit of '43 has an additional problem: the character Donald Duck is copyrighted, so the frames showing him are unfree. This problem doesn't exist for Education for Death as that film doesn't contain any recurring characters. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1971 Surrender of Pakistan.gif

Do the uses in Bangladesh Liberation War and Victory day of Bangladesh satisfy WP:NFCC#8 considering WP:NFCI#8? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably a historical photo applicable to both pages, though I would think it is less important on the Victory day page compared to the War page. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:VCU Varsity.svg

Tagged as non-free but I think its PD-text Werieth (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree that the logo as such is PD, but from the recent discussions here and at Commons I suppose that we need an additional free licence for the SVG code. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point - even though in this case the SVG is direct from the trademark owner, a freer version made by a WPian would be better. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, the source link (which is now dead) seemed to be an EPS file so I guess the SVG was in fact created by the uploader. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      • EPS to SVG is a "mechanical" conversion (any good vector program will do this); the EPS still potentially copyright, and the mechanical conversion is not creating a new one. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's true. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
          • This confident assertion that an SVG file is potentially copyright seem to me to be an in-house ruling by the the Sfan bros raised here at Commons pump and ably answered by Fæ. What are the particular features of this SVG file that are thought to be copyrightable? Is it, for example, using non-free embedded fonts? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
            • If you correct your link to Commons, then you can read why SVGs may be independently copyrightable. This does not, however, mean that all SVGs are copyrightable, but Commons:COM:TOO contains practically no information about the matter, so it is unclear exactly how picky copyright laws are. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
              • I hyper-linked the page, thanks. I did glance through the discussion and I really didn't see anything that impacted on Fæ's able analysis. Frankly this is just another of your busy little bonny bees isn't if Stef, and while I'm content enough you to let you buzz about bossily with them in ANIs and so on, I don't see why we should necessarily buy into them here (I'm not well pleased incidentally that Masem appears to have bought into this one hook, line and stinger). To repeat per Fæ: what are the copyright issues here in this particular SVG? As for the general proposition you advance there should be plenty of precedent: every computer operating system contain routines for realising scaleable vector graphics - they've been around in Windows for example ever since (at least) the advent of TrueType fonts. Of course SVG (for precisely this kind of use with images of logos) is one of the recommended image formats mentioned in WP:IUP image use policy. I don't see screens full of relevant links when I search on "copyright implications of SVG files". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Coat of Many Colours, either stop with the borderline insults and personal attacks or I will have to escalate this. Just because you disagree with something doesnt mean that you can attack those who raise the issue. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • I intend to follow and advise Stefan on his posts here for a while. Of course I don't mean to indulge personal attack and will happily strike and apologise any such regarded. Hope that sets your mind at rest. Thank you.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                • If this SVG was just the two letters, pulled from a standard or embedded true type font and colored appropriately, yeah, that wouldn't be very creative. But I've checked the SVG (it's human-readable XML), and its clear the letters are made by a series of nodes and the like, which is "creative". The fact that at the end of the day they end up as simple letters, that doesn't change that there's creativity in how the nodes and the shapes were made out. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an SVG file per se, has it Masem? That would still be true however the image was rendered. How does it become "freer" when rendered by a WPian (who WP:IUP per guidance will be recommended to use SVG in any case). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                    • Because one can use different XML and different process to get the same result. 1+3 =4 and 2+2=4 the outcome is the same put the process to get the outcome is different. Werieth (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                      • Erm, Ill be as neutral as I can to avoid personal offence. What I want to suggest is that you're quite wrong, and when I say that I really don't in any way mean to attack you. I also don't understand it, and when I say that I don't in any way mean imply anything beyond that simply I can't follow your argument. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                        • Then let me re-phrase it since you obviously have no understanding how svg's work. One can make a square out of 4 lines, or one can use two right triangles. The outcome is the same but how it was done is different. I havent looked at the XML in this case. But going from what Masem stated its like building a square out of hundreds of Triangles, depending on how they are arranged and the complexity one can claim copyright. Another example is a large square window, one cannot copyright that, but if you do something similar to stained glass (and all the parts are clear) the outcome may look visually similar but have a completely different level of originality. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                          • Can you strike "obviously" please. Which of the 14 functionalities in SVG 1.1 do you claim is copyrightable. Please point me to Wikipedia policy on SVG copyright issues. Why does Wikipedia recommend SVG if there are copyright issues involved as you claim? At least not mention them? I can find nothing about these issues on Wikipedia that don't originate in this forum. Regarding Commons do you take issue with Fæ's analysis? That the presumption is that the underpinning script has been released on license as well? To repeat, what exactly is the copyright issue in this SVG file (in the context of Fair Use)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                            • It's not the copyright of the SVG "commands" (here being the node and attribute names) as defined by the spec but the values (in this case, things like node positions, color values, etc.) and ordering of those commands (which shapes are above or below other shapes) that one can build out with the SVG specification that becomes copyright. The analogy is that individual words in the English language are not copyrightable, but a large enough grouping of those words can be. And it is important to note that SVG and EPS are interchangable (to a point, but EPS to SVG is direct), so that the same type of commands possible in EPS are all possible in SVG, so again it comes back to the specifics of values and ordering that play a key role. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I seem to be being quoted a lot here, so here's my particular view. The code is not creative enough in this SVG to have an independent copyright. It was generated by export from Adobe Illustrator rather than the script being independently programmed. Hence the discussion should be limited to whether putting two letters together like this would be sufficient to avoid the provisions of PD-text, in precisely the same way as if they were hand drawn on paper. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The original document is EPS - which is also human readable (not XML) and a lossless form of the logo . I completely agree that the mechanical action of going from EPS to SVG is not creative enough to create a new copyright, but the original EPS is, at its heart, programming code as much as SVG is, and thus possibly copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. You say "possibly" copyrighted, Masem, but you didn't make any such qualification when you tagged this file "but the SVG should be replaced by one made freely by a WPian under a free license, as this would make this image free". You plainly think it is copyright. But I simply can't find a source outside this forem that addresses the issue. What is your source? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been tested in any court law that I know of (either way). We know we can get this to 100% free-ness by having a WPian redo the logo themselves, so that makes the most sense to do. It could be very well as it sits the SVG file - based on the original EPS from the school itself - is free of any copyright issues, but to allow better use of this image, its a minimal bit of effort to get it to a point we can be 100% confident of it being free and go from there. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Fortunately whether an EPS is copyrighted does not affect my opinion on the SVG as it is not part of this release. --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work. We are well aware of the original EPS, so we can't ignore that it exists. And I think we do agree that the act of going from the EPS to SVG is sufficiently mechanical that it cannot introduce a new copyright. But, that said, the SVG is a derivative work of the EPS even if created by a computer algorithm (similar to copying the contents of a Word doc to plaintext or making a JPG into a PNG), and if the EPS is truly copyrighted, then so must the SVG - the mechanical translation cannot "free up" a work under copyright. As such, this SVG will have the same copyright license (if there is one) as the EPS. Of course, I may be overly cautious here that the EPS code is copyrighted, but we need to take that role in dealing with non-free/free. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:I've occasionally had to 'trace' an image into EPS. It's a pain in the butt for sure, but I would classify it as "sweat of the brow" rather than manifesting any creative endeavour on my part. When you talk about a WPian "re-doing" the logo, it seems to me logically so that she may work from the SVG image (for example tracing it), is that not so? I mean so long as she's not working from the script where you say creativity is invested. And that's where common sense tells me that's a reductio ad absurdum of your position. Just copying one faithful representation into another, a bot activity? Come on ... I'm disappointed not to be supplied with a source on this, Masem. I'll redouble my efforts looking for one. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is potential creativity involved, but whether there is or not, we can't wave that away. Let me take a different example, the File:H and R Block logo.svg which in fact is a good example as that SVG is pulled from this EPS from Brands of the World [7]. Now, I've just checked the SVG in text, and it does NOT use embedded fonts, but that's likely been done to improve portability. Irregadless, the way to construct that logo accurately within a vectoring program is very very limited - it is a green block and a text string. The logo itself is free, and the instructs to create that logo via EPS and SVG would be too simple to be considered copyrightable. So while Brands of the World provides that EPS, there's likely no way they can claim any copyright on it because of the overall simplicity of both the graphical aspect and the SVG/EPS aspect. Thus that SVG can be tossed over to the Commons wall without too much concern.

On this logo, the letters do not appear to be from any common font, not with the wobbly outline. That doesn't make the graphic logo copyrightable - it still just a textfaces with simple graphics, but to replicate that wobbly effect, in EPS or SVG, one would have to plant all the nodes and the spline settings to match the curve up reasonable well. And that effort is beyond just simple block text or lettering. That could be done by a mouse trace from a raster graphic, but as the process from going from raster to vector, by definition, introduces more information, that would be possibly copyrighted. It is best for us to do that process so we can say 100% that every part of the image is under a free license as we say already on the H&R Block logo.

And what you're looking for is the concept of slavish reproduction, in terms of copyright law. Taking a 2D picture of a 2D work of art cannot create a new copyright on the photo, since capturing the image is an automatic process that introduces no new creativity. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And to reiterate - I am playing a very cautious side here; we have something that may have a non-free element, and a way forward that easily removes that non-free element to make the work completely in the free, so I would rather us see the image taken that way than make a wrong assumption. If there is clear reason that can be shown that the underlying human-readable code of a vector graphic aren't copyrightable, GREAT, we can end the issue, but my searching has shown that its very unclear. Per US Copyright law "A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result" (which EPS/SVG exactly falls into), and computer programs have copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears similar to arguing that a woodcut print on paper cannot be considered a 2D work because the woodcut that created it is 3D. My opinion on the SVG that has been uploaded is not changed by what you have added. The SVG is too simple to be copyrighted, regardless of how complex the tools, programmes or manual procedures that created it might have been, compared to typing it into a text editor. --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To play with that analogy, we are saying that the 2D image on paper, pressed out from the woodcut, would be uncopyrightable due to simplicity and thus free - no problem (and that analogy here is if we were only dealing in raster images, we'd have passed the free requirement long ago). What the issue is that there are multiple way to create the 3D woodcut(s) that all at the end of the day would all create the same exact 2D imprint, but some of these may use complicated tricks of the trade to get there. As such the one woodcut we have chosen to make that image - which was made by someone else - may have compilations, but if I make my own woodcut I can control how that is used and if I want anyone to freely use it, great. Basically we are offering source code when we offer SVG, and that code has a separate copyright consideration on the output it produces. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, then as you have dropped the tangential idea of the copyright of an EPS which has not been uploaded, we are left only with this SVG. Anyone who opens the SVG in a text editor can see it is too simple to introduce any copyright issue in its own right. The only copyright anyone need concern themselves with is the image itself and whether it can be PD-text, precisely the same as if it were drawn on paper by hand. --Fæ (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I never dropped that. The EPS-->SVG concept in the analogy is that you created an exacted molded imprint of someone else's work , say, in plastic instead of wood, but without imparting any creativity in the transformation so that the wood and plastic "woodcuts" produce the same 2D imprint. The plastic "woodcut" is a derivative work of the original wood cut and cannot be free, unless the original woodcut was also free (and here, I've been saying of the EPS can be determined to be free, we're all set). And there is no way a file with nearly 100k of text, including about 130 "path" commands, can be considered simple and uncopyrigthable. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And to compare that file to the analogy - I know how to vector, and this vector needs no more than 3 paths to be rendered appropriately in SVG (the V, and the two parts of the C), so that's a point to show how there's multiple ways that the same "imprint" can be made from multiple different codes. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for the File:H and R Block logo.svg example. That was interesting, appreciated. Lost you both on woodcuts. To return to the issue of this file, Werieth started the review by assering it's a PD-text copyright-free logo (c.f. WP:LOGO). I would say it is not because as far as I know the characters don't come from a standard typeface or a free font and in any case there is creativity involved in their use in the design. You on the other hand Masem, must agree with Werieth, because you raise the possibility of the file being free, were it not for your scruples about the SVG script being possibly copyrightable. I say there are no issues there that I am aware of and asked you to provide a source: the only one I am aware of is (so to speak), 'in-house' at SVG's are computer software? initiated by ViperSnake151. Viper notes there that Stefan has raised this issue in the past and a consensus should be reached. I don't see that a consensus has been reached there and with the exception of Fæ (no I don't have shares in him, honest) I don't think it's attracted sufficient attention from the well-known players in the field for me to be satisfied that there is consensus. I think that's a fair summary of the situation and on that basis I would say, Masem, that the second half say of your confident tag "Note that the logo itself is free (fails threshold of originality in US) but the SVG should be replaced by one made freely by a WPian under a free license, as this would make this image free" is beyond your remit as a Wikipedia user because there simply isn't consensus about that (and we disagree anyway about the first half, but possibly I need to defer there). I do think you need to edit that for clarification. This is what I mean when I complain about Stefan making it up as he goes along.

Concerning the analogy with the decision in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. that's not how the law works. It's not a precedent because the scope is very different. What was at issue there was the use of a particular font, not the rendering of logos in general. There is a question of efficiency in rendering a font and the decision was that creativity was involved in selecting nodes to render the font efficiently.

I see there are two other SVG files that have been approved with the {{non-free reviewed}} template File:Prince logo.svg and File:Ivy League logo.svg, both of them attracting review and tomorrow I'll research these and comment here as may be.

Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of creativity in layer the V over the C is, in the US, nowhere close enough to apply to copyright. And because it is just two characters, with no significant artistic merit, it fails non-free. So if the image were JPEG or PNG, we'd have marked it PD-logo and moved on.

And the problem is that as you site the Adobe case - there is no precedence that works either way that we can base a decision here. We can say that SVG code - being XML and thus considered computer code just like HTML can be - may be copyrightable. We can't say it is but we can't say it isn't. Hence creating SVG code that is free clearly that would generate an uncopyrightable image would be in our best interest to make this completely free.

And to say that I cannot identify what the problem steps are as a WPian user is BS. I've been handling non-free for 6 years - I know most of the right steps that need to be done to free up imagery as much as possible to get out of the non-free issue if it can be done. I'm absolutely in my right to suggest that we make the freest image possible to avoid any copyright hassle that might come from this logo, even if later it is shown that the core EPS/SVG file to start was actually free. Until we know that, we have a route to make something more free. Does this mean this SVG needs to be deleted immediately? No - its fine in the two places listed. But as part of our free content mission, we have a way to make this 100% free without waiting on the question if the original EPS is free (which may be unanswerable until there is case law to test it), so lets take the path of assuredness to get to a free image.

The two SVGs you point out are going to be non-free because the resulting graphic is going to be non-free, even if the SVG code could be considered free, so since it can never be free (until copyright expires) it doesn't make any sense to try to make the SVG free. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I said I'd be prepared to defer to you over the originality, though I don't in fact agree (neither do I really the very clever Tech Tower campaign logo below (however I assumed good faith and templated that last file accordingly).

I've told you before Masem that I respect what you do. Your response here is quite agressive. Don't make me feel I'm walking over cracked eggs when I'm responding to you. Forgive me, but it seems very clear to me that when you say "we", you in fact mean "Stefan and me". It's you who both are raising the issue about SVG scripts being copyrightable. Frankly it looks OR to me (I defer on BS). Once again, will you please give me a RS outside this forum which tackles the issue. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your take on this (which incidentally is a direct refraction of my "sweat of the brow" argument that there is no originality) in Threshold_of_originality#Reproductions_of_public_domain_works: "Another court case related to threshold of originality was the 2008 case Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. In this case, the court ruled that wire-frame computer models of Toyota vehicles were not entitled to additional copyright protection since the purpose of the models was to faithfully represent the original objects without any creative additions."Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. (2008)" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-09-22.

It's cited here at Commons pump thus: "A U.S. federal appellate case, 5 years after Adobe Systems v. Southern Software, seems to say that there is not copyrightable originality in vectorizations that are intended to directly reproduce an existing work. en:Threshold of originality#Reproductions of public domain works mentions this case, Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, decided in 2008, in which Meshwerks' wire-frame model-based copy of a Toyota vehicle did not entitle Meshwerks to any copyright protection on the Meshwerks model. Meshwerks, a subcontractor of a subcontractor in a Toyota advertising campaign, took extensive measurements to insure correct reproduction. An excerpt from the ruling:

Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright...

This was despite the computer model being accepted for copyright registration; though Meshwerks only filed for copyright after non-registration caused the case to be dismissed the first time. --Closeapple (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)"

That, to me, clearly shows the mechanical conversion from the original EPS to SVG - done without any creativity - does not create a new copyright. I would also argue that that case shows that the act of vectoring a logo that is PD in as close to a faithful reproduction as possible is not going to create a new copyright. The distinction in this case is that this logo, the original working image is an EPS provided by the same people that created the logo - and that begs the question if the logo was created because it was made in the EPS and then used like that (making the EPS copyrights for sure), or if the logo existing in a inked form, and they later vectored the EPS version from that (the vector version likely not copyrighted). This again points to that if we make our own vector image off the raster version of the logo, we eliminate the question of their EPS, the only element in this equation that begs if this is a non-free file or not. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

a discussion you perhaps know of because Stefan contributed to it? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't construe that Masem. I'm done here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So if you don't want to learn and understand the complexities of copyright law (which no one has said is simple; it is, bluntly, a fucking mess) then its best not to try to get in the way of proper discussion of it. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well again that's agressive and disappointing, Masem. It's certainly juvenile. The essence of copyright law in the US, for all its fucking messiness, is straightforward, that originality is the sine non qua of copyright and this is the basis of the judgment in Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales. You must know this judgement and that it's relevant case law (not least because it's mentioned in Threshold of originality#Reproductions of public domain works) because by implication above you at least do seek to understand the complexities of copyright law. Yet in the course of this thread you claimed "It hasn't been tested in any court law that I know of (either way)". Really? As for myself I'm just seeking to defend my uploads. The image on the right at the top in that link to my user page is the image that your protégé Stefan4 wanted to delete because it was a sculpture in his opinion and the photographer had rights:

(c.f Meshwerke C: "Digital modeling can be, surely is being, and no doubt increasingly will be used to create copyrightable expressions. Yet, just as photographs can be, but are not per se, copyrightable, the same holds true for digital models. There’s little question that digital models can be devised of Toyota cars with copyrightable features, whether by virtue of unique shading, lighting, angle, background scene, or other choices. The problem for Meshwerks in this particular case is simply that the uncontested facts reveal that it wasn’t involved in any such process, and indeed contracted to provide completely unadorned digital replicas of Toyota vehicles in a two-dimensional space. For this reason, we do not envision any “chilling effect” on creative expression based on our holding today, and instead see it as applying to digital modeling the same legal principles that have come, in the fullness of time and with an enlightened eye, to apply to photographs and other media".

I don't think you have achieved a consensus here. I do hope I don't have to come back here, Masem. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, that applies to the idea that taking the exact data that was in the EPS file from VCT, and simply "redoing" it to make the SVG file has no creative effort and thus there no new copyright in that stage. Even the act of processing that date to create the raster image is non-creative. Or in a hypothetical case, if I found an EPS file with a CC-BY-NC (non-commercial) license, I personally could not convert that to SVG via mechanical means and then license the resulting SVG under commercial-allowance licence; my "derivative work" has no new copyrights that I can define - the case that we have with Meshworks. On the other hand - were I to flatten the EPS down to a raster image, and then use a vectoring program to place nodes and the like by eye to come up with an SVG file that generates an image that closely matches the original logo, but not using exact information from the EPS, then I likely have done enough creative work to make the SVG code copyrightable in any way I want.

The problem that we have is not covered by Meshworks - we have the copyright owner of the logo who has provided their logo as (for all purposes) a computer program, themselves, in the form of an EPS file. If there is any copyrights in that EPS file, they will be with VCT. And any derivative "computer program" from that EPS file will hold VCT's copyright with no new copyright by the person doing the conversion. And this simply isn't a case that has suitable case law behind it to to know how it works. I'd love to be completely wrong and that the EPS file, since it generates an uncopyrightable image would be uncopyrightable itself, but we simply don't have enough information to assert this. But I am certain that we have the ability to make an image that is 100% certainly free by making an SVG from a raster version of the logo and putting that out as a CC-BY license. Hence why I stand by the decision that we simply make the SVG ourselves (an easy task for the Graphics Lab) and take any questionable non-free aspects out of the picture. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ. I think you're wasting people's time at graphics lab. And you don't have consensus here. I might well at some future date test the waters over at Commons by transferring this file. Indeed why don't you, Masem? You know that thing about actually opening a horse's mouth and counting how many teeth it has? What would be your take on the Nike logo over there for example - that looks pretty curvy to me, loads of creative potential for sliding round your French curves there (remember those?) Don't necessarily count on me back to assess it, though. The log-out button looks pretty enticing to me. I know a dead horse when I see it, however many teeth it's still got.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nike logo - as a raster image - is too simple for copyright, yes. That file, an SVG, was created by a WPian (HernandoJoseAJ), and as best I can tell, from trace-vectoring the swish on their own, so that avoids any possible issue that we're having here where we're starting from VCT's possibly-copyrighted EPS file and making the SVG from it. We would be in the same boat with the Nike SVG if it was a mechanical conversion of Nike's own EPS version of the file, which doesn't at all appear to be the case. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understood that about "simple" (though I suspect Carolyn Davidson may have a different view - the deletion debate was erm ... deep). As for the blanked page WPian Commonsaut Commons:User:HernandoJoseAJ, he only confesses to uploading it. I suspect that's probably because so many of his SVG uploads have been deleted. Give me a few days while I write up a bio for Mary Ebbetts Hunt and then I'll transfer this file to Commons and see what happens: instruct the graphics lab to stop their press Cray, whatever they use over there. It'll be a gas! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If the uploader falsified his contribution, that's an issue that needs to be resolved. In contrast File:NIH_logo.svg is completely fine - the user states (AGF) he created the image in a vectoring program, not converted, so that's 100% free (both from the case of the SVG-as-computer program and the resulting image as too simple for copyright). --MASEM (t) 18:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, Masem. Interested and appreciated. I do have to wean myself off this thread (does Wikipedia do rehab?) but I'm interested by "too simple for copyright". I would say the central artefact is not simple. Who decides that? Who gets to decide that? Recall that one of your colleagues here recently suggested that abstract works by the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian (in reality one of the most technically accomplished graphic artists ever) were too simple to be copyrightable. As for the second bit, we have been through that - whether the vectorisation is done by a computer program or by hand (you would say selecting node points by hand for Bezier splines is a creative process per Adobe, is that right?) I say if the result is faithful 2D representation then Meshwerks establishes the SVG content is not copyrightable. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless it is challenged in a court of law, there is no absolute set of rules of when originality is met or not. This is why commons provides advice on the threshold of originality on the few cases where case law has occurred on examples to show how to interpret the threshold of originality in various countries. Note a lot of other discussions on this page are questions on whether logos do fall that way, so that's all using opinion to judge which way it falls, with unsure cases remaining copyrighted. And as for the other question, there is also no absolute case that affirms or denies the act of vectoring a raster impact creates a new copyright or not. Meshwerks says the mechanical conversion of absolute data (Toyata's measurements) into a wireframe mesh is not a new copyright, but what if it was the case that Meshwerks were not give the measurements and had to make their own guesses from photos and the like? Would that be copyright? That case doesn't say either way. It may very well be that because they stayed as close to the original that it is a slavish reproduction and is their version cannot carry a new copyright, which applying to here would mean it's free. But that's not a clear answer to go by for us. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Masem. You're a very conscientious respondent and I do appreciate it. As I understand it Meshwerks covered a Toyata in tape and took their own measurements. I suppose you could argue that creativity was involving selecting which tape dots to measure, but that evidently wasn't what the court thought. I don't think it's very likely they would have use guestimates. The decision is about "unadorned digital replicas" (some example images in that PDF). I take that to imply "faithful representation" in the case of copying a logo. Argue that another time, as I dare say you might. Thank you for your time and patience. I'll probably be back :(. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On reflection perhaps it would be a bit dickish to transfer the file on my own account and anyway I don't think I have the energy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From the tone of the last few comments, I think this discussion is exhausted. Masem, as you are an admin I expect you to be the one leading a consensus process. I guess it's your call to decide if a consensus is now reached. My opinion is as above. --Fæ (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I left it - still marked non-free, requesting that a free version for replacement but otherwise okay on the two articles its used in - that I think meets everything I've said here. I would lot if the freeness of VCT's EPS was clearly there but there's enough gotchas in copyright law to make this the throne in the side. But since we can bypass the issue, it should be done. That said, I know the graphics lab is somewhat backed up so rushing to delete this makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:CFL MTL Jersey.png

This shouldn't be on the "season" pages. This is essentially the same problem as the one described in WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:CFL SSK Jersey.png

This shouldn't be on the "season" pages. This is essentially the same problem as the one described in WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia76ers.PNG

Violates WP:NFCC#3 as the image is used twice in the article: once in the infobox and a second time in a gallery (see also WP:NFG). RJaguar3 | u | t 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The version used in the infobox is actually File:Philadelphia 76ers Logo.svg. The version in the gallery further down, if inappropriately used, should be deleted at FFD in the manner done by yourself with File:Philadelphia 76ers.svg. Thank you. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia76ers2.png

If this is not a {{PD-logo}}; the image is a blatant WP:NFCC#8 violation in Dolph Schayes and a violation of WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 violation (as well as WP:NFG) in Philadelphia 76ers. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The placement of the blue star circle above the pink numeral might be regarded as an artistic step by the United States copyright office. Whether it might be enough for them to register the logo, or not and they would just regard it as two numerals and some simple geometric shapes lacking the creative and artistic authorship required for registration I am not sure. I'd say we should choose the safe path and treat it as NFC (like it's currently tagged) and as such should remove it from Dolph Schayes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a misprint of File:Flag of Europe.svg (one star to much) above two digits. I would guess that it isn't copyrightable. Also, as a pre-1978 logo, it was presumably published without copyright notice somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:New VCU Rams Logo.png

A PD-text copyright-free logo (c.f. WP:LOGO)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Horn twist at the end pushes over the originality line. Fine as a logo on the pages indicated in the non-free rationals. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Electric Car Corporation logo.png

This looks too simple to meet TOO , Country of origin? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ECC is UK, but the simple negative flip of one letter I don't think is sufficient for sweat of the brow there, and this should be okay as PD-text. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Patrick Abercrombie.jpg

This was being used on the subject's biography page, but I have found and uploaded an image (File:Patrick Abercrombie, 1945.png) taken as a screen grab from the 1945 Ministry of Information film The Proud City - A Plan for London. The film was produced by the British government and crown copyright of it has expired. Consequently the existing image is no longer required for the purpose it was being used.--DavidCane (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Teubneriana

Completely decorative, and replaceable. The files are used to illustrate font changes, which can be done using limited non-copyrighted samples. Note that none of the images are supported via sourced critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: we can use Lorem ipsum in the appropriate font to mimic the layouts. Now, that said, the text itself is suggested to be "ancient" writings - eg clearly in the PD, so the question is if the unique formatting / layout adds copyright to that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the assertion that the images are "completely decorative". In fact, the nominator contradicts this assertion by saying that the images illustrate font changes--the images therefore shed light upon a matter discussed in the article text. In fact, the typeface of the Teubner editions has been the subject of several discussions in secondary sources, at least one of which is quoted in the article. So it's not as if the fonts are irrelevant to the article's subject--they are an important part of the history of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, and images of the text are crucial to showing this history. Nor do the images simply show "font changes"--a sensitive viewing of the images on the page should make clear a basic principle of book design, namely, that the choice of typeface affects the relationship of every element of the page. This is especially the case with a critical edition of a classical text, whose layout is much more complex than a basic literary text, and which has a high density of information, especially in the apparatus criticus.

I also find the assertion that the images can be replaced by using lorem ipsum bizarre. First, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia editor unfamiliar with the specific design choices made by the Bibliotheca Teubneriana could replicate the kerning, wordspacing, linespacing, and relationship of the elements of the page, even assuming that s/he has access to the typefaces used over the years. I'm fairly adept at generating ancient Greek text on my computer, but replicating the Teubner editions' double line-numbering system seen in [8], not to mention the line in the margin between lines 8 and 9 of the Pindar passage, plus the mark under the ἀε in line 7 of the Pindar passage are beyond my ability (this is assuming I even had access to the typeface they use, which I don't). But replacing all of this with gibberish, which seems to be what the suggestion to use lorem ipsum means, would render the images useless. In particular, I'm thinking of the apparatus criticus at the bottom of the page, which has a very particular relationship to the text above--it lists, in very abbreviated form, variant readings of words or phrases in different manuscripts. To replace this with random text would destroy the connection between the apparatus and the main text. It would be like taking a mathematical proof and replacing all the symbols with Zapf Dingbats, and then claiming that it looks the same. (Never mind that lorem ipsum, as a mangled form of Latin that is total nonsense, is especially annoying to those of us who know Latin...)

As to the copyright issue, it's my understanding that the features of a classical text covered by copyright is the material uniquely contributed by the modern editor of the text. That would be things like punctuation, the apparatus criticus, and the choice of variant readings. So much of the text in these images is probably not under copyright, since there's little indication of variation in the manuscript tradition. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no critical commentary that what you suggest (all these tiny font differences) is that significant to require seeing every iteration. To an average reader (one not familiar with fonts or Greek), the changes are not very obvious and would simply seem like slight differences in printing. If the font and formatting changes are that significant to understand the work (which I would argue presently are not even at that level - it's like having a long discussion about a change in article layout for a modern-day magazine - trivial in the long run), then you need a lot more sourcing to show that to justify the image use. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of book covers from Bibliotheca Teubneriana at Wikimedia commons. Their image are in the public domain because its copyright has expired (under license PD-old, - life of the author plus 70 years). It seems to me that a similar license applies here in WP. --Odysses (○) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the book covers in question, it's the sample pages, like File:Teubner_Gk_type_Griechische_Antiqua.jpg. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the text itself is (since that was written ages ago), but it is given a specific layout that may qualify the specific format as copyrighted. That I'm not 100% clear on. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There are examples of old scanned pages with text, maps and diagrams at the Commons under PD-old, but one can never be sure, since they change the rules quite often. If not permited in WP, perhaps, images could be uploaded at the commons under PD-old. --Odysses (○) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, and at least on the images on this page is an PD-old version. The problem is that the page is set up to describe these "significant" changes to presentation that occurred since mid-last century (eg if they were copyrightable, they would still clearly be under copyright). If those explainations were not necessary/present, we easily could us PD imagery for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The article presents and discusses changes in the typography (presentation of the text on the page) in these books. To do so, it uses non-free images that are pertinent, non-replaceable, and minuscule in extent. So the images satisfy Wikipedia's non-free-content policies. Masem's comment immediately above mine seems to get it absolutely right--alongside the PD images, the non-PD images give non-replaceable illustration of the "explanations...necessary/present." Wareh (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I lean to the side of thinking that these are PD-text and/or PD-old (for the older versions). I do not think there is anything creative enough in the layout of the text to make the images eligible for copyright. If these are determined to be free, I do not see any reason they cannot stay as they are the subject of commentary, and would therefore, in my opinion, pass WP:NFCC#8 (and the others). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico

I cant see justification for 8 non-free files for a single album Werieth (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some images, and three short sound clips. I'm not familiar with NFCC as it applies to audio files, but I think the number of cover art images could easily be reduced by half. There are three key ones for the vinyl release, all duly sourced and useful to reader understanding (or whatever NFCC8 says these days) — the iconic banana, an image with the banana sticker peeled off (the case is slightly weaker here), and the back cover. The article goes into some detail on lawsuits involving all of these. In my opinion, nearly identical images of the CD cover are superfluous and could safely be trimmed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The two covers in the infobox are fine. The original back cover is discussed in text, so that's fine. I do agree that 3 sound files aren't needed (since these songs have their own article), one or two samples are only needed for representation. The CD cover comparison is unneeded (its not even discussed in text). The acetate label may actually qualify as free - it's just text. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Velvet underground album cover 2.png is essentially a pealed version of File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg and therefore redundant. File:The Velvet Underground and Nico back cover.jpg is critically discussed and therefore fine. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG duplicates File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg with only very small differences and is therefore unneeded. Are the colour effects at File:VU 1 acetate label.jpg caused by damage to the disc, or are those effects printed there? In the first case, retag as {{PD-ineligible}}. There is significant discussion about the music, but the songs have their own articles, so this is essentially WP:NFC#UUI §6 with the caveat that it says "image" and not "sound". I would assume that the people who wrote WP:NFC#UUI typically meant to include non-image files even if it says "picture" or "image" but that this was overlooked as almost all files on Wikipedia are images. You can even refer to sound by using the "Image" namespace name: Image:TheVelvetUndergroundI'mWaitingForTheMan.ogg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The "peeled version of" comment, intentional or not, wins the Wikipedia free content wry humor of the day award, thanks :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would actually put forth that the "peeled" pun used for naming the alternate cover may be okay. May, being the key word, though I personally would have not included it and just mention the alt cover shows the peeled banana as part of the pun on the cover. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The peeled version is pretty important, given that it's the one version that's hard for a record buyer to see otherwise: it's not only "peeled" it's a 40+ year old cover. Few copies still exist, even fewer unpeeled ones are likely to have their owners allow a peeling. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• • It's absolutely not "redundant", it's an important aspect of the collaboration between Warhol and the band, and a rarity. Plus saying it's just a different version of the unpeeled cover shows a surprising ignorance of pop art. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG per WP:NFCC#8.

  Heroin (song) contains a media sample of the Billy Idol version but not the one cited here. All 3 audio files could potentially be included in Heroin (song), I'm Waiting for the Man and Venus in Furs (song) and removed from The Velvet Underground & Nico, where they are WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:NFCC#3a.

  -- Trevj (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  That's a strange application of WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia allows for editorialising of music (and other media) samples. This goes beyond non-free use, Florence Fuller is currently at FAC, is the media there UNDUE? - hahnchen 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Move song samples to their respective articles. Keep the peeled and unpeeled cover images as they are essential in creating a contextual significance for the iconic album cover. Delete the comparison. John Reaves 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG. I'd probably move Heroin out to its respective article. The other two give an idea of the lyrics and instrumentation, although I'd prefer it if one of them featured Nico. - hahnchen 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Music samples should be moved to their appropriate articles. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG should be deleted as it fails WP:NFCC#3a in its similarity to the infobox image. The other CD covers can remain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg

The file name suggests that this is ancient (making it PD) but there is no source. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see very little reason to even believe these remain under any type of copyright, given the looks and purposed age. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful about this one. In the rationale it is stated that this is from Company archives, so while this makes it appear as if this leads to compliance with WP:NFCC#4, I'd argue the opposite is the case. Material from private collections or archives has a high chance of being unpublished, so this image might violate NFCC4. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The material is certainly published now, as a google image search pointed me back to the Heming jewelry page with these images. When they were published, that's different. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. They are both displayed here, which means they comply with NFCC#4. So now it would be interesting to know whether that was the first publication or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was created in 1765 and not published before 2003, then it would satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If 1765 is the creation date, then I don't think that it would be copyrighted. There could potentially be problems if it was first published between 1923 and 2002, but if it was made in 1765, this seems unlikely. The only question is whether it indeed is from 1765. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is no good evidence that the image satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or that it was made in 1765, we should leave it as non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is left as non-free, then the image should be removed from Heming (company) for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This was clearly addressed at the general public in the 18th century, and mass produced. It was therefore published. It is therefore clearly PD now. Jheald (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg

Also File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which one is better for white bikini of Ursula Andress: the file in heading, or the other image below the heading? By the way, one of the image is used in more than one article George Ho (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg for me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• The bikini pics are also used in bikini, Bikini in popular culture, Honey Rider, and Ursula Andress. Obviously, to which pages must the image that you picked belong? --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• It has NFUR for Bikini in popular culture. Any reason not to create NFURs for all? --Lexein (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I meant, do such uses meet WP:NFCC, especially the criterion 3 (minimal use) and criterion 8 (contextual significance)? Rationale or no rationale won't matter much, as long as rationale is created, easily resolving "no rationale" issue. George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg should be used in white bikini of Ursula Andress. Neither image should be used in Bikini, Bikini in popular culture or in Ursula Andress. I'm not sure about eithers use in Honey Rider. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• The color of File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg seems better. It should be FURed. Content at Bikini seems to support its use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion immediately following seems to have a similar situation. But, the comments are different. Worth taking a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg

Also File:Raquel welch 1millionyearsbc.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This image is the black-and-white copy of the famous Raquel Welch bikini poster. One of them is used in more than one article. We are trying to minimize the use of non-free images here, so which of these images must be kept: color or greyscale? And to which page does the fur bikini image belong? George Ho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as a fair-use rationale is properly completed for each article each image is used in, there shouldn't be a problem. One is used for the film, the other is used for the BLP, because it was a very widely published cultural artifact of a notable person, and is even notable WP:N in its own right. The black-and-white version appears a bit clearer, but the color version of her pinup poster is certainly more true-to-life. Tough call. Worth discussing. If there are any defects in the NFUR, let's get that fixed up. --Lexein (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The black and white version is not necessary in any article. The color version should be kept. It can be used in Raquel Welch where there is critical commentary. It should not be used in Bikini in popular culture at all. and I am not sure about the other use in One Million Years B.C. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for excluding the black&white version? It was certainly published in both forms. The black&white poster was cheaper. Just curious. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lexein:, good question. It is part personal preference and part policy mixed with common sense. We do not need both. Actually, policy prohibits both being on Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC#3a). And if we cannot have both, the color version does a better job of actually showcasing the bikini. This is an online encyclopedia, and cost of color is not an issue, therefore the color image is more relevant to the mission of Wikipedia. Also, one could argue that the color version plays more into the accompanying text therefore helping to better satisfy WP:NFCC#8. But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion above seems to have a similar situation with very dissimilar comments. Worth taking a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the National Coalition of Afghanistan.svg

Image appears to fail WP:NFCC#3b: unreasonably detailed for a non-free file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this affects that at all, but the detailed interior image itself is the National Emblem of Afghanistan. The only real difference is in the addition of the blue band with the party name. I don't know if maybe that then means that the party logo isn't creative enough to merit copyright? MrPenguin20 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The interior image isn't exactly File:National Emblem of Afghanistan 02.png, but is clearly a derivative of it. Might there be copyright inherent in the imperfect derivation of that image? If not, I agree, the blue band is not creative enough to cross the TOO. Though, I would also say, someone should look at the licensing of the files in Emblem of Afghanistan, which are mostly/all marked as own works, despite certainly being based on some official emblem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove/Delete image as it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is far too much detail in the SVG file. The image should be smaller where all of the detail is not necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Clara Bow

Blatant violation of NFCC, given the number of free files we have depicting the person. Werieth (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bow's life and career passes across the 1923 copyright divide, so we have a large number of free files in connection with her life and career prior to 1923. The fact the pre-1923 images are free and abundant shouldn't have anything to do with the usage of post-1923 images, which, in general (with a few exceptions), will be non-free. These should be evaluate in that post-1923 context, and not in the context of her life as a whole, or, for that matter, for the article as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

/headdesk. NFCC is evaluated at both a per image and article as a whole. Lets take a random example of the non-free files, File:Plasticagemp.jpg there is nothing visually unique or necessary depicted in that image that is critical to understanding who Bow was. It is a movie poster in which the actress starred in, We don't include those in the biography articles, See WP:NFC#UUI#6,9. Especially given that the file is also being used in the article about the film (which we can just link to, which would violate WP:NFCC#1) Werieth (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(hmm, "/headdesk". Now there's a rational, logical and persuasive argument!! What a minute.... ah -- /slapforehead. That'll show you, buddy!!!)

Werieth, you don't write articles or improve articles or create articles, you do basically nothing but delete images, that's your chosen Wiki-shtick. So it's wrong of me, or anyone else for that matter, to expect that you would understand how the use of images in an article helps the reader in understanding the subject of the article. Given that, I think you had best restrict yourself to straight-forward and objectively obvious violations of the NFCC policy, and leave any subjective evaluations which require a nuanced understanding of context and purpose to other, more empathetic editors. That's because, as shown numerous times recently, when you start doing that kinda stuff, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing, and when people object to your badly thought out decisions, you get all upset and edit-war over them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are too many non-free files in this article, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. File:Gritstrip bow hunter 1923.png could possibly be in the public domain, or if it is not currently, it would be soon, I would suspect. Until that date as it is proven to be in the public domain, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance within the article about the cartoon/comic. File:FMorgan JHarlow 1933.png fails WP:NFCC#1 as this image is replaced by any of the free images around that time. There is nothing that the image shows that could not be replaced by text within the article (it could be replaced by its own caption). File:Plasticagemp.jpg and File:It1927clarabow.jpg (the film posters) should only be used on the film's article. There is consensus that posters should only be used on the actual article about the poster's subject and not on actor's or director's (etc) articles. File:Bow1933c.PNG might potentially be useful in the Hoop-La article, if there was not already a poster. As it stands, this image is purely decoration. All of the remaining images on the page are acceptable in their use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Scott (artist)

I had four images on this article which have been deleted. I believe the use of those four images meets critera 1-10 on WP:NFCC. In particular I think their presence "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and (their) omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is an article about a visual artist and to me greatly lacking without those pictures of his work which were previously there.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Given, like I said 1-2 examples are valid, not the 4-5 you where using, I think that the Ian Scott (artist)#Controversies section would be a great place to both provide an example and use the sourced commentary about the images (the controversy ) as a good compromise. We don't just sprinkle an artist article with their works to make the article look better. Our policy on non-free media is very strict, and it may mean that an article cant be illustrated to your preferences, but policy is fairly strict. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The two images of works from the "Girlie Series" (Leapaway Girl) & (Track), were both illustrating not only commentary (by the curator of the national gallery, and an important historian respectively) in that section of the article, but they also best represent the 'controversies' section, as they are from the same series, but those two works are far more widely known & representative. (For instance, Leapaway Girl is one the few New Zealand paintings on the Goggle Art Project.). There is commentary throughout the article (35 cited art history publications/journals) so I can't for the life of me see any reason why the only image warranted would be in the controversies section? The other two images there (Quiver) & (Lattice No.58) are totally important to understanding the two different modes of Scott's work, realism and abstraction, local & international influence, which is really the core/theme of the entire article.

I really think using 4 images to illustrate 12+ series of work over a 55 year period of work is 'minimal' as per the regulations & would appreciate the input of a few other impartial people here. Chriscs26 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Mathematically, you are wanting to put nearly 25% of the artist's work on their article. I think two pieces is a fair compromise, but personally I think two pieces that show the styles of the artist's work would be the most beneficial. I believe with critical commentary about the style, including reliable sources about the style and the specific paintings chosen would be the best path. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Scott only produced 16 works? The work titled Lattice No. 58 suggests otherwise. Four images over 55 years is minimal. I'd much rather defer to the subject expert who wrote the article - than those going by mathematical principals. Note that the author already compromised in allowing File:Ian Scott Air Disaster Over Mt Sefton 1967.jpg, an image of his early work to be deleted. - hahnchen 04:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, it's not how many works of his he made (and published/displayed publically) or how many we used. Since each were published individually, that means that we are using 4 separately copyrighted items in full (albeit low resolution to respect commericial opportunity). If it was the case that the first and original publication of these works were in a single collected book, then the argument of what %age of the original work would apply. The only number that is important here is that there is more than zero non-free, so we have to just the inclusion of any non-free based on the need to understand the topic. And for examples of an artist's work on the artist's page, we consider a minimal number of examples that have been quoted as strong representative examples of the artist's work, otherwise relying on either standalone pages for the specific pieces of art that are notable, or external links that may be in a much better shape under Fair Use to showcase the artist's entire body. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The decision shouldn't be based on a bartering system of "good compromise" but based on what is needed to illustrate Scott's key output. Scott's obviously a NZ artist of note who produced work over many decades (though I'm surprised there's no sign of a newspaper obituary). The Leapaway Girl is an obvious "keep", being described by the Museum of NZ as probably his most important work of that period. Lattice No.58 is probably a "keep" too, being a representative example of his 'lattice' paintings. As for the other two paintings illustrated, well, I can't see any reference to their importance in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, editorial discretion should have bearing on the inclusion of images in articles pertaining to visual art. I concur with the comment above by Hahnchen that we should be deferring to Chriscs26. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

His user name suggests he is the son of the artist. We generally go on what reliable independent sources say. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there's enough coverage of all four works in the article to justify their inclusion. - hahnchen 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien

Zero sourced critical commentary on the extra emblems. They where originally in a gallery format and witched to right alignment when I removed them for NFG Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur the images fail WP:NFCC#8 as they are not necessary to the article. There is now a section on emblems that describes what the emblems look like, therefore causing the images to fail WP:NFCC#1. I personally do not feel that the emblem section is at all notable nor encyclopedic and the whole bit should be removed, starting with the images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree that there is no commentary. There is commentary. Please review the article again. --evrik ^(talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is zero critical commentary. The only text about the images is describing the emblems and none of that is sourced. In fact, with full descriptions of the emblems (although not encyclopedic) we do not need the emblems themselves per WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Debra Morgan.jpg

File could be replaced by the free alternative File:Jennifer Carpenter 2010.jpg, which shows the actress in costume as the fictional character. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably true, but it has been argued before (and particularly in this case as a notable character) that a promo non-free shot of the actor in the poise and manner of the character has some intrinsic weight it carries compared to a free shot of a character outside of the role, even if the actor is wearing the same clothes, etc. Having just binged on Dexter, for example, I can tell that the poise the promo shot here is an element of her character that the free image doesn't capture. This is acceptable only in the case of a standalone character. If we were talking a list of characters and the character wasn't notable in any way, I would otherwise agree that the free image trumps the non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a similar example can be found in Trip Tucker. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, personally, I'm on board with that, but the consensus from the last discussion (proabably 3-4 years ago, and likely at WT:NFC) was that for notable characters, even for how close the character looks to the actor, a promo image of the character (the actor, in the role), is more encyclopedic than a photo of the actor in the same/similar outfit but not in character. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Masem wrote. The file shouldn't be deleted.  InfamousPrince  21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The image should be deleted. It is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) by the actress in costume. There is not any specific difference in the actress in the free image and in the non-free image that could not be discussed by text in the article or in the caption. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Lecter, Hannibal.png

Image collage seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a as three of the actors in this collage are duplicated in other non-free photos in the same article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, either that article can use that collage and ditch the other 3 non-frees on the Hannibal Lecter page, or drop this montage, keep the 4th image that isn't duplicated by the other three, for four images total. (and even then it is arguable if you need non-free for each given that there's little makeup involved from the actual actors). --MASEM (t) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that four non-free images of the different actors is too much. I think they could be replaced with free images of the actors. If we do keep some, which is better to keep, the collage, or the individuals? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree only one non-free is really necessary and that's of Hopkins version of the character which is the most recognizable - the others can all be done by free images of the actors involved. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

Moved from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

I'm wondering if this would qualify for {{PD-simple}}. Apart from the shiny gold foil effect, this album cover is just made up of a simple typeface and a monocolour background. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically it would be, but because of the "shine" effect of the letters (which depending on lighting can be copyrighted by the photographer), the best way to assure a free image is to have someone provide us a free photograph of the cover. (the present image does not appear to be). --MASEM (t) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that would effectively make the current image a replaceable fair use item. I wish I had bought a physical copy of this album a few years ago and not just the download version... De728631 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, but that's my read of how the concepts interact - without the foil effect, the cover is clearly PD-text, but the way one positions the light can influence the final result thus making the photograph's copyright come into play. A question is how this cover is presented (if presented) at places like Amazon and iTunes? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The one on Amazon looks like it has a little shine, but I could be wrong. It is closer to PD-simple. The one at iTunes is not reflective, but adds the words "ebay queen" and some odd dots that make it pass TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The iTunes cover seems to be some double album re-release of Peekaboo and E-Bay Queen, so that's not what we need here. But as a side-effect of this review I've now found out that the sleeve is actually an award-winning design [9]. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting fact and the whole package is rather nifty. If there were another reliable source maybe saying why it won silver, you could almost justify a non-free image of the whole package (since there would be contextual significance that the cover alone would not suffice). But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One pound (British coin)

I cant see justification for 23 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked to try to see if there's any discussion of why the given designs were picked across the years but I'm not seeing anything to support that. As such, most of those images in the table need to go. If there was a way to explain why they chose a particular emblem for a specific mint year, that might be something but that doesn't seem to exist. Also, I tried to see if there was a pre-made gallery of these mintings from the Royal Mint, but they don't appear to have one, but if that did exist, the single montage would be sufficient to use. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep It clearly serves the interests of the article to include pictorial depictions of the coins. The Royal Mint has this to say about pictorial reproductions of their coins: "The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste." Going by that the Royal Mint obviously wouldn't have a problem with their use in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • FAir use has nothing to do with it. They are copyrighted images, and harm the encyclopedia's free content mission. (Within fair use, their use is certainly fine, but we employ a stricter requirement than fair use). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was truly committed to the use of only free content that it would limit usage to just free content. However, Wikipedia's primary mission is to educate and disseminate knowledge and it accepts that the use of non-free materials supports that aim. Our fair use guidelines are in place not to support a "free content mission" but simply to protect the foundation from legal proceedings. They are more restrictive than the legal definition of "fair use" simply because editors are not copyright lawyers so it's safer to err on the side of caution. In this case, the article is certainly better with the images than without, and the Royal Mint's explicit guidelines on the reproduction of the coin designs easily fall within the scope of their use on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no "fair use guidelines". We have "non-free policy" which is aimed not for legal protection of WP (though through it, it assures fair use defense for US law is met), but to encourage free content and avoid the excessive use of non-free where it is not fundamentally needed. It is completely wrong to think of NFC as a fair use guideline. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the images in the table for violation of WP:NFTABLE. Several of the images are even used multiple times in the same table. This case also seems similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14, except that we are talking about coins instead of logos. The infobox images look fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't violate NFTABLE which states "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified...". The exception invoked here is that the Royal Mint explicitly allows not-for-profit reproductions, provided the usage is not in bad taste. The guideline permits us to judge these things case by case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Royal Mint says or allows (unless they say it is under a compatable free license, which is not the case); the images are non-free, and thus NFTABLE fails here; we're looking to meeting the free content mission and minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Let's get down to fundamentals:

(1) The images substantially can't be replaced with other images that are more free. Yes, in some cases photographs by the Royal Mint could be replaced with photographs by Wikipedians -- and that is something that should be done. But that is not what the more fundamental discussion above is about, namely the Royal Mint's copyright in the design of these coins, which is something that we cannot work around, if the coins are to be shown.

(2) These images are not free; but there is no purely legal problem with us showing these images, on the basis the Mint's stated position above, which amounts to a clear licensing of use, even if not a licensing to create derivative works.

(3) Given the Mint's position above, use of these images will not in any way inhibit dissemination or reproduction of the Wikipedia page.

(4) The purpose of the encyclopedia page is to survey all aspects of the coins, including the different designs that have been applied to them -- something of particular interest from a numismatic perspective (even if the coins are not particularly rare), in common with a similar purpose in other numismatic articles across the encyclopedia as a whole. This purpose would be essentially gutted by removing the images, turning the article from being a valuable resource for this purpose, and an integrated part of the wider valuable resource that is WP's articles on numismatics, from that into something essentially informationally useless for the purpose. (In my view, removal of the images would therefore fly in the face of NFCC #8).

The bottom line, to me, is that if you take a decent comprehensive article on a topic, and essentially gut it in an irreversible way for no good purpose, that doesn't encourage people to upload free images. It makes people frankly less likely to upload any images, or lift a finger for any other article they might otherwise have been tempted to improve.

These images are not harmful to Wikipedia, and cannot be substituted by free ones. It is not in WP's best interests to remove them, and gut an otherwise decent article -- and it certainly is not in our readers' best interests. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion about the individual designs, so as such they fail contextual significance - one can understand that the Royal Mint has used several different designs in the past w/o images, while showcasing the current circulating design. Inclusion of excess images that do not meet a free license fails the free content mission and non-free resolution, irregardless of how useful the images may be. We can link to the page on the Royal Mint site that have all these designs pictured to avoid using them in a manner that harms the mission in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be discussion.

The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the reader need to know what the designs were while reading this article on Wikipedia? The lack of any text to show the importance of these old designs belie this need. We can certainly point the reader that if they are curious to the old designs (there is a single page at the Royal Mint that does this just fine) but as a tertiary source we do not need to document these old designs if it harms our mission. Hence the need for contextual significance, as would be the case for old logos and the like. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any text to justify the presence of entries on Timeline of information theory either. The point is that if a reader wants to know the sequence of discoveries in information theory and who made them, we have an article for them, and that is the article. Similarly if the reader is looking at the different one pound coins in their pocket and wonders just how many different designs there have been, when they were made and what they look like, then we have an article for them too, and One pound (British coin) is that article. We're an encyclopedia. That's what we do -- we provide information, and we present it in a systematic organised way that anyone can edit. We bring together information and do it ourselves, rather than just leaving it to pages on external websites that may be here today and gone tomorrow, none of them at all systematised with any of the others in the way that we can be.

But nobody would seriously suggest gutting timeline of information theory "because people can just look it up at the IEEE". So let's get down to the other half of why you suggest we gut this article, namely your claim that it "harms our mission". To remind ourself, lets look up m:mission to remember exactly what that mission is:

"... to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Now, this is not free content. But nor is it threatening or harming or diminishing in any way our ability "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Instead, it seems to me, that our ability to provide articles that give a decent comprehensive treatment of a topic specifically does engage people to come and develop free content here (of which, for example, the (free) article text is a not insignificant 1/4,000,000th of what just en.wiki provides), whereas gutting such an article is specifically likely to make people feel dis-empowered, and less likely to come here and collect and develop any more educational content under a free license for us.

So it seems to me your citation of m:mission is entirely spurious here. This material is not supplanting any free content; and it is by encouraging and empowering people to build articles, including articles like this, that the free encyclopedia is most likely to thrive. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't use non-free images because there happens to be no free images for replacement, as no images + text is considered a free replacement for a non-free image. Note that we're not talking about stripping away the table, which the second column states the textual description of the mint design, so between that, and the Royal Mint page, the reader that is trying to go the reverse way (they have the coin and want to look up what it was) has enough resources to do that (and of course the number of people that actually might benefit from this use is very small, and violates WP:USEFUL). We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information, that's not even the purpose of the encyclopedia which is meant to summarize information and provide reference to learn more. We are being challenged by the Foundation to minimize non-free and that means we have to think of different ways that information can be grouped and presented that minimizes non-free that would otherwise be acceptable in other works where fair use is the only limitation. This is a very clear case where, as presented, there's no reasoning to include that many images of the old coins. If there was a single image produced by the Royal Mint that showed that so that it would be treated as only one non-free, there might be reason to include that, but I've yet to be able to find one, and to show every single coin via multiple non-frees is not an appropriate approach. The Foundation is very clear our goal is to use non-free exceptionally, and that means being very discriminating and coming up with ways to avoid using non-free images on WP while pointing readers to find non-frees they may be looking for, and here's a prime case. Yes, it is very unlikely we're talking any legal harm to the Foundation, but the point is that if we allow cases like this, that creates the slippery slope of allowing non-free documentation without discussion of any type of historical media that can only be presented through non-free images. That's why NFLISTS exists is to prevent this type of gross misuse. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to recognise and identify the coins in your pocket, those images are going to help you a lot more than the text in the table ever would.

There are fundamental good reasons to keep strong pressure on the use of non-free content -- to encourage alternate free content; to minimise legal risk, both ours and any for our commercial reusers; to maximise re-usability; to uphold WP's reputation. But none of those are issues in this particular case. So we should not gut a decent, useful article. Jheald (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"It's Useful" is not a reason to keep an article or an image when there is more harm to the mission in keeping the part that is considered "useful". Again, this thinking presumes that people will come to WP first to look for information when we should not be that high a priority for information like this. We are a tertiary source meant to summarize information, not fully document it. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm to the mission by keeping this material. It's wanton removal that's more likely to do harm (as argued above).

And I'm sorry, but I stand by m:mission. I want to document as much of the world as I can in freely reusable educational content here, in as much detail and comprehensiveness as we can -- because that's actually what m:mission calls on us to do: to build, rather than to destroy. Nobody ever came to a website for the articles it decided not to treat properly, and it doesn't encourage editors and contributors either. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are using non-free where it is not necessary to document, in a summary tertiary manner, a topic, we are harming the free content mission. That's the reason the Foundation's resolution exists, and why we have NFC, and why this is the problem here. There is "utility" but no readily-apparent educational value - as written - to retain all but images of the current front and back of the present coin. Since we can defer the utility to a easily-linked page, we can keep the rest of the educational value of this page while reducing non-free, avoiding any harm to the mission. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analysis. If you look at WP:NFCHIST the fundamental drivers of the NFC policy were practical considerations of the sort I listed above, at 21:59. And as I wrote then, none of those are issues in this particular case.

And I reject your view that this page is somehow harmful to our m:mission. Our mission is to encourage and empower the development of free content. The presence of the images takes nothing away from the free content on the page. It might have done, if it involved the considerations listed at 21:59. Then we would have had to weigh its presence very carefully. But it doesn't. If you take m:mission seriously, what is most likely to empower and engage people around the world etc to come and build, it is keeping a decent article in the decent shape that it is now. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As soon as the Foundation set the resolution, using NFC as a example, that changed the purpose of NFC from being a means to keep fair use in check to minimizing non-free. The same rules apply in terms of documenting all that but now we have to be more refined about what is kept. And while the goal is to help create free content and draw more editors, we have to be aware that in that potential pool of editors are those that do not even attempt to adhere to what the encyclopedic purpose is; they complain already that we don't use more images or don't spend the few minutes to understand non-free before uploading more. Our mission is clear - to create free content that is freely redistributable - not to draw in more editors, and even if our NFC policy is driving away editors, that's better in the long term because that means a larger percentage of editors that do understand the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I believe in free content as much as anyone. I've spent much of the last four weeks of my time slogging away trying to create an index in an effort to make over a million PD images the British Library just dumped on Flickr even vaguely accessible or usable. With the result that coverage is now almost 40%, from nothing.

If these images really did affect the freedom of redistributability of our free content, or represented any kind of legal theat, or in any way prejudiced our reputation, or could be replaced with free content, then fine: that is exactly what the NFC policy is drafted to control. But here none of that is the case. Instead -- as is typical with currency articles -- having the images directly does add to reader understanding (NFCC #8), and the same encyclopedic value would not be achieved with fewer (NFCC #3). So this is the kind of use the NFC policy is drafted to protect -- a policy that it should be noted was fundamentally confirmed by the Foundation licensing resolution, and changed hardly one iota in response to it.

These images do not harm the m:mission. (Which is to create free content, not to remove non-free content). They were not added by people who "did not understand NFC". There is none of the practical benefits listed above that getting rid of them would serve. Doing so would merely make a valuable article significantly less valuable. (And it is the value that it can give to the world which is what makes the freedom of our content worth fighting for in the first place). So lets keep the value in a valuable article, keep up the motivation of the valuable people who created it, and (per policy) resolve to keep the images. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The mission is to promote the generation of free content; that might not seem much different from just creating free content, but it weighs the freeness of material extremely heavily. We should not be using non-free where its use is not clearly aiding in the educational goal. That's why we outline a lot of what Wikipedia is not, and one of those is that we are not a catalog, including ones around numismatics, which this table in this article borders on. There are plenty of other resources for those seeking details on coins to refer to and that we can point them to in the context of an encyclopedia, but a listing of the out-of-mint coins presented without any other comment is pretty much not what should be included, serving a very narrow purpose. If there were reasons why the various symbols were used (as likely can be documented on the US State Quarters series), that moves the table out from being a simple catalog to something of educational value. Otherwise, we're just listing for the purposes of listing and without considering summarizing and highlighting important information for the reader. Again, we have to keep in mind, we're not the only site on the internet that documents this, and it is not WP's goal to document everything. A page (or at least, in this case, the table on this page) does not serve the larger purpose of the encyclopedia as it stands; even if we had free images of the coins, without any discussion of the various iterations, that would not be an appropriate table to keep here.

What's important here is to understand the slippery slope problem. Everyone things their area of expertise in subject matter is important that we can relax the policy to make these stand out. But that creates the situation which has repeated over and over that "Hey, this article uses non-free images in a table, my subject is just as important so I should get so too." And thus we get people using non-free images completely inappropriately because they saw them being used in a somewhat stronger location, and creates larger problems over time. No area of WP is more important than any other area in terms of NFC allowance, and that's why I point to the fact that the Resolution challenges us to how to present information in the free-est form possible with the necessary exceptions to make a topic understandable as presented on the page. If that means that we have to use novel approaches that other works don't have to employ, or rest on third-party sources and links to delve into information more than we can, we have to take those. I know the table format used in this article is likely common across coin collector books, but it does not work considering that we are 1) an encyclopedia and 2) have a requirement of reducing non-free usage. And this is a point that applies to all fields of WP, not just numismatics. There is a balance of course, which is why I've said if there was a single image from the Royal Mint (the ones that own the copyright I believe) that had all the old coins in them in one shot, that's reasonable to include, but not all dozen-some variants. I've said it before elsewhere, this all may seem like intellectual wankery to minimize non-free but it is the type of thing that if we are not vigilant in identifying where non-free should not be used, it will become a point of abuse and hence the need to close off holes like this. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your view that because either sites exist, we shouldn't try ourseves to give as detailed and comprehensive survey as we can of a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest.

As for your view that we need to remove these images because that is what the Foundation wants, I have asked Jimbo for clarification. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be detailed - we're supposed to be summarizing at a reasonably high level with links to sources of more detail. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what policy says. There are limits to what should be included, but level of detail is not one of them - proper weight of coverage is the major criterion for inclusion within a particular article, i.e. you can also summarize "low level" details if those are relevant. And I'd say that the various versions of the coin released throughout its history are very much relevant to the article covering that coin as its only topic. Diego (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)]

NOTPAPER is only directed at topic inclusion, not the level of detail of coverage, which is more detailed by WP:UNDUE, and of course, by the definition of what a encyclopedia is (a tertiary summary of topics). Have there been other third party sources that go into detail about the historical significance of these coins beyond the Royal Mint? If not, that probably points to the inclusion as undue and putting the external link as a reference for readers to learn more. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems a perfect example for WP:EL: "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".—Aquegg (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons stated by Betty Logan and Jheald. It's also worth remembering that the call to minimize non-free content has always been conditioned to the possibility to replace their usage with free content of acceptable quality, for the same purpose. I'd also point out that slippery slope arguments should be dealt with at policy pages, not individual image discussions - these are expected to weight the particular aspects of the image under consideration. If the same rules could be used as a general template for all similar cases we wouldn't have NFC review, we would have delegated enforcement to administrators with no need to discuss each image. We don't accept "this other article uses non-free images as a valid reason to keep a non-free file; therefore the opposite shouldn't be valid reason to delete them either. Diego (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Someone says above that "The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose."

I agree that that's legitimate. The problem is that the policy is broken. The policy only permits multiple non-free images if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary. If the text is about one pound coins, you're only permitted to have a single image of a one pound coin. In order to have multiple images of various types of one pound coins, you would have to have text that talks about each kind of one pound coin specifically.

Furthermore, this situation seems to be clearly covered by "non-free usage in galleries or tables". While some people have tried to justify this above, I don't see how these justifications wouldn't apply to pretty much every case where someone makes a non-free image table; they don't really explain why the coin table is exceptional compared to those other cases.

I am tempted to say IAR, but this isn't an edge case, it's an intentional decision by the WMF. If we were to IAR this there would be equal justification for IARing every case of "the purpose is to show what the designs were".

So I'd say delete it, because it's based on a clear policy that you can't IAR away, and maybe put some pressure on the WMF to loosen the policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does policy say that multiple non-free images are only permitted if "if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary" ?

NFCC #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", and NFCC #3a says that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Arguably both of those are the case here. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Each piece of NFCC is evaluated on its own as well as in context of the article. So each individual image has to meet NFCC#8 (among the other NFCC criteria). Given what is discussed about the historical mintings (read: little to none), what is the harm in replacing the images with the Royal Mint link (a free replacement) where they are pictured in a single place? Why do the images need to be on this page on Wikipedia to understand the rest of the details about the One pound coin? --MASEM (t) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply, because our articles ought to be self-contained and self-sufficient -- for one thing, so that people can print them out if they want to; but that's not the only reason. As stated above, what the different designs of the coins look like is directly relevant to the topic of the article. And it has a direct practical relevance as well, because it is what makes the coins that people have in their pockets readily identifiable. Given that Jimbo himself has now said he doesn't have a problem with these images, I'm surprised you haven't dropped the stick. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it important? If you took that section out, the article is still "complete". If you took the table out and replaced it with text to point out that different back designs and sayings have been used over time, it would still be a complete understanding of the coin. Knowing the history of the coin designs does not aid the reader to understand the history and importance of the one pound coin itself. And saying that its needed to identify the coins in their pocket shows that the only purpose this table serves presently is as a coin guide, which is something we are not. Again the idea of having to be detail-complete is the wrong type of thinking for an encyclopedia. We are not meant to be the only resource people will ever use, by design. We are here to provide the broadest level of coverage so that we get readers familiar with a topic and gain enough understanding, and then when we get to more detailed information that may only be of interest to a small subset of that readership, provide them with the approach references and links for them to learn more, particularly if we can offset non-free use to these areas. And to note, Jimmy's opinion is only one voice with regards to anything on en.wiki, and has no weight compared to anyone else unless he said he was specifically speaking on behalf of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How can you say that a reader adequately understand the topic when she is not able even to tell whether what's in her pocket is a one pound coin or not? Understanding a coin in common usage passes at the very leat by being able to identify it with some confidence. Diego (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If I have a strange coin in my pocket, I would not be turning to an encyclopedia to identify it, I would be looking for a coin catalog that is specifically designed for this function. This is a common failure - people expect WP it be something it is not, considering the type of feedback I see regularly on pages (eg for fictional works, people want full fledged fan guides; for video games, full strategy guides, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a miserably small perception of what WP is for, a 'failure of ambition' as I put it on Jimbo's talkpage.

No, we'll never cover everything. But in every article I contribute to, I try to get in as much of the topic as I can. That's the ambition that built WP, and the ambition that it needs to survive and to continue to grow. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a reason we have WP:NOT and why one of the 5 pillars is about indiscriminate information. It's valid information, but its not the type of information that an encyclopedia would necessarily cover as it is better suited to a coin collector's catalog/guide. Add in the non-free issues with presenting that information, and that makes it even more a point to use a reference link than to include. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's for the community to decide of course, but I don't see the systematic organisation of relevant information about a topic remotely as indiscriminate information. To me this seems a world away from the examples of indiscriminate information presented at WP:IINFO. Last night when I went to the cornershop, there were five pound coins in my pocket, each with a different design. It seems not at all unreasonable to want -- and to expect -- to be able to be able to find out more about them.

More generally, I see your definition of an encylopedia as a "tertiary summary of topics" as unduly narrow. Something we excel at -- and which encyclopedias have always excelled at -- is to collate and organise primary verifiable information about the present and the past of the world in a systematic organised accessible way. Just as this article does. Verifiability is non-negotiable, but whether I am writing about Quantum Mechanics or about the London Underground, the ambition is the same: to describe the world, not to describe what others have written about the world. Jheald (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And that would be original research - we are meant to be writing about what others have said about the world, as a tertiary source, not what we feel is important. We are supposed to mirror the coverage of a topic by sources, and not give undue weight to small details that may be verified by not widely covered by sources. From the standpoint of these coins, I have tried to look for other sources that talk about the history of the minting but while certainly not a thorough review, have come up blank save for Royal Mint hits, telling me this is an interesting detail but not the type that would be in an encyclopedia. (I am not saying there is no such information out there, but it's not obvious to locate). It would be undue weight to use the dozen-some non-free images to illustrate something that is basically datum (that varieties of mintings have been done over the years) and not discussed in depth. If this information could be found, that would be something. If a single image from the Royal Mint with all (or most) of the coins pictured (as to keep it to a single non-free use image as opposed to a user-created montage), that would be something. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; we have policies that (for good encyclopedic reason) require us to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources". This is especially important in the case of NFC—we have to use the works of secondary sources to be able to determine if NFCC#8 is satisfied, without them, we have to assume that it's not.—Aquegg (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Significance for NFCC #8 is something that is assessed by the community using its sense and good judgement. Secondary sources can be helpful in that, but it is not a requirement. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But without any sources to discuss the matter, and without the use being clearly obvious (eg those identified at WP:NFCI, the need for the images will always remain in question. Providing sourced commentary about non-free images is the most objective measure of meeting NFCC#8 and one that few can dispute towards the NFCC#8 end (there may be other reasons beyond that). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, don't give me that. Non-free images are regularly deleted that nevertheless have sources covering the topic described in them, even for cases directly accepted at WP:NFCI, because "the topic is not of visual nature, and can be described with words". That line of reasoning would be much more solid if those arguing for deletion actually changed their opinions, when sources describing the topic identified by the image are provided (you sometimes accept those, but I think you might be the only one; and not consistently). Flip-flopping between "doesn't have references" and "can be described with words" is a common technique used in deletion discussions to win arguments when NFCC#8 is the only contentious subject at hand and every other snippet of policy is met. Diego (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And you completely ignored the caveat I said, that sourced commentary assures NFCC#8 but doesn't assure the other points are met. If an image can be completely described with text even though the concept is described by sources, that meets NFCC#8 but fails NFCC#1. There are 10 requirements that have to be meet for all non-free. This concept is even spelled out at NFCI, that while those cases will generally be appropriate, there are still other NFCC conditions they could fail. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of a single photo covering as many coins as possible is a good one; though the result would still be non-free, so it won't trigger NFCC#1 (text wouldn't serve the same purpose) nor #3 (all coins should nevertheless appear for identifying them all, which is the point for which they're used) - so it's a "nice to have" if that image can be created, but not a must - and all the other points are covered. My point is that deciding whether any criterion at NFC, and NFCC#8 in particular, are always subject to editorial discretion during the review discussion, as Jheald remarked. Diego (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is editorial discretion, but local consensus does not trump global, so when it comes to deletion discussions, what the interested editors feel is correct could be proven wrong by the global involvement. That's why the idea of critical commentary as objective evidence that there is contextual significance is the best way to show that NFCC#8 is at least met, though that doesn't necessarily speak to the rest of the terms. If there was discussion about all or even some of the historical mintings, my arguments that this fails NFCC#8 would be very flimsy. But without discussion, there's very little obvious reason to keep them, since NFCC#8 is not clearly met. This is why even a single montage image with some of the coins as taken by the Royal Mint would at least be more suitable; it may not cleanly meet NFCC#8 as much as we'd like, but now you've met NFCC#3 much better (you'd have 2 + 1 images instead of 2 + dozen images) and still give the reader an idea of what these other designs looked like, since the table includes a verbal describe of the mark. (And as a possiblity that just came to mind, since the latter part of this series has used heraldic marks, is there a possibility the heraldic symbols might be in the PD - not on the coins but as a standalone image?) --MASEM (t) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only hope that you hold on to that sentiment for the deletion review of Jessica Alba's Playboy cover, which is coming anytime soon. ;-) Diego (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On that, as previously mentioned, the image of her in Playboy wasn't discussed in a critical manner - that she had an image in Playboy, yes, but you didn't need to see the image to understand the text as nothing directly commented on that image. So both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 failed. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't really mean to base the evaluation of the criterion (significance of the image with respect to the topic) on the availability of sources then? It still depends on how you choose to interpret what the sources say? Diego (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. In the Alba case, the issue with her photo being used by Playboy was certainly covered by sources, but there was no specific critical commentary from sources on the actual image used by Playboy discussing the photo. If there was that, the image would have certainly been kept. So now the question falls to that while there was sourced discussion from secondary sources about the overall incident that happened to involve a photo, is the photo necessary to document that? And the answer was no - it showed Alba, which we had images (free) of already, and the concept that there was a controversy about a photo on Playboy is understood without seeing the specific photo, thus failing NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. This is why we generally ask for sources discussing the actual image or concepts in the image itself, which did not happen here. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that you're moving goal posts. The NFCC#8 criterion requires "contextual significance", which could be decided by editorial judgement, yet you're here claiming that it should have "sourced commentary" of the topic depicted. But when pointing out that you still opposed an image that included sourced commentary (and there were sources commenting on the content of the photo, they can be still found at Jessica Alba#Public image), you change the criterion again to "specific critical commentary of the photo itself", even when this discussion started you didn't consider the content of the image itself to be significant enough to provide understanding to readers. You have to make up your mind - either the content of the image is significant to the understanding or it isn't, but you can't have it both ways. Diego (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are missing the point. The first test for the Alba image is if the image itself was the subject of sourced commentary, not the events around the image (there is a difference here). If there was sourced commentary on the image, NFCC#8 would have been met, and in considering all the other NFCC, those all would have been met. But without sourced commentary on the image itself, that considering with NFCC#8 fails. Thus, the next step is to consider if there was sourced commentary about the events around the image as to meet all NFCC. There certainly was sourced commentary about the event, so that helps to meet NFCC#8 but, as pointed out by the FFD, NFCC#1 wasn't met as "a nude picture of Alba used on the cover of Playboy" is easily described by text, and that the other part of NFCC#8, the omission of the image, wasn't deterimental to the reader's understanding of the situation. Thus it failed there. The counter example is the image of OJ Simpson as used in O._J._Simpson_murder_case; the booking photo of OJ isn't what is the subject of commentary but how Newsweek purposely darkened to cover the story, and this is a visual aspect to the overall issue; there is no such thing with the Alba case. Getting back to the coins here, again, there is no sourced commentary to necessitate a need to see the historical versions of the coins or the situation around the coins, and as the reader's understanding of the Pound coin in general is not harmed by their removal due to this lack of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. There is no double metric going on here, it is straightforward application of looking for criticial commentary to give the most support to use images. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If the topic is visual in nature, to the point of requiring sources to cover the image itself and not just its content, then it cannot be replaced with text. In any case, you've crafted a collection of requirements that you're passing as mandatory; even if you manage to make them coherent, they still are way stricter than the already stricter-than-free-use criteria that were agreed by consensus when the NFC policy was written. Diego (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that is visual in nature needs to be seen to understand it, if the visual appearance is not discussed and the only manner to show it is NFC. Hence why the Alba cover was not necessary - it is a (ymmv) an artistic visual work but there was no specific discussion of the visual aspects, just that it existed (this was sourced). Ergo, you don't need to see the image to understand it existed. Of course, if the image was free, no one would stop you including it, but non-free policy requires a strong metric to include. Similarly, while we know and validate historical versions of these coins exist, there is no discussion on the importance or visual nature of the design, and given how many NFC images would be needed to show them all, it would be inappropriate to include them. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changed my !vote to "Keep" because WP:NFC permits images of "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." It is plausible that "currency" includes coins, so we are permitted to have images of coins to show what they look like, even though the policy does not permit that in general. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To comment on that, each case listed in NFCI (which is a guideline) does note that all other NFCC have to be met still for those conditions to apply. There's no question from NFC that the front/back images of the current minting can be kept per that reasoning from NFCI - the coin is being discussed at length. But all additionaly images weight on minimal use (NFCC#3) and lack of any significant to be kept (NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NFCC 3 and 8 do say minimal use and significance. NFCC does not, however, say that in order to meet those you must have discussion. That's your interpretation and is not in the rule text itself. Moreover, the list in NFC has a "stamps and currency" item which conspicuously omits the requirement for sourced commentary, or for any commentary. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, then the likelihood that the omission of the images will not harm the reader's understanding of the topic (this being the general concept of the one pound coin, not any specific historic minting) is very very high. And NFCI still requires all other NFCC requirements to be met; by NFCI it's reasonably to include the front and back of the current pound coin on a page discussing that, but no other images meet that without better rationales. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It will harm the reader's understanding of the topic because the reader will not know what all the different varieties of one pound coin look like, and a picture is much better at describing that than words. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a fallacy, as that reasoning would allow tons of NFC to be used elsewhere. What text necessitates the need to show what the old coins look like important to the average reader's understanding of the one pound coin? There is none, the current front and back images show what the coin looks like that's appropriate for identifying the currency in discussion of the coin in general. The different variations on the back are not subject of discussion so omitting the images do no harm. --MASEM (t)

To put it bluntly, the idea that there must be discussion is something you made up. It does say that for some types of image, but it doesn't say that for coins. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCC#8 requires contextual significance. For coin images, one front/back pair are fine in contextual significant in the topic of the one pound coin to show what the coin looks like as the identifying images. All other images of the same coin do not get that freedom; there has to be contextual significance that the reader needs to see that image to understand the topic (in this case, "the one pound coin"). This is not the case for the old minted backs which are only described but not discussed. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, for numismatic purposes, images are required to see the historic designs. Also, NFC 3, stamps and currency.  The Steve  11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Coins. Herostratus (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Americanchamberofcommercejapanlogo.gif

I am unsure whether the red stripes on the letters are enough to push this above TOO or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe this logo is any more complicated than those listed at Commons:COM:TOO for the US. It is just text with lines drawn over it. But since the company for this logo is located in Japan, I am not sure how the strict the TOO is for Japan in this regard. Not much evidence in COM:TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Epica - Design Your Universe.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Symphonic metal and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Nightwish - Nemo.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 on Tarja Turunen and Symphonic metal and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ridin Dirty.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NFCC#8 on Chamillionaire and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif

Violates NFCC 1, because an image serving the same purpose could reasonably be created, and NFCC 3, as it uses the same resolution of the original work published in a commercial publication. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

At first impression I thought a free replacement could be created. But then I noticed that the designs themselves are also copyrighted, so an editor-created drawing would still be a derivative work.

And the image is merely line drawings and text. How could you reduce it more without making it unreadable? The half-size version created automatically makes the text labels too small and blurry to read. Diego (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• USA only has FOP for buildings which have been constructed. Aren't some of these unconstructed variants of a constructed building? Only those variants which actually have been constructed would seem to qualify for FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that one could remake this drawing as a free image, using highly simplified versions of the five buildings, even if simple rectangles and triangles. At some point in the future when all buildings shown are constructed, a new version can be remade using photo representations of the buildings. Note that this does NOT apply to the fine text on the drawing which cannot be replicated in full, but the data - heights, years, etc. - are uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here. Only the building on the far right will be constructed. The other four are proposed buildings for the same building. The whole image itself shows how much the building proposals changed until the finalization of the plans. I'm not sure if any of the image could be remade, as there is specific discussion of the changes in the building's various designs which would cover WP:NFCC#8 and would therefore not be replaceable by anything short of a derivative work. Overall, it is my opinion that the image be kept as is. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg

Close as No Consensus due to no discussion in two months. No prejudice for later relist if discussion is necessary. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

In the Western Wall entry there's only a passive mention of the picture with only one word “iconic” qualifies as commentary. This most likely does not qualify for free use as the rational "The photograph is perhaps the most famous representation of Israel's participation in the war." implies that there are many photos on the subject so it is unlikely that all pictures about Israel's participation in the war meet NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" in the sense that illustrate Israel's participation - a free picture may be just enough to express the idea that Israel participated the war. The section that mentions "Images with iconic status or historical importance" (NFCI#8) explicitly states that it does not override NFC.

In the Six-Day War entry there are some commentaries about the picture, however they are in footnotes, not in body text. This probably fails NFCC#8 "Contextual significance".

The Tank man picture was iconic to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, but the result of discussion was single use only - not even allowed in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article.

--Skyfiler (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I could have sworn this photo has come up before either at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: It looks like it was take to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_8#File:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg where it was closed as no consensus for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Kata'ib Hezbollah flag.svg

Not sure this file is free, and am unsure about the claims made in regards to its license. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the reasoning is right - Iraq is one of the few countries US does not have reciprocal copyright terms with. However, per this, we've been asked to respect copyrights of even countries like Iraq. So while the image technically would not have copyright protection in the US and thus the free SVG version made here (and can only be stored here due to that nature), I would think it be better to treat this as non-free per request of the Foundation. Meaning that this SVG is completely improper (as a user-made non-free SVG), and we should be using a reduced raster image and called out non-free instead. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Network

File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg deleted per WP:NFCC#10a. Other files might be public domain, but no further discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I cannot see justification for 12 non-free images Werieth (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg is sourced to newspaperarchive.com which is not a sufficient source per WP:NFCC#10a. Apart from that, it is likely that all matchbooks and advertisements in the article are both {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Howlin' Wolf - How Many More Years.ogg

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Does this sample really need to be on 6 different articles? Werieth (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:James Cotton - Cotton Crop Blues.ogg

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this sample really needed on 5 different articles? Werieth (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Palpasa Cafe by Narayan Wagle.jpg

Backcover fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the backcover if not the frontcover? Call me stupid (but in educated English please if I may insist). Just curious. Some sort of backdoor issue perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b says "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." The back cover does not identify the work as well as the front cover does. Therefore Stefan is saying that an image that is just the front cover would fit within policy better than one with the whole cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can take that as authoritative? That you are as fluent in Urdu as you are perhaps in Russian? Indeed you have me at an advantage there. It's a fracking cover Timothy. Come on. It would be a real pity if it was mutilated just because of Stefan's backdoor issues. Is he in by the way? I would really like to have a word with him about his Mickey Gove post. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I can say with 100% confidence that I am as fluent in Urdu as I am in Russian. But I'm sure that you know that by now. And its not relevant here. If there was critical commentary about the back cover, then it may be useful, but as the image is only used to show the cover of the work (under WP:NFCI#1) we still should only use a portion of the image. The image is not "mutilated" because we only show the front cover, actually that is what the standard is here, and what is currently in use in most articles that use cover art (whether it be a book, film, album, etc). I don't know what you are talking about with "backdoor issues" or a "Mickey Gove post," nor do I know if Stefan is in. I'm sure you could try to reach him at his talkpage and ask him about these. Cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:BalikaVadhu.jpg

Image of dubious purpose. In Balika Vadhu, it says that the image is a promotional logo image for Balika Vadhu. On the other hand, in Chinnari pellikuthuru, it says that it is a promotional logo image for Chinnari pellikuthuru. It probably can't be both at the same time. Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one of the articles. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in the article about the show for which it isn't a logo image. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the image is a promotional photo for both but I believe they are different names for the same show. From the article Balika Vadhu, it states that it is also telecast on on Maa TV as Chinnari pellikuthuru. Most likely the articles should be merged as they seem to be talking about the same show. This would also eliminate any issues with failing WP:NFCC#8 & 10c. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jutsu (Naruto)

The article contains the following non-free images

• File:Chakra generation in Naruto.png
• File:Chidori.jpg
• File:Rasengan.jpg
• File:Byakugan.jpg
• File:SharinganSasuke.jpg

I am not sure the images satisfy WP:NFCC in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg

Given that this is a 1898 photo I would think that it would qualify for a PD-old. I guess it depends on how we define "published" in respects to a photograph. I would consider it published after the photographer prints and gives it to the subject. But I may be wrong in that respect. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all fronts. PD-old is applicable to unpublished works and is based on the date of author death, not date of creation (here, 1898). This image is published, so PD-old cannot be used. Publication has a formal definition as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Merely "giv[ing] it to the subject" is not a distribution to the public. Эlcobbola _talk 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we known when this photo was published? If it was still pre-1923, PD-old still applies, otherwise we'll have the usual bank of tests on the photographer to check. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PD-old never applies to published US works. The US only considers date of author death for unpublished works. As a published work, {{PD-US}} could apply for pre-1923 publication, but, as the image description says, the publication date is not known (thus the fair use claim to avoid misrepresenting the copyright status). Эlcobbola _talk 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If we have no idea of publication date or photographer, but we do know the creation date, then it's 120 years from creation (in US, natch), meaning it is not yet PD until 2018. (and we'd use PD-old-70 for that, see the small text in that license). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is also only for unpublished works. We know this is published (just not when) so 120 cannot be used. That consideration also requires genuine anonymity, which is quite distinct from merely not being known to us (i.e., just because the source website failed to attribute an author does not mean the author is not known to someone). Эlcobbola _talk 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the evidence, the photo appears to be from a collection of material relating to Pound from a close friend [10] acquired by the UTexas Harry Ransom Center (HRC) [11]. Thus the first "publication" is 2008 (best guess). But the author still remains the photographer (assuming that they never published it), as since they are unknown, I'm still getting 120 years from creation as when this will be PD (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm#Footnote_2, under "first published in US", "after 2002"). --MASEM (t) 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, be careful; that footnote applies to "Unpublished works registered for copyright since 1978". Registration for copyright is not the same as publication, and the 2008 date gleaned from the HRC source only speaks to the latter. If the HRC did indeed also register, then you'd be correct, but I'm commenting from a position of not assuming facts not in evidence, so to speak. That gets back to the central issue here: we simply don't have enough information to determine copyright status, thus a fair use claim as a precaution. Эlcobbola _talk 18:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the second section "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.", "after 2002" line --MASEM (t) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically the way I'm reading various US copyright summations, and irregardless of the publishing situation , if you known when a work was created by cannot, reasonably, identify the photographer, the work is considered anonymous, and the term defaults to 120yr from point of creation. This makes this work obviously non-free for 4 more years. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• There seem to be two sources of confusion here. Some people seem to be using "PD-old" to mean that something is in the public domain because of age, whereas other people seem to be using "PD-old" to specifically refer to the template {{PD-old}}, which says that the author has been dead for 100 years. To make it more confusing, Commons has a template with the same name, {{PD-old}}, which says "70 years" instead of "100 years" as on Wikipedia. The other source of confusion is the copyright term of the United States. These are the current copyright terms in the United States:
  • First published before 1923: in the public domain (maximum term: 75 years from publication)
  • First published 1923-1977: 95 years from publication (regardless of the year of creation and the year of death of the author, so 18th century works first published in this era may still be copyrighted)
  • First published 1978-2002: 70 years after the death of the author. If the author is anonymous or if it is a work for hire, then it changes to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter). Also, regardless of the year of creation and the year of death of the author, works first published during this period will under no circumstances enter the public domain before 2048.
  • First published in 2002 or later, or not yet published: 70 years after the death of the author. If the author is anonymous or if it is a work for hire, then it changes to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter).

Apart from that, works first published 1923-1989 may be in the public domain because of non-compliance with copyright formalities, and non-US works published at any time may be in the public domain due to lack of copyright relations with the source country of the work. Note that the definition of "anonymous" differs compared to most countries. Instead, the United States uses a definition of the word "anonymous" which looks strikingly similar to the definition which Sweden was forced to drop in 1961 due to being incompatible with a modification of the Berne Convention. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to say is that no one seems to have an idea of who the copyright holder is - that is, the original photographer. As per US law, this is an anonymous work: "An “anonymous work” is a work on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author." Therefore our best advice is 120 years from established creation (1898). If the author becomes identified, then we apply life+70, working on that the first publication was in 2008. I do agree we may want to normalize templates with commons to be clear. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This assumes that the image wasn't published anywhere before 2008, which doesn't have to be the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but again, I point to the above history of that photo that suggests it was pretty much in a box until 2008. 120 years still applies unless it was published from 1978-1989 w/ copyright notice, or from 1989-2002 without notice, in which case its copyright defaults to expiring in 2047. And given the minimal reuse of that photo, I suspect that we're still looking at a 2008 publication date. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, late to the discussion. If it makes a difference, the photograph was published in a 1987 biography which I have sitting next to me: Tytell, John. (1987). Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano. New York: Anchor Press. ISBN 978-0-385-19694-9

– Victoria (tk) 01:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in 2048, provided that the book has a copyright notice (I don't have it myself so I can't check). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - can you cite the page # on the File page (or just list it here?) And perchance does it name the photographer? --MASEM (t) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If it was first published in 1987, then the copyright expires at the earliest in 2048 (due to creation before 1978), which presumably is well after 70 years after the death of the photographer. From a copyright point of view, it is therefore unnecessary to know whether the photographer is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be good information to have just in case we find a potentially earlier publication. We can play it safe by assuming the 2047 date but this might help clear it earlier if the photographer is known. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The photograph is being used in Ezra Pound, currently at FAC. I don't know how this page works, but I'm wondering whether it's rude to ask that the FAC nominators be alerted about this deletion request there so as to have a chance to research the issue? Thanks. Oh, and btw - no, Tytell does not claim copyright. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This isnt a deletion request, its to clarify the licensing. the important thing is that this will be considered non-free, which might impact how FAC sees it. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think FAC is acknowledging it may be non-free. The problem is the intervention here when the chances of proving it is free are extremely slight. For example, the publication must have been lawful to count as publication. Am I wrong in supposing that? Do we know it was published with the copyright-holders authority? How can we tell? Thincat (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, considering what I found before, this photo, at the time that book was published, was very likely in a book of personal notes and mementos held by a friend of Erza Pound; Pound was dead, the photographer was likely dead. So I doubt there's any way to prove the publication was unlawful. For the FAC purposes, they should treat the image as non-free and thus consider NFCC otherwise from that point (this section is not considering the validity of the rationale) --MASEM (t) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry if I appear to be rude, but that's incorrect. I've spoken to curators at two museums and to Pound's literary executor regarding this photograph. The original photograph was in the possession of the Pound estate, papers of which are curated at Yale University. The museum in Idaho has had it in their possession for a number of years and claims to have acquired it from Yale's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Perhaps they acquired a copy; that I wouldn't know. The literary executors claim it's a family photograph, photographer unknown, and would be extremely happy if anyone can identify the photographer. The photograph was published, as I indicated above, at least as early as 1987, in the unpaginated tipped-in photograph section of Tytell's book. Tytell credits it to the Idaho Historical Society, so it was in their possession at that time, and most likely the biographer, as all biographers do, secured permission from the family. Can someone explain why this discussion has again been resurrected? All these facts were established in 2010 and at that time following elcobbola's suggestion it was kept with the fair use rationale, given that we can't identify the photographer. One more point, in his 2007 biography, David Moody describes it as a circa 1897 "studio photograph". It was almost certainly taken in a studio in the Philadelphia area, was in the possession of the family, and is displayed in Idaho. It has nothing to do with a friend. Victoria (tk) 15:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This information should have been added to the photo's file page (if not now) only to assure what is known of the history of the photo so that we can accurately judge the copyright term on it (that is, now until 2047). The reason this discussion was opened was likely because this information was not stated on the file page, and Wereith, fairly, asked if a 1898 photo would still be within copyright as to make this a possibly free image (which makes its use at the FAC even better if that was the case). It's still non-free and will be for many years but the more assertions that can be made on the file page to explain its history (this is what the "Source" field should be for) will prevent this discussion from happening again. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Which goes to my question why the uploader, me, and the FAC nominee, me, was not notified. As for adding to pages or my involvement with Wikipedia, take a look at my talk page. When I get a chance, I'll update, but I wasn't the only person in possession of this information, I passed it to it at least elcobbola, nor was it ever suggested earlier to add to the file, so please don't chastise me about misuse of the source field. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't meant to sound like I was coming down on you - it just should have been a step done last time when it came up, and that's a misstep by all those in that discussion. In terms of the bearing on FAC, it shouldn't affect it - it was non-free at the start of the process and making it free would have simply strengthen the reason to include if the non-free was already accepted. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle If you are in contact with the estate, would you mind asking about a release of permission for as much historical documents as they are willing to provide? These types of opportunities often have the potential to make both parties to a win-win partnership. We can provide better coverage via images and text for the subject and as a side bonus get that material released under a free license. I can easily see a very positive outcome to this incident, if we are willing to take the needed steps. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not anymore and no, though thanks for the suggestion. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies if the following has already been ruled out. This image has not been published with a valid copyright notice that I can see. Does that not mean that {{PD-US-1978-89}} applies here (per Commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart)? (The earliest publication we can find is 1987 in John Tytell's book.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The book was registered for copyright in 1987 (search for TX0002173790 at www.copyright.gov). This was within 5 years from publication, so it does not matter if the book contains a copyright notice or not; it would still be covered by the registration.

Above, there was also a question about whether the publications were with the consent of the copyright holder. If the photograph at some point was published without the consent of the copyright holder, then that publication doesn't count as "publication", with effects on term length and notice requirements. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tytell, the author of the book, does not claim copyright of the image. No publisher has claimed copyright of the image. The photographer is unknown (almost certainly a studio photographer in Cheltenham Township, PA, where the Pounds were living when the photograph was taken). So is the copyright not "None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities," as the Hirtle chart says? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This statement in Victoriaearle's comment above I think is key: "Tytell credits it to the Idaho Historical Society, so it was in their possession at that time, and most likely the biographer, as all biographers do, secured permission from the family." Yes, it is a guess at its history, but its also a very educated guess, and because there are a lot of ambiguities to the image, it is better to play the safest game and consider that the publication of the photo for the first time in Tytell's book was with permission of the copyright owner (the family at this point) and thus the book's copyright extended to the photo, and thus the work remains non-free until 2047. It very well could be a free image but there is no harm considering an image non-free if it really is free (the reverse is not true in mismarking a non-free as free). (Well there is harm if people are considered the non-free inappropriate for the FAC, but that doesn't sound like that's the issue). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize it's guesswork, but I would doubt that the family owns the copyright. That would normally reside with the photographer, or if the photographer was an employee of the studio (rather than the owner), then with the studio. Studios would usually hang onto the negatives and the copyright, because selling copies is how they used to make their money.

There appear to be two physical copies from the negative in circulation. One was held by the Idaho Historical Society (perhaps obtained from Pound's family) and copied by Tytell for his 1987 book. There is also this one, which was held by Marcella Spann Booth, a friend of Pound's in the 1950s (who almost certainly obtained it from Pound himself), and who gave it to the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 (see the image page for a link to the acquisition news release).

It's possible that it's the same copy, and that Marcella Spann Booth lent it to the Idaho Historical Society, then gave it to the University of Texas at Austin. But I'm guessing there are two copies. It would be interesting to try to find out (a longer term project; no need in the short term). But the point is that, no matter how many physical copies there are, and who has or had them in their possession, that has no bearing on who owns the copyright. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree. We just make ourselves look silly by trying to achieve near certainty in areas where rarely does any certainty exist. Old photos are published all the time without definite knowledge of whether or not they are in copyright or who any copyright holder might be. How many people know who holds the copyright on childhood photographs of their grandparents? Thincat (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should be careful, as once you mark something as "free", the cat is out of the bag, to speak, and if that was later proven wrong, then it's our fault that a copyrighted work was marked free. In this specific case, as I read it, even if non-free the image well passes NFCC and in no danger of being deleted, so I'd rather we be secure in the copyright claim. If it was more the case that this was a fringe case and the image on the cusp of being deleted, I would really want to assure which way this falls on copyright to see if it could be made free in good faith. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Does the following change anything? The earliest publication date found so far is September 1985, when the image appeared in an Associated Press story by Susan Gallagher, discussing a Pound exhibit in Idaho. This was published by several newspapers, including the Victoria Advocate, p. 3, and the Reading Eagle, p. E-18. There is no copyright notice, not even a false one (e.g. copyright Idaho Historical Society). There's no reason to believe that it was published with the permission of the copyright holder, who it's reasonable to assume is the photographer in the absence of evidence to the contrary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, I really do accept we should not be tagging as free unless we have strong reason. But I also think we shouldn't tag as non-free unless there is a basis for that. We desperately need "no known restrictions after a diligent enquiry" (as sensible organisations have) and then a nuanced policy for how we may use this sort of image. Whether an image is free or non-free is sometimes only known unto God. Thincat (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyright makes this very nuanced. It might be worthwhile to engage commons in this discussion since they have people generally a bit up to speed on the PD side of things. I think we have done all of the necessary due dilliance that is reasonable possible, but there remains a maze of confusion through copyright law to figure this out. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get elcobbola to chime in again. I do have email, from 2010, from the Sun Valley Center for the Arts (who possess at least one of the photographs) and from Pound's literary executors telling me that neither claim copyright, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, would you mind if I were to write to the Sun Valley Center to ask if there is anything written on the back of their copy? Or you could do it if you prefer to be the one who's in contact with them, for continuity. There was some information on the back of the copy held by the Harry Ransom Center (the date, which was useful). It's possible that there's a photographer or studio name on the other copy. This isn't connected to the FAC, by the way (I'm not trying to complicate things in that regard). It's just that it has me interested now, trying to track down author name or first publication date. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can try. I asked them and either they didn't want to take it off the wall and out of the frame, or they'd already done so and still weren't able to identify the photographer. Sorry, that's all I can remember of a four year old phone conversation. They did however confirm in writing that they don't claim copyright. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll give them a try. You're probably right that if it's in a frame on display they won't want to dismantle it. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was on display then at the Pound House in Hailey, and, no, the curator didn't want to take it off the wall! But you might have better luck, because I just remembered that, either someone told me or I read somewhere, the Pound House was sold and the museum was closed, in which case it might be packed up. I hope I'm not making that up! Anyway, I think we've established a lot about a 117 year-old photograph! Victoria (tk) 01:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That would jive with how UTexas claims they got the materials, though it's not a sure thing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I think two copies of the same photograph exist. If I'm reading correctly, UTexas acquired the collection in 2008, but the photograph we're speaking/writing about was hanging on the Pound House wall in 2010. If I'm correct about the Pound house, and when I'm less tired I'll look it up, it was last year that I heard about it closing. And just to clarify too, the Pound House is/was part of the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, which is still in operation. Victoria (tk) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: yes, I'm right. The Ezra Pound Museum in Hailey, which displayed the photograph in 2010 has been closed and is now the Hailey branch of the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, [12]. Victoria (tk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As the description says that it was published by the Victoria Advocate and the Reading Eagle in 1985 without a copyright notice, it is acceptable in Commons under PD-US-1978-89. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have evidence these were published with the copyright owner's permission, which throws a wrench into the works. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

None of the instances of publication that we have found so far (earliest, Associated Press 1985) have been with the copyright owner's permission, so far as we know. The copyright owner is unknown, but was almost certainly the owner or an employee of the studio that took the photograph on 3 May 1898. (Note that neither the Pound literary estate, nor the Idaho Historical Society, which owns an original copy of the photograph, claims copyright.)

According to this 2012 article by Peter Hirtle (who compiled the Hirtle chart): "For publication to have occurred, the work must be issued with the authorization of the copyright owner." The Hirtle chart, footnote 6, says: "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority."

Unless we take "publication" to include the sale by the studio of the first copy to the Pound family, the above may mean that this is an unpublished image, for the purpose of determining copyright status. Unpublished anonymous works are protected for 120 years from the date of creation, which in this case would be until 3 May 2018. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that copyright periods based on an event always are counted from the first day of the year after the event. This means that the 120-year period began on 1 January 1919 (1st day on the year after creation) and ends at the end of 2018, not in the middle of the year. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. This case has now been discussed on Commons here where the most interesting remark, for me, came from Carl Lindberg, who knows what he is talking about. He said "Under older case law, the copyright to studio photographs were generally deemed owned by the sitter (i.e. the person paying for the photograph). They would be the "first copyright owner" but not author. That is no longer the case, but it seems to have been at the time.[13]" (Works made on Commission, page 130). Second comment: following a request at WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works, I have suggested this case as an example of problems with orphan works. Thincat (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This may be related to Pushman v. New York Graphic Society. If the only copy of a work was transferred to someone else, the copyright was implicitly transferred to that person. When you go to a photographer to have a photo of yourself taken, then you will usually own the only copy of it. Note that the law changed in 1978, so copyright has not been transferred with copies since then.

Note that Ezra Pound lived in Europe during part of his life, and this photograph might have been taken in Europe. Under US law, this means that you would normally use European laws to determine who is the copyright holder in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Coburg

Im not really seeing anything critical in the images selected for this article, they look like eye candy to me. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:François-Joseph Gossec, composer, Saint-Georges’ teacher and mentor.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is clearly {{PD-old-100}}. Any reason why it is listed as unfree? Any reason to dispute that either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply? Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefen2, In answer to your question, because I was confused by the questionnaire. I should have listed it as PD-1923. Please change it. Thank you, Dsteveb (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Of course "Original publication: not published, cca. 1802" was my error. Dsteveb (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Le Théâtre Italien in Paris.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says "Original publication: 1771 print". If this was published in 1771, then why would it be unfree? Typically, anything published before 1923 is {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sefan2, Sorry, my mistake, as above. It should have been PD-1923. Can I please upload it as such? Dsteveb (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Mme. de Montesson, employer of Saint-Georges.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says: "Original publication:cca. 1770 print". If it was published in 1770, then why is it listed as being unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Because I made a mistake, however, as I located and uploaded a substitute of Mme. Montesson from Wiki Commons, the old file is now irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsteveb (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Palais de Soubise.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says "Original publication: 1775 print". In that case, why is this listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Sorry, the answer to your question is that I misunderstood the questionnaire. As a print cca. 1775 it should be pre1923 item.Dsteveb (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Print of Young Saint-Georges.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says: "Original publication: Le Mercure de France,, Paris newspaper Feb. 1768 issue". In that case, why is the file listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Regarding Young Saint-Georges,published in a French magazine in February 1768, your colleague, Ron Jones said: "You already fixed it. It should be a free image with Pd-old." Does this mean I upload it now? Dsteveb (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

American Tractor Corporation

In Special:PermanentLink/598538436, there are several images uploaded by User:Njchronicaler which were later removed by User:Werieth. Are these in fact free? What are the chances that a catalogue like this was renewed? Also, do the images show all pages in the catalogue? I don't see any copyright notice on any of the pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2 as far as I know they were copyrighted when published in the early 1950s. The company was bought out by Case which abandoned the company name and only keep a couple of key innovations (not represented in the brochure). I've been trying to get the photos restored to the article I created, but Werieth removes them as quickly as I restore them.

This is because you employ forcing one revision over another. Discuss the matter, like you are beginning to do; it will reach a better end.—John Cline (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:The Angelos' Fencing Academy. jpeg.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Claimed to be from 1830. It also says "Original publication: Reminiscences by Henry Angelo". Was this a pre-1923 publication? Why does the uploader think that this is unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Sorry, another one of my mistakes. However, this file is now irrelevant. We replaced it with a better one in Wiki commons. Dsteveb (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Title page of Saint-Georges concertos.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is apparently from the 18th century and seems to contain a price tag in ancient currency. Does this mean that it was published somewhere before 1923 and that it is therefore in the public domain? Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, Yes, of course, same as above. Thanks Stefan2.

It is also true of the page of music taken from the same volume as the title page. When you get to it, please let us know if we are free to go ahead and upload them.

Finally, the painting of the Duke of Orleans by Sir Joshua Reynolds in 1785, we will be using is listed in commons.

Looking forward to your reply. Dsteveb (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:TVNZ TV2 logo.svg

Discussion effectively closed when User:Coat of Many Colors moved file to Commons. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The image appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. The logo is below the threshold of originality, but the vectorisation is maybe not. Replaceable by a different vectorisation of the same logo. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, this should be free. It is (apparently) the logo's owner and this is their SVG which they can't copyright. If it was the case the logo SVG was made by some third-party, I'd agree that a true free version made by our graphics lab or something like that would be better. But this is out of their own hands, and thus is uncopyrightable to start. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, anyone who makes a vectorisation of a logo can hold the rights to the vectorisation, provided that the vectorisation meets the threshold of originality for computer software. Note that User:Olliechick has overwritten the file with a different file from an unknown source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The logo itself is just a simple numeral, which does not appear to be eligible for copyright protection, so a non-free SVG is clearly a violation of NFCC#1 and should be replaced with a free version. My understanding is that although the logo fails TOO, the XML code of the SVG may be copyrighted. I don't know if it is possible to create an SVG of this logo with different XML code, or if a new file is created which produces the same or similar XML from scratch, whether that could be considered a copyright violation or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I' transferred the file to Commons per Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_logos_that_just_consist_of_basic_text_in_the_userspace. Can someone close this please (I didn't raise here). Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Guides and Scouts Movement of Belgium

Excessive use of non-free images. Only the infobox image is needed in this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Clifford Chester Sims.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC#1 per FUR. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The FUR tells that this is replaceable by free content, so the image seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Also, wouldn't {{PD-USGov}} material normally exist for people like this? Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Club Brugge KV.png

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2004–05 Belgian First Division. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SBS One

Images fail WP:NFG and WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Abuse of NFG Werieth (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether such a detailed section about the logo is really encyclopedic or needed in the article. Also note that the second citation in that section is a deadlink. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Eastern Airlines logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The underlying graphic looks like a {{pd-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree as a US company, it would be too simply for copyright. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Pan Am Logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Not sure if the underlying graphic is a {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we have more complex logos from US companies that are considered PD, so this hould be okay. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Endeavor Global Logo.png

Image is PD-textlogo as it is below TOO. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Too simple for TOO to apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say this doesn't meet TOO. Simple typefaces. I suspect that the modification of the first e is only de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Philippe, Duke of Orleans.jpg

Image is in the public domain per PD-old. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It says that this is from the 18th century but also that it is copyrighted. This seems contradicing. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's first publication date may be more recent, but there's no way going by age of the (late 1700s) that any type of copyright can still exist even if published, like, this year - it's certainly more than 70+life/95+life/120 years considering the painter. PD-old applies. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a photograph of a 2D work of art and the photographer has no rights per Wikipedia policy. Best dealt with by transferring to Commons. I've templated accordingly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Doctor Octopus

This article contains seven unfree files:

• File:Doctoroctopus.png
• File:AmazingSpider-Man3octopus.jpg, which doesn't have a fair use rationale for this article
• File:Superior Spider-Man 1.jpg
• File:Panelultimateockdoc18.jpg
• File:Doc ock23.jpg, which doesn't have a fair use rationale for this article
• File:Spectacular Doc Ock.jpg
• File:2826 DocOck.jpg

I cannot see any justification for keeping all seven in the article. Certainly File:2826 DocOck.jpg would be a suitable image because it is the most recent and probably the best known. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, the character's design really hasn't changed over the years that one such as the present infobox one is sufficient. I don't see much discussing the visual changes of the character to need that many different versions. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Busted in 2002.jpg

As the band has disbanded, it is acceptability that the file is not replaceable by a free image. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Fails NFCC due to being replaceable. Perhaps we can't have photos of the three together, but a collage of free images would surely be possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we've got agreement that a disbanded musical group can have non-free - even if it is possible to group three separate images together. In this case, the image appears to be also showing part of the "attitude" of the group. That said, a group that disbanded in 2011 might have free imagery around (a quick flickr check doesn't reveal any) but this should encourage people to find some. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:CSUSB seal.png

Image is not PD-CAGov as the school is not part of the state government. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it would as while the CA college system is state-ordained, it doesn't make the schools part of the state government. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Ura logo.gif

The logo is from a Singapore company (maybe the Singapore government), and therefore would most likely be created in Singapore and subject to local copyright laws. As Commons:COM:TOO has no information on the TOO in Singapore, I'm closing this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this {{PD-textlogo}} (or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}), or does it get too complex when two letters are written inside another letter? Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that internal lettering thing doesn't affect that it's still just text, so PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:CovelliCentre.PNG

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is this PD-textlogo, or is the "R" decoration too complex? Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the United States copyright office would not regard the decoration as de minimis (it forms a visually recognizable part of the logo) and as such I think it might be creative enough for them to register it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree - the curvature is not simple. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg

I cant see justification for usage in Kunstschutz Werieth (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the text (my bolding):

• "Adolf Hitler was an unsuccessful artist who was denied admission to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. Nonetheless, he thought of himself as a connoisseur of the arts, and in Mein Kampf he ferociously attacked modern art as degenerate, including: Cubism; Futurism; and Dadaism; all of which he considered the product of a decadent twentieth century society. When in 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he enforced his aesthetic ideal on the nation. The types of art that were favoured amongst the Nazi party were classical portraits and landscapes by Old Masters, particularly those of Germanic origin. Modern art that did not match this was dubbed degenerate art by the Third Reich, and all that was found in Germany's state museums was to be sold or destroyed."

Of course it's contextual and of course it significantly aids understanding. You do know I take it that the whole subject remains highly topical today?

So why did you post Werieth? Did you read the text critically? Or do you dispute that it significantly aids understanding? If the latter would you care to enlarge?

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coat of Many Colours: What visual elements of File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg is being discussed in the Kunstschutz article? Why do you need to display the image on this article? Why wont a link to degenerate art suffice? Werieth (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: You raise meta-questions which are not actually advanced as tests in policy. Of course you can debate meta-questions endlessly, and incidentally raise the same questions for the use of this image in the two articles you do not contest. The rationale here is that it is an historically significant image and the policy objection can only be contextual significance as per Stefan below. Do you dispute the image is contextually significant? That it doesn't aid understanding? Why in this case and not the two others you don't dispute? It seems to me that you are determined to be argumentative. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure you understand the policy. Those questions are just basic easy to understand versions of several of the key points of policy. Specifically, points WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8. Just because something aids understanding doesnt mean that it has justification for inclusion. Also if non-free media is used on one page, the justification for usage on additional pages becomes more difficult (Minimal usage clause). And you need then to ensure that a link to the article about the topic where the file is originally being used cannot suffice to serve the same educational purpose (NFCC#1). Lastly that there is sourced critical commentary about the contents of the image by reliable third parties (NFCC#8). Werieth (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I understand the policy. In assessing it, it would help if you linked to the full content WP:NFC Non-free content (to which I've recently made significant contributions) and not to a summary of its criteria WP:NFCC Non-free content criteria. §1 refers to replaceability, but the full policy qualifies with 'reasonably suppose', and indeed there's no reason to suppose there is a free equivalent (and the same objection applies to the two uses you do not contest). §3 plainly refers to minimal use in an article, and there is only one use of this kind of image in the article. Finally §8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" does not say anything about "sourced critical commentary about the contents of the image by reliable third parties". It says exactly what it says and the third use you contest here plainly satisfies it as well as the other two uses you do not contest. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFC is not policy. It is rather an attempt at explaining the policy and how its implemented. NFCC#1 refers to replaceability. We may not have a free image to replace the file, but if text, or a link to a different article can replace the image then the link or text should be used. NFCC#3 refers to minimal usage, both in the size of the image, number of articles where the image is used. How can the removal be detrimental if there isnt any sourced discussion about the contents of the image? (NFCC#8) Werieth (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you suggest your reader doesn't understand a policy then you should link to the document describing that policy and not patronize her with a document you say "attempts" to explain the policy (it doesn't - it merely summarise part of the policy to do with criteria). As for the rest I don't frankly think there's any point wasting my time repeating what I have to say about this. I shall watch the file and archive this discussion. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. There is no critical discussion about what it looked like when Hitler visited the exhibition. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "It" being the Willrich and Hansen installation, I take it? Neither is there "critical discussion" about what it looked like in the other two uncontested rationale. Do you dispute the image is contextually significant? That it doesn't aid understanding?

Can I ask you, Stefan, in future to adopt what is accepted good practice in Wikipedia - rather than just referring to WP:NFCC#8, please pipe it with a description thus contextual significance, so that we may better and more immediately assess what your objection actually is. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That clause is more than just contextual significance. One can have contextual significance, and still not meet #8. #8 has two parts, meeting the first is almost always achievable, however the second part and the part that is most often ignored is the most crucial part. The easiest way to see if an image meets #8 is to ask why does this article require this image? Werieth (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The heading is "contextual significance". This is what we (and especially those of new to these discussions) want from Stefan, an indication of what is at stake. I did challenge Stefan on "aiding understanding". Of course this image does that as it displays an example of the kind of art work that was regarded as degenerate. If Stefan wants to pipe it as contextual significance and aid to understanding that's fine with me too. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I find that piping stuff just makes things more confusing. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2014

Yes, but that's just you bleating along isn't it Werieth? The fact is that experienced editors do pipe links to help others not so familiar with the material. That you don't is, I suspect, because you want to preserve the argot of a privileged few. It's an amazing conceit is it not? A few pages of guidance the likes of which are routinely assimilated in their dozen of pages every day by administrators such as civil servants and the like (not only lawyers ...) here assumes the status of a cult. What nonsense! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Werieth's point is right -just because we have a main article space on contextual significance doesn't mean that it directly applies to NFCC's take on it. (It has long been an "issue" that WP's notability policy is not congruent with a standard dictionary entry, but we deal with that). So there's no need to link to a non-WP-space page to talk about policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't construe this Masem. Can you point me to the "issue" please? Are you saying that WP:NFCC non-free content criteria is not applicable? Eh "not congruent with a standard dictionary entry" [new to Google] (yah, we both like Firefox)? Likewise "so there's no need to link to a non-WP-space page to talk about policy and guidelines"? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that NFCC is critical, but the content of the mainspace Wikipedia article contextual significance has no immediate bearing on how to handle NFCC#8. So don't try to use what contextual significance says to try to argue NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Or to the main point - WP:NFCC#8 is a sufficient link for pointing anyone to the proper policy page and making it clear it is proper policy page. Using easter egg links confuses the matter when policy is the core issue. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are perhaps being satirical or something regarding red-linked contextual significance? Feel free to push some of whatever that is you're on down to me on port 563 (I'm doing a couple of Stellas and two thirds of a bottle of Morrison's cheapest Chardonnay before beddy byes, but I could definitely use something more congruent with totally losing it). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Or to the main point - WP:NFCC#8 is a sufficient link for pointing anyone to the proper policy page and making it clear it is proper policy page. Using easter egg links confuses the matter when policy is the core issue. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Easter eggs" being code for something you pick up on Silk Road perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth mentioning I think that this is a file that was first uploaded by Tyrenius, an active and committed member of the visual arts project interested in the coverage of women artists, in 2007, and that he/she is on a wikibreak presently and hasn't been notified about the issue. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

I've also established that the photograph appeared in the 17 July 1937 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (see here). This newspaper was the official organ of the Nazi party and I think it's quite possible it's in the public domain. At any rate there's a Völkischer Beobachter category at Commons with one of its two files widely reproduced in projects. I'm aware that Stefan2 is far too busy tagging files for deletion to actually do anything constructive in the way of maintaining them, but if he could perhaps confirm the PD status of the file I will transfer it (along with others from the source) to Commons as a service to the community before I retire (as I mention on my Talk page I'm retiring from editing Wikipedia, no longer one of the 100 things I want to do before I die, because of Stefan's harassment and stalking). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why we have the commons:Commons:Hirtle chart to figure things out. If we know published in '37, as a foreign work (and yes, Nazi publications are still considered to be eligible for copyright by Germany), and if we assume that it never meet the US copyright requirements (markings, etc.), then it would be public domain if it was in Germany's PD by 1996. Germany's copyright is creator life + 70 years, which means that the creator would have had to died in 1926 to make this even a chance of PD, which of course is impossible. So that defaults to 95 years from publication date, which is 2032. So this is a non-free image. (And I did check the two photos in that category in commons and both "claim" the life+70 term but give no evidence for that, but I'd need to check more. Remember, Commons, too, does not have a automatic license check process so just because something is at commons doesn't mean it is a proper image use). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I'm certainly aware that photographs dated as early as 1890 or even earlier can still be in copyright. I was thinking more along the lines that by 1937 the Nazi party was in fact governing in Germany and thought possibly there's some deal with government works being in PD. I might check with Commons if I have time tonight. No doubt Stefan2 in his emanation as Stefan4 will be flagging those two Commons files for deletion. A huge result for him because the second appears in dozens of Wikiprojects! I trust he will have the courtesy to thank me for the heads-up. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already actually tagged that category at commons as questionable due to the logic above (both images are 1930s, so same logic says no earlier than 1920 PD). Note that nom'ing the category is not asserting deletion, and I'm sure in the case of one of those images that if it is found to be not PD that commons folks will inform and help upload the image to projects that can support the image under their appropriate EDP - there's no requirement that whatever happens on commons has to be broadcasted to all other projects. And the act of maintain non-free and making sure works that are reported stated as free are truly is in no way harassment or stalking, it's a requirement to keep our noses legally clean. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pity. Not one to turn a blind eye then, eh Masem. I doubt either image will make their way through the English exemption doctrine policy because of §15 in the section "on unacceptable use of images: "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the Wikipedia article in textual form, with a citation to the newspaper article". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of one as the identifying cover image would be acceptable (also to note that we'd avoid the legible text issue by reducing the resolution), that wouldn't be in question if they turned out non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed that's true. On reflection I thinks it's a significant issue for the reasons expressed by the Bavarian Ministry of Finance, so I would support deletion from Commons and re-using on a Fair Use rationale. I'll watch the issue and deal with it as appropriate (I've copied the second image and documentation to my files) i.e. if I'm still here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I researched the position. This article refers. It appears that the copyright of Völkischer Beobachter is held by the Bavarian Fiance Ministry, who own the copyright on works by its publisher Eher-Verlag, and who do defend their copyright vigorously: "The ministry owns the copyright to publications by the Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag, which include National Socialist newspapers such as the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff as well as "Mein Kampf," and has refused to allow reproduction of the titles. It justifies its decision by arguing that straightforward reprints without critical remarks could be used by neo-Nazis for propaganda purposes. Germany's influential Central Council of Jews has also condemned the republication of the Nazi papers by Zeitungszeugen." Over to Stefan then, good luck with it Sfan ... erm, on the whole better don't let on you heard it from me first ... cheers (*finger to side of nose*).

Or another thing we could do Masem is just sort of forget we know anything about this and upload File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg to Commons ourselves! Someone with your authority might just get away with it. I'll see how it goes with those two other files and maybe do it myself. One in, all in, eh, as we are wont to say in good old Britannia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Big Lots.svg

Moved here thanks to AnomieBOT.

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy #1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Added a free equivalent to the article in this edit and which was reverted in this edit by an IP editor who wishes to assert that the SVG version is superior. Well it is superior, but it's also non-free, and I would much prefer someone do an SVG version of the JPEG picture I uploaded instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a text logo, which is insufficiently original to be copyrighted. Cnilep (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you even take a look at the image replacement? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I did not. My comment relates only to 'Big Lots.svg' as a logo. Masem's comment below seems to supersede my (comparatively uninformed) point. Cnilep (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The Big Lots logo is uncopyrightable, but I do see that the SVG here is one pulled from Brands of the World, and so it is questionable if that SVG is "free" since it was created by someone else (SVG, being XML at its heart, could be copyrighted at the code level). The JPG is free and a suitable replacement for now. It would be best to have someone (like the graphics lab) remake the SVG cleanly so that we can clearly claim it is a free image, and then replace the JPG with that. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, I would also like to have someone from the Graphics Lab create their own SVG rendering of the JPG I uploaded, but for now can we replace the small SVG with the larger JPG since it already fails NFCC #1? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I agree with all of Masem's points. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, the JPG should replace the possibly-non-free SVG until a for-certain free SVG can be made. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Savatage group.jpg

Although the rationale lacks replaceability information, speedy deletion was earlier declined on the basis that the band no longer performs together. The article does contain free images of the various band members, though. I'm not sure if an image showing all members is necessary. If consensus says it is, the rationale should be updated. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A non-free group shot of a disbanded group can be reasonable, particularly if it helps to capture the visual appear/style the group wanted to present, even if each individual member can be captured by free media separately. However, this should be a factor discussed in the article. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Old-gmpte-logo.png

Is this {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As it is based on the UK, it's going to be non-free here even if the US would consider it non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Commons. It only has to be PD in the U.S. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Blatant abuse of of NFCC, usage of non-free media in a list, and are missing rationales. Ive attempted to enforce policy but Spshu‎ (talk · contribs) has insisted in edit warring and to violate WP:NFCC to keep these logos. Werieth (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Blatant false claim of NFCC. "usage of non-free media in a list" is only a guideline not the 10 points of the policy. He has only point out that NFCC#8 applied in denying. To which was replied:

One image cannot meet "8. Contextual significance." or "3. Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." in a multi-organizational article as one logo cannot represent all these organizations. So, your statement isn't true that it "doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations." Spshu (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am point out that multiple images in an article does meet WP:NFCC#8 (the item you claimed above is the one reason for the rejection) particularly in this case. Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own "contextual significance". Item 3 specify and directly denies your statement: "As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid." as it does allow multiple image to be used. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy item NFCC#8 was met with Werieth unable to defend it further. Thusly, Werieth, doesn't really care what the policy really states because he has a preset notion and cannot seem to deviate when the policy would actually dictate multiple images.

The missing rationales would be in effect provide by the articles being redirect per item 10 footnote 1: "A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale." Spshu (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple note, we dont include logos in multi-organizational articles. We only include logos in the article about the company, If the company cannot support its own article we cannot justify inclusion of their logo. At last check there where 3 logos of the current 6 that do not have a valid rationale. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So the "we" is the royal we of Werieth. Sorry, you have not been able to point to any policy to that effect. Secondly, I am in the process of making them redirects. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1,3,8. You dont include a file until it has a rationale (10c). I doubt you can find a similar article that has such usage of non-free media. Ill just step back now and let others hammer policy into your head since you refuse to listen to me. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about NFCC 1,3,8. There are 1. "No free equivalent." given that organizations are active have right (c & TM) to their logo, so they met NFCC 1. Meets 3a. "Minimal number of items." as no one image can represent all organization in the list and the article doesn't exceed 1 image per organization. I assume since the images have not been removed under 3b after upload (as I did not upload them and they have been upload for a while) that they met 3b. As far as item 8 as before: "Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own 'contextual significance'." Spshu (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"No image" is a suitable free replacement for a logo of a non-notable (read: no stand-alone page) organization (by not having a standalone page, there is no requirement to have an image to identify the group), and by not using logos of non-notable organizations, we meed NFCC#8. The article is still understood by the removal of the logos, since there's no discussion about the images themselves. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"'No image" is a suitable free replacement for a logo of a non-notable (read: no stand-alone page) organization" No image doesn't replacement for logo that is just a lack of logo. Else then no copyrightable or trademark logo even on a notable organization's page would not be allowed if "no image is a suitable free replacement" as they would all fail NFCC#1.

Images are "worth a thousand words". "(by not having a standalone page, there is no requirement to have an image to identify the group)". Wereith could not point to this "requirement" either, since NFCC#1 as you and he read it would NOT permit any images what so ever on any pages on WP. An image as they say is worth a thousand words, so discussion of the logo isn't necessarily since you can see them. Also the logo are discussed on very few articles that are notable. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a standard exception about logos in the article about the company as it is the primary visual identification for that company and thus 1 image is normally allowed without discussion of the logo itself. If you take a look at WP:NFC#cite_note-2 gives a basic overview. When you look at the article as a whole (which must be done) it breaks down to a list of groups with marginal notability and a blurb about them. No where in policy does it say you can include logos in articles that are not that companies article. In fact WP:LOGOS asserts the exact opposite. When assessing the article as whole none of the logos come close to meeting NFCC#8. Werieth (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg

I found a black-and-white version of the logo in the 1920 work Story of the Knights of Columbus Pilgrimage by P. H. Kelly. I wonder (1) whether the image contained in this file is {{PD-US}} or (2) whether it is a derivative work of a {{PD-US}} image that is not sufficiently creative to obtain its own copyright. (In any event, the SVG will likely have to be remade.) RJaguar3 | u | t 20:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

Does this article really need 6 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The six files would seem to be the three entitled "On September 9, 2013, an internal NSA presentation on iPhone Location Services was leaked by Der Spiegel" and the three "In February 2014, The Intercept and NBC News released several GCHQ documents detailing the agency's propaganda and deception tactics". Can you clarify please where you think these breach the English Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy.

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need images of the nearly-all text files to talk about the content of the programs - eg, the publication by sources like Der Spiegel is sufficient validation to prove they exist, and the content of these slides have been or can be summarized in text (they fail NFCC#1 as text can be used to replace these) In addition, while Der Spiegel and others published them, they likely did it without permission/consent of the NSA, and thus these should be considered failing previous legal publication (NFCC#4, previous publication). Now, arguably the core NSA files would fall under PD-USGov, but again, they have not been published by that organization formally, so even if "free" they would fail copyright policy. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• The three images under British Crown Copyright appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: easily replaceable by text, and the article can easily be understood without the images (so removal wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the article).
• The three Iphone images also appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, for the same reasons. All of them are used in three different articles, and they appear to fail both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in those articles too. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the three iPhone images should go. One of the GCHQ slides can stay as a historically significant image imho. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Polonium.jpg

Can the usage of this image really be justified on 5 articles when it has its own stand alone article? Werieth (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm inclined to wonder what this image might add to an article, other than in its stand alone article. Course there can't be too may imges of Polonium around, scary stuff. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This image, then used in four articles, was listed for review on 30 Aug 2013 and closed as a keep on 6 Oct 2013, here. As far as I can see, the grounds for its use in a fifth article are identical. There are 344 articles that mention polonium. The five articles that use this image do so in order to illustrate their elusive subject matter, either self-referentially (polonium article) or in the context of related chemical elements (chalcogen; metalloid; p-block; and other metal articles). As per prior review, there is no free equivalent. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous review focused on the replaceability of the image, not necessarily how it was used. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Journal

This page should only need one cover, not three. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be there at all. I'm fed up with all these guru pages on Wikipedia. Someone should start an approved account to get rid of them all, they really should. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I see it survived a speedy delete, I'd better strike. I agree it only needs the one cover for visual identification. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It didn't, although an administrator decided to redirect the page instead of deleting it. The original author later recreated the article by removing the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I do actually think the defence that it's a bona fide journal is fair, but it's hard to find a convincing cite for notability. Gurdjieff himself of course a noted figure. I though this iffy researching incidentally File:Georgi Ivanovitch Gurdjieff -- The Man, The Teaching, His Mission.jpg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If the original author recreated the article from the admin-closed decision without seeking review to recreate or essentially recreating the same article, that's something that can be speedily undone (it's a CSD allowance) --MASEM (t) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the admin that redirected it to get his take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, but I shan't initiate that. Years ago I knew a rather brilliant lawyer totally into Gurdjieff. He's passed on of course, but perhaps he was right all along up there dancing in the fourth sphere. I've never understood how fantastically brilliant people can fall for this kind of stuff (Isaac Newton himself is an example) - probably I lack imagination, certainly the genius :(. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ray of Creation absolutely brill, Masem. Not to be missed and don't even think about tagging it (Morrison's plonk getting to me a bit earlier than usual ..., sorry). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Waheed murad.JPG

This file is being used in Waheed Murad. It was extracted from File:66arman1.jpg, which is used in Armaan (1966 film), a film that Waheed Murad stars in. Could the latter file be used for both articles? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To reduce non-free , it would definitely be better to use the latter in two articles instead of including the separate crop - making it clear that this is from the film and naming the co-star, on the presumption that this is the role the deceased actor is best known/recognized for. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Girls Generation I Got A Boy.ogg

Fails WP:NFCC#3b. Should be reduced or deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Catchy tune, though. I downloaded it off Giganews. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Houstonleones.jpg

This image is in use on the Houston Leones article, but is this the same team as that depicted on File:Houston Leones Logo.jpg which we just received OTRS permission for? If so, it would fail Wikipedia:NFCC#1. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, plainly the same team. Here's yet another logo of theirs. But there may be a valid distinction may there not between the badge worn by players and their corporate identity? It's obviously something that ought to be gone into very carefully and thoroughly researched before jumping to a rash and ill-considered conclusion as some of us are only too wont to do here. A cat may look at a queen, and equally a lion at a king TeleComNasSprVen. Never forget that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not willing to call deletion of this file immediately until I have all the facts. Usually that involves slave-driving asking some editors more knowledgable than I in the field of sports to do some research here. BTW, I read your ping on Commons but I haven't fully considered a formal response to it yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what I'm saying, that it needs to be thoroughly researched. The 'ping' would be my comments at Stefan4's ANI I expect. Do feel free to make an informal response. I'm not one to stand on ceremony. They also serve who only stand and wait. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Houston Leones incidentally is part of the Texas Premier Soccer League who got sorted by Stefan2 above. I think you might have mentioned that, especially as you were querying OTRS permission. Is there a connection? Had TPSL sent OTRS permission that query? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think OTRS permission has been received but I'm just making sure the file is connected directly to this article before I replace the current non-free image. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Russian Cavalry Entering Trabzon, 1916.png

Historical photograph. May very well be PD (depending on publication history), but would fail NFCC#8 if non-free. Random scene from a war, not in itself the subject of discussion in the article and not required to make the event adequately understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Source is claimed as Ann Ronan Picture Library, part of DW Stock Picture Library whose business is licensing images as their terms of use confirm. So that would automatically fail §2 respect for commercial opportunity if it's not itself the subject of critical commentary, except in fact I can't locate the image there. Don't think there will be much joy chasing up its PD status. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The library is probably not the copyright holder. If copyrighted, then the copyright holder would usually be the author's heir, whoever that may be. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed that's true. But the library owns or manages the image for the copyright holder and the policy is about the agency's commercial interest. But as I say I can't actually find it in the collection and I see there are people below chasing its PD status. I'll try as well. There are nix images I can find in the internet on the Trebizond Campaign, so it would be nice to try and keep it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question is indeed when this had been published for the first time. If it already entered the public domain in the United States as unpublished work, then it is in the public domain in the United States now. If it was published in Russia before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States. It might be copyrighted in the United States if it was first published in Russia after 1923 and was still copyrighted in 1996, the URAA date for Russia. If the source given in the image description was the first publication, then this is likely copyrighted. (I guess then it could only be in the public domain if the author died before 1944 per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Unpublished works, which, however, seems possible). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• As it is from 1916, it is very possible that it was published before 1923, or that it is in the public domain for some other reason. However, we would first have to identify that publication before claiming anything about its copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• The book given as source of this image is available on Google Books (here is the link), though the page with this image doesn't seem to be available. On page 89 however, there is another image from Ann Ronan Picture Library, which suggests the authors of the book obtained it from there and so this book might be the first publication. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The page you linked to says "Kein E-Book verfügbar" which I believe means that the book isn't available online, at least not through Google, and all I can see is the cover. Did you insert the wrong link? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Please try this link. The one I gave doesn't actually work for me as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, that link works (although page 95 is missing): it still says that there is no e-book available, and to prove that, Google Books shows an e-book. Weird. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Doesn't "no e-book available" simply mean it's not at Google eBooks? As for not being available on a foreign server that's quite possible. I spend a fair bit of my time in Paris and I've often noticed Google books available in the UK but not in France. That image isn't on Russian pages, incidentally. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, this is right. Google has scanned in all these books, but only some books are available as e-books for sale; those that aren't or that publishers have requested limited access have some or no preview pages available but that doesn't make those ebooks. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still, the question remains whether the book was the first publication or not which, unless proven otherwise, we should probably assume. However, it doesn't actually seem to be relevant for determining the copyright status is Russia. The question is whether it was published in Russia after 1923 and still copyrighted on the URAA date, because if not, it is in the public domain. I am not sure whether in such a case we should assume it is copyrighted unless proven otherwise (as is usually the case), or whether the chance of it being PD is high enough that we can simply assume it is PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the book was published in 2002. If the photograph was first published in 2002, then the copyright status in Russia on the URAA date doesn't matter; it will still be copyrighted until the end of 2047. The copyright status in the source country on the URAA date is only relevant if the photograph fell into the public domain in the United States at some point before 1996, which could only happen if the photograph was published at some point before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the graphical user interface

I cant see justification for 21 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Carolina Silverhawks 2014.png

Shouldn't be used twice on Carolina Silverhawks. Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Roscoeholcomb.JPG

The rationale for Roscoe Holcomb does not comply with Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what is missing from it? --MASEM (t) 20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The guideline says that a non-free use rationale should state the proportion of the work used, what purpose the work is serving in the articles where it is being used and why the same purpose cannot be achieved by properly sourced text or a free work. The rationale present on the file appears to only satisfy the last point. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The license tag says what the purpose is (and it's pretty obvious too, to identified a deceased subject). Yes, it doesn't say what portion was used, and it is the same size as the original image, but really its already a small size to not be a big issue. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Still this needs to be stated in the rationale in order for it to be a valid rationale per WP:NFURG and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So, is the consensus that this rationale brings the file into compliance with NFCC#10c in Roscoe Holcomb? If so, then I am fine with closing this discussion. It's just that I don't think this rationale is sufficient and nothing in WP:NFCC supports the claim that the license tag is a sufficient replacement for a non-free use rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Education for Death.jpg

The use in Education for Death appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. The uses in American propaganda during World War II and List of World War II short films both violate WP:NFCC#10c and appear to violate WP:NFCC#8 as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is this {{PD-US-not renewed}}? I can't find any renewal. This was made by Disney, which is not the US government, so {{PD-USGov}} is not correct. {{PD-USGov}} can only be used if the author was directly employed by the US government, not if the US government asked a private company (Disney) to employ people to create a work. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've unarchived this so we can verify this. Yes, you're right - contract work is not protected though this is what commons uses for the film. I would agree that - like other Disney shorts of that era - copyright renewal wasn't done so it probably falls in that category. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Just checking around , Spirit of '43 (another similar disney propaganda short) seems to be called in the PD though again like this one the commons images are tagged with PD-Gov. It does look like lack of renewal. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Some of the Spirit of '43 images are listed as {{PD-USGov}}, although it should be {{PD-US-not renewed}} if the file is in the public domain. The film Spirit of '43 has an additional problem: the character Donald Duck is copyrighted, so the frames showing him are unfree. This problem doesn't exist for Education for Death as that film doesn't contain any recurring characters. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1971 Surrender of Pakistan.gif

Do the uses in Bangladesh Liberation War and Victory day of Bangladesh satisfy WP:NFCC#8 considering WP:NFCI#8? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably a historical photo applicable to both pages, though I would think it is less important on the Victory day page compared to the War page. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:VCU Varsity.svg

Tagged as non-free but I think its PD-text Werieth (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree that the logo as such is PD, but from the recent discussions here and at Commons I suppose that we need an additional free licence for the SVG code. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point - even though in this case the SVG is direct from the trademark owner, a freer version made by a WPian would be better. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, the source link (which is now dead) seemed to be an EPS file so I guess the SVG was in fact created by the uploader. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      • EPS to SVG is a "mechanical" conversion (any good vector program will do this); the EPS still potentially copyright, and the mechanical conversion is not creating a new one. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's true. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
          • This confident assertion that an SVG file is potentially copyright seem to me to be an in-house ruling by the the Sfan bros raised here at Commons pump and ably answered by Fæ. What are the particular features of this SVG file that are thought to be copyrightable? Is it, for example, using non-free embedded fonts? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
            • If you correct your link to Commons, then you can read why SVGs may be independently copyrightable. This does not, however, mean that all SVGs are copyrightable, but Commons:COM:TOO contains practically no information about the matter, so it is unclear exactly how picky copyright laws are. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
              • I hyper-linked the page, thanks. I did glance through the discussion and I really didn't see anything that impacted on Fæ's able analysis. Frankly this is just another of your busy little bonny bees isn't if Stef, and while I'm content enough you to let you buzz about bossily with them in ANIs and so on, I don't see why we should necessarily buy into them here (I'm not well pleased incidentally that Masem appears to have bought into this one hook, line and stinger). To repeat per Fæ: what are the copyright issues here in this particular SVG? As for the general proposition you advance there should be plenty of precedent: every computer operating system contain routines for realising scaleable vector graphics - they've been around in Windows for example ever since (at least) the advent of TrueType fonts. Of course SVG (for precisely this kind of use with images of logos) is one of the recommended image formats mentioned in WP:IUP image use policy. I don't see screens full of relevant links when I search on "copyright implications of SVG files". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Coat of Many Colours, either stop with the borderline insults and personal attacks or I will have to escalate this. Just because you disagree with something doesnt mean that you can attack those who raise the issue. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • I intend to follow and advise Stefan on his posts here for a while. Of course I don't mean to indulge personal attack and will happily strike and apologise any such regarded. Hope that sets your mind at rest. Thank you.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                • If this SVG was just the two letters, pulled from a standard or embedded true type font and colored appropriately, yeah, that wouldn't be very creative. But I've checked the SVG (it's human-readable XML), and its clear the letters are made by a series of nodes and the like, which is "creative". The fact that at the end of the day they end up as simple letters, that doesn't change that there's creativity in how the nodes and the shapes were made out. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an SVG file per se, has it Masem? That would still be true however the image was rendered. How does it become "freer" when rendered by a WPian (who WP:IUP per guidance will be recommended to use SVG in any case). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                    • Because one can use different XML and different process to get the same result. 1+3 =4 and 2+2=4 the outcome is the same put the process to get the outcome is different. Werieth (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                      • Erm, Ill be as neutral as I can to avoid personal offence. What I want to suggest is that you're quite wrong, and when I say that I really don't in any way mean to attack you. I also don't understand it, and when I say that I don't in any way mean imply anything beyond that simply I can't follow your argument. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                        • Then let me re-phrase it since you obviously have no understanding how svg's work. One can make a square out of 4 lines, or one can use two right triangles. The outcome is the same but how it was done is different. I havent looked at the XML in this case. But going from what Masem stated its like building a square out of hundreds of Triangles, depending on how they are arranged and the complexity one can claim copyright. Another example is a large square window, one cannot copyright that, but if you do something similar to stained glass (and all the parts are clear) the outcome may look visually similar but have a completely different level of originality. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                          • Can you strike "obviously" please. Which of the 14 functionalities in SVG 1.1 do you claim is copyrightable. Please point me to Wikipedia policy on SVG copyright issues. Why does Wikipedia recommend SVG if there are copyright issues involved as you claim? At least not mention them? I can find nothing about these issues on Wikipedia that don't originate in this forum. Regarding Commons do you take issue with Fæ's analysis? That the presumption is that the underpinning script has been released on license as well? To repeat, what exactly is the copyright issue in this SVG file (in the context of Fair Use)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
                            • It's not the copyright of the SVG "commands" (here being the node and attribute names) as defined by the spec but the values (in this case, things like node positions, color values, etc.) and ordering of those commands (which shapes are above or below other shapes) that one can build out with the SVG specification that becomes copyright. The analogy is that individual words in the English language are not copyrightable, but a large enough grouping of those words can be. And it is important to note that SVG and EPS are interchangable (to a point, but EPS to SVG is direct), so that the same type of commands possible in EPS are all possible in SVG, so again it comes back to the specifics of values and ordering that play a key role. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I seem to be being quoted a lot here, so here's my particular view. The code is not creative enough in this SVG to have an independent copyright. It was generated by export from Adobe Illustrator rather than the script being independently programmed. Hence the discussion should be limited to whether putting two letters together like this would be sufficient to avoid the provisions of PD-text, in precisely the same way as if they were hand drawn on paper. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The original document is EPS - which is also human readable (not XML) and a lossless form of the logo . I completely agree that the mechanical action of going from EPS to SVG is not creative enough to create a new copyright, but the original EPS is, at its heart, programming code as much as SVG is, and thus possibly copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. You say "possibly" copyrighted, Masem, but you didn't make any such qualification when you tagged this file "but the SVG should be replaced by one made freely by a WPian under a free license, as this would make this image free". You plainly think it is copyright. But I simply can't find a source outside this forem that addresses the issue. What is your source? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been tested in any court law that I know of (either way). We know we can get this to 100% free-ness by having a WPian redo the logo themselves, so that makes the most sense to do. It could be very well as it sits the SVG file - based on the original EPS from the school itself - is free of any copyright issues, but to allow better use of this image, its a minimal bit of effort to get it to a point we can be 100% confident of it being free and go from there. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Fortunately whether an EPS is copyrighted does not affect my opinion on the SVG as it is not part of this release. --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work. We are well aware of the original EPS, so we can't ignore that it exists. And I think we do agree that the act of going from the EPS to SVG is sufficiently mechanical that it cannot introduce a new copyright. But, that said, the SVG is a derivative work of the EPS even if created by a computer algorithm (similar to copying the contents of a Word doc to plaintext or making a JPG into a PNG), and if the EPS is truly copyrighted, then so must the SVG - the mechanical translation cannot "free up" a work under copyright. As such, this SVG will have the same copyright license (if there is one) as the EPS. Of course, I may be overly cautious here that the EPS code is copyrighted, but we need to take that role in dealing with non-free/free. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:I've occasionally had to 'trace' an image into EPS. It's a pain in the butt for sure, but I would classify it as "sweat of the brow" rather than manifesting any creative endeavour on my part. When you talk about a WPian "re-doing" the logo, it seems to me logically so that she may work from the SVG image (for example tracing it), is that not so? I mean so long as she's not working from the script where you say creativity is invested. And that's where common sense tells me that's a reductio ad absurdum of your position. Just copying one faithful representation into another, a bot activity? Come on ... I'm disappointed not to be supplied with a source on this, Masem. I'll redouble my efforts looking for one. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is potential creativity involved, but whether there is or not, we can't wave that away. Let me take a different example, the File:H and R Block logo.svg which in fact is a good example as that SVG is pulled from this EPS from Brands of the World [14]. Now, I've just checked the SVG in text, and it does NOT use embedded fonts, but that's likely been done to improve portability. Irregadless, the way to construct that logo accurately within a vectoring program is very very limited - it is a green block and a text string. The logo itself is free, and the instructs to create that logo via EPS and SVG would be too simple to be considered copyrightable. So while Brands of the World provides that EPS, there's likely no way they can claim any copyright on it because of the overall simplicity of both the graphical aspect and the SVG/EPS aspect. Thus that SVG can be tossed over to the Commons wall without too much concern.

On this logo, the letters do not appear to be from any common font, not with the wobbly outline. That doesn't make the graphic logo copyrightable - it still just a textfaces with simple graphics, but to replicate that wobbly effect, in EPS or SVG, one would have to plant all the nodes and the spline settings to match the curve up reasonable well. And that effort is beyond just simple block text or lettering. That could be done by a mouse trace from a raster graphic, but as the process from going from raster to vector, by definition, introduces more information, that would be possibly copyrighted. It is best for us to do that process so we can say 100% that every part of the image is under a free license as we say already on the H&R Block logo.

And what you're looking for is the concept of slavish reproduction, in terms of copyright law. Taking a 2D picture of a 2D work of art cannot create a new copyright on the photo, since capturing the image is an automatic process that introduces no new creativity. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And to reiterate - I am playing a very cautious side here; we have something that may have a non-free element, and a way forward that easily removes that non-free element to make the work completely in the free, so I would rather us see the image taken that way than make a wrong assumption. If there is clear reason that can be shown that the underlying human-readable code of a vector graphic aren't copyrightable, GREAT, we can end the issue, but my searching has shown that its very unclear. Per US Copyright law "A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result" (which EPS/SVG exactly falls into), and computer programs have copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears similar to arguing that a woodcut print on paper cannot be considered a 2D work because the woodcut that created it is 3D. My opinion on the SVG that has been uploaded is not changed by what you have added. The SVG is too simple to be copyrighted, regardless of how complex the tools, programmes or manual procedures that created it might have been, compared to typing it into a text editor. --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To play with that analogy, we are saying that the 2D image on paper, pressed out from the woodcut, would be uncopyrightable due to simplicity and thus free - no problem (and that analogy here is if we were only dealing in raster images, we'd have passed the free requirement long ago). What the issue is that there are multiple way to create the 3D woodcut(s) that all at the end of the day would all create the same exact 2D imprint, but some of these may use complicated tricks of the trade to get there. As such the one woodcut we have chosen to make that image - which was made by someone else - may have compilations, but if I make my own woodcut I can control how that is used and if I want anyone to freely use it, great. Basically we are offering source code when we offer SVG, and that code has a separate copyright consideration on the output it produces. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, then as you have dropped the tangential idea of the copyright of an EPS which has not been uploaded, we are left only with this SVG. Anyone who opens the SVG in a text editor can see it is too simple to introduce any copyright issue in its own right. The only copyright anyone need concern themselves with is the image itself and whether it can be PD-text, precisely the same as if it were drawn on paper by hand. --Fæ (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I never dropped that. The EPS-->SVG concept in the analogy is that you created an exacted molded imprint of someone else's work , say, in plastic instead of wood, but without imparting any creativity in the transformation so that the wood and plastic "woodcuts" produce the same 2D imprint. The plastic "woodcut" is a derivative work of the original wood cut and cannot be free, unless the original woodcut was also free (and here, I've been saying of the EPS can be determined to be free, we're all set). And there is no way a file with nearly 100k of text, including about 130 "path" commands, can be considered simple and uncopyrigthable. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And to compare that file to the analogy - I know how to vector, and this vector needs no more than 3 paths to be rendered appropriately in SVG (the V, and the two parts of the C), so that's a point to show how there's multiple ways that the same "imprint" can be made from multiple different codes. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for the File:H and R Block logo.svg example. That was interesting, appreciated. Lost you both on woodcuts. To return to the issue of this file, Werieth started the review by assering it's a PD-text copyright-free logo (c.f. WP:LOGO). I would say it is not because as far as I know the characters don't come from a standard typeface or a free font and in any case there is creativity involved in their use in the design. You on the other hand Masem, must agree with Werieth, because you raise the possibility of the file being free, were it not for your scruples about the SVG script being possibly copyrightable. I say there are no issues there that I am aware of and asked you to provide a source: the only one I am aware of is (so to speak), 'in-house' at SVG's are computer software? initiated by ViperSnake151. Viper notes there that Stefan has raised this issue in the past and a consensus should be reached. I don't see that a consensus has been reached there and with the exception of Fæ (no I don't have shares in him, honest) I don't think it's attracted sufficient attention from the well-known players in the field for me to be satisfied that there is consensus. I think that's a fair summary of the situation and on that basis I would say, Masem, that the second half say of your confident tag "Note that the logo itself is free (fails threshold of originality in US) but the SVG should be replaced by one made freely by a WPian under a free license, as this would make this image free" is beyond your remit as a Wikipedia user because there simply isn't consensus about that (and we disagree anyway about the first half, but possibly I need to defer there). I do think you need to edit that for clarification. This is what I mean when I complain about Stefan making it up as he goes along.

Concerning the analogy with the decision in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. that's not how the law works. It's not a precedent because the scope is very different. What was at issue there was the use of a particular font, not the rendering of logos in general. There is a question of efficiency in rendering a font and the decision was that creativity was involved in selecting nodes to render the font efficiently.

I see there are two other SVG files that have been approved with the {{non-free reviewed}} template File:Prince logo.svg and File:Ivy League logo.svg, both of them attracting review and tomorrow I'll research these and comment here as may be.

Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of creativity in layer the V over the C is, in the US, nowhere close enough to apply to copyright. And because it is just two characters, with no significant artistic merit, it fails non-free. So if the image were JPEG or PNG, we'd have marked it PD-logo and moved on.

And the problem is that as you site the Adobe case - there is no precedence that works either way that we can base a decision here. We can say that SVG code - being XML and thus considered computer code just like HTML can be - may be copyrightable. We can't say it is but we can't say it isn't. Hence creating SVG code that is free clearly that would generate an uncopyrightable image would be in our best interest to make this completely free.

And to say that I cannot identify what the problem steps are as a WPian user is BS. I've been handling non-free for 6 years - I know most of the right steps that need to be done to free up imagery as much as possible to get out of the non-free issue if it can be done. I'm absolutely in my right to suggest that we make the freest image possible to avoid any copyright hassle that might come from this logo, even if later it is shown that the core EPS/SVG file to start was actually free. Until we know that, we have a route to make something more free. Does this mean this SVG needs to be deleted immediately? No - its fine in the two places listed. But as part of our free content mission, we have a way to make this 100% free without waiting on the question if the original EPS is free (which may be unanswerable until there is case law to test it), so lets take the path of assuredness to get to a free image.

The two SVGs you point out are going to be non-free because the resulting graphic is going to be non-free, even if the SVG code could be considered free, so since it can never be free (until copyright expires) it doesn't make any sense to try to make the SVG free. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I said I'd be prepared to defer to you over the originality, though I don't in fact agree (neither do I really the very clever Tech Tower campaign logo below (however I assumed good faith and templated that last file accordingly).

I've told you before Masem that I respect what you do. Your response here is quite agressive. Don't make me feel I'm walking over cracked eggs when I'm responding to you. Forgive me, but it seems very clear to me that when you say "we", you in fact mean "Stefan and me". It's you who both are raising the issue about SVG scripts being copyrightable. Frankly it looks OR to me (I defer on BS). Once again, will you please give me a RS outside this forum which tackles the issue. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your take on this (which incidentally is a direct refraction of my "sweat of the brow" argument that there is no originality) in Threshold_of_originality#Reproductions_of_public_domain_works: "Another court case related to threshold of originality was the 2008 case Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. In this case, the court ruled that wire-frame computer models of Toyota vehicles were not entitled to additional copyright protection since the purpose of the models was to faithfully represent the original objects without any creative additions."Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. (2008)" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-09-22.

It's cited here at Commons pump thus: "A U.S. federal appellate case, 5 years after Adobe Systems v. Southern Software, seems to say that there is not copyrightable originality in vectorizations that are intended to directly reproduce an existing work. en:Threshold of originality#Reproductions of public domain works mentions this case, Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, decided in 2008, in which Meshwerks' wire-frame model-based copy of a Toyota vehicle did not entitle Meshwerks to any copyright protection on the Meshwerks model. Meshwerks, a subcontractor of a subcontractor in a Toyota advertising campaign, took extensive measurements to insure correct reproduction. An excerpt from the ruling:

Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright...

This was despite the computer model being accepted for copyright registration; though Meshwerks only filed for copyright after non-registration caused the case to be dismissed the first time. --Closeapple (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)"

That, to me, clearly shows the mechanical conversion from the original EPS to SVG - done without any creativity - does not create a new copyright. I would also argue that that case shows that the act of vectoring a logo that is PD in as close to a faithful reproduction as possible is not going to create a new copyright. The distinction in this case is that this logo, the original working image is an EPS provided by the same people that created the logo - and that begs the question if the logo was created because it was made in the EPS and then used like that (making the EPS copyrights for sure), or if the logo existing in a inked form, and they later vectored the EPS version from that (the vector version likely not copyrighted). This again points to that if we make our own vector image off the raster version of the logo, we eliminate the question of their EPS, the only element in this equation that begs if this is a non-free file or not. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

a discussion you perhaps know of because Stefan contributed to it? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't construe that Masem. I'm done here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So if you don't want to learn and understand the complexities of copyright law (which no one has said is simple; it is, bluntly, a fucking mess) then its best not to try to get in the way of proper discussion of it. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well again that's agressive and disappointing, Masem. It's certainly juvenile. The essence of copyright law in the US, for all its fucking messiness, is straightforward, that originality is the sine non qua of copyright and this is the basis of the judgment in Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales. You must know this judgement and that it's relevant case law (not least because it's mentioned in Threshold of originality#Reproductions of public domain works) because by implication above you at least do seek to understand the complexities of copyright law. Yet in the course of this thread you claimed "It hasn't been tested in any court law that I know of (either way)". Really? As for myself I'm just seeking to defend my uploads. The image on the right at the top in that link to my user page is the image that your protégé Stefan4 wanted to delete because it was a sculpture in his opinion and the photographer had rights:

(c.f Meshwerke C: "Digital modeling can be, surely is being, and no doubt increasingly will be used to create copyrightable expressions. Yet, just as photographs can be, but are not per se, copyrightable, the same holds true for digital models. There’s little question that digital models can be devised of Toyota cars with copyrightable features, whether by virtue of unique shading, lighting, angle, background scene, or other choices. The problem for Meshwerks in this particular case is simply that the uncontested facts reveal that it wasn’t involved in any such process, and indeed contracted to provide completely unadorned digital replicas of Toyota vehicles in a two-dimensional space. For this reason, we do not envision any “chilling effect” on creative expression based on our holding today, and instead see it as applying to digital modeling the same legal principles that have come, in the fullness of time and with an enlightened eye, to apply to photographs and other media".

I don't think you have achieved a consensus here. I do hope I don't have to come back here, Masem. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, that applies to the idea that taking the exact data that was in the EPS file from VCT, and simply "redoing" it to make the SVG file has no creative effort and thus there no new copyright in that stage. Even the act of processing that date to create the raster image is non-creative. Or in a hypothetical case, if I found an EPS file with a CC-BY-NC (non-commercial) license, I personally could not convert that to SVG via mechanical means and then license the resulting SVG under commercial-allowance licence; my "derivative work" has no new copyrights that I can define - the case that we have with Meshworks. On the other hand - were I to flatten the EPS down to a raster image, and then use a vectoring program to place nodes and the like by eye to come up with an SVG file that generates an image that closely matches the original logo, but not using exact information from the EPS, then I likely have done enough creative work to make the SVG code copyrightable in any way I want.

The problem that we have is not covered by Meshworks - we have the copyright owner of the logo who has provided their logo as (for all purposes) a computer program, themselves, in the form of an EPS file. If there is any copyrights in that EPS file, they will be with VCT. And any derivative "computer program" from that EPS file will hold VCT's copyright with no new copyright by the person doing the conversion. And this simply isn't a case that has suitable case law behind it to to know how it works. I'd love to be completely wrong and that the EPS file, since it generates an uncopyrightable image would be uncopyrightable itself, but we simply don't have enough information to assert this. But I am certain that we have the ability to make an image that is 100% certainly free by making an SVG from a raster version of the logo and putting that out as a CC-BY license. Hence why I stand by the decision that we simply make the SVG ourselves (an easy task for the Graphics Lab) and take any questionable non-free aspects out of the picture. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ. I think you're wasting people's time at graphics lab. And you don't have consensus here. I might well at some future date test the waters over at Commons by transferring this file. Indeed why don't you, Masem? You know that thing about actually opening a horse's mouth and counting how many teeth it has? What would be your take on the Nike logo over there for example - that looks pretty curvy to me, loads of creative potential for sliding round your French curves there (remember those?) Don't necessarily count on me back to assess it, though. The log-out button looks pretty enticing to me. I know a dead horse when I see it, however many teeth it's still got.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nike logo - as a raster image - is too simple for copyright, yes. That file, an SVG, was created by a WPian (HernandoJoseAJ), and as best I can tell, from trace-vectoring the swish on their own, so that avoids any possible issue that we're having here where we're starting from VCT's possibly-copyrighted EPS file and making the SVG from it. We would be in the same boat with the Nike SVG if it was a mechanical conversion of Nike's own EPS version of the file, which doesn't at all appear to be the case. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understood that about "simple" (though I suspect Carolyn Davidson may have a different view - the deletion debate was erm ... deep). As for the blanked page WPian Commonsaut Commons:User:HernandoJoseAJ, he only confesses to uploading it. I suspect that's probably because so many of his SVG uploads have been deleted. Give me a few days while I write up a bio for Mary Ebbetts Hunt and then I'll transfer this file to Commons and see what happens: instruct the graphics lab to stop their press Cray, whatever they use over there. It'll be a gas! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If the uploader falsified his contribution, that's an issue that needs to be resolved. In contrast File:NIH_logo.svg is completely fine - the user states (AGF) he created the image in a vectoring program, not converted, so that's 100% free (both from the case of the SVG-as-computer program and the resulting image as too simple for copyright). --MASEM (t) 18:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, Masem. Interested and appreciated. I do have to wean myself off this thread (does Wikipedia do rehab?) but I'm interested by "too simple for copyright". I would say the central artefact is not simple. Who decides that? Who gets to decide that? Recall that one of your colleagues here recently suggested that abstract works by the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian (in reality one of the most technically accomplished graphic artists ever) were too simple to be copyrightable. As for the second bit, we have been through that - whether the vectorisation is done by a computer program or by hand (you would say selecting node points by hand for Bezier splines is a creative process per Adobe, is that right?) I say if the result is faithful 2D representation then Meshwerks establishes the SVG content is not copyrightable. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless it is challenged in a court of law, there is no absolute set of rules of when originality is met or not. This is why commons provides advice on the threshold of originality on the few cases where case law has occurred on examples to show how to interpret the threshold of originality in various countries. Note a lot of other discussions on this page are questions on whether logos do fall that way, so that's all using opinion to judge which way it falls, with unsure cases remaining copyrighted. And as for the other question, there is also no absolute case that affirms or denies the act of vectoring a raster impact creates a new copyright or not. Meshwerks says the mechanical conversion of absolute data (Toyata's measurements) into a wireframe mesh is not a new copyright, but what if it was the case that Meshwerks were not give the measurements and had to make their own guesses from photos and the like? Would that be copyright? That case doesn't say either way. It may very well be that because they stayed as close to the original that it is a slavish reproduction and is their version cannot carry a new copyright, which applying to here would mean it's free. But that's not a clear answer to go by for us. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Masem. You're a very conscientious respondent and I do appreciate it. As I understand it Meshwerks covered a Toyata in tape and took their own measurements. I suppose you could argue that creativity was involving selecting which tape dots to measure, but that evidently wasn't what the court thought. I don't think it's very likely they would have use guestimates. The decision is about "unadorned digital replicas" (some example images in that PDF). I take that to imply "faithful representation" in the case of copying a logo. Argue that another time, as I dare say you might. Thank you for your time and patience. I'll probably be back :(. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On reflection perhaps it would be a bit dickish to transfer the file on my own account and anyway I don't think I have the energy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From the tone of the last few comments, I think this discussion is exhausted. Masem, as you are an admin I expect you to be the one leading a consensus process. I guess it's your call to decide if a consensus is now reached. My opinion is as above. --Fæ (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I left it - still marked non-free, requesting that a free version for replacement but otherwise okay on the two articles its used in - that I think meets everything I've said here. I would lot if the freeness of VCT's EPS was clearly there but there's enough gotchas in copyright law to make this the throne in the side. But since we can bypass the issue, it should be done. That said, I know the graphics lab is somewhat backed up so rushing to delete this makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:CFL MTL Jersey.png

This shouldn't be on the "season" pages. This is essentially the same problem as the one described in WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:CFL SSK Jersey.png

This shouldn't be on the "season" pages. This is essentially the same problem as the one described in WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia76ers.PNG

Violates WP:NFCC#3 as the image is used twice in the article: once in the infobox and a second time in a gallery (see also WP:NFG). RJaguar3 | u | t 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The version used in the infobox is actually File:Philadelphia 76ers Logo.svg. The version in the gallery further down, if inappropriately used, should be deleted at FFD in the manner done by yourself with File:Philadelphia 76ers.svg. Thank you. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia76ers2.png

If this is not a {{PD-logo}}; the image is a blatant WP:NFCC#8 violation in Dolph Schayes and a violation of WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 violation (as well as WP:NFG) in Philadelphia 76ers. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The placement of the blue star circle above the pink numeral might be regarded as an artistic step by the United States copyright office. Whether it might be enough for them to register the logo, or not and they would just regard it as two numerals and some simple geometric shapes lacking the creative and artistic authorship required for registration I am not sure. I'd say we should choose the safe path and treat it as NFC (like it's currently tagged) and as such should remove it from Dolph Schayes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a misprint of File:Flag of Europe.svg (one star to much) above two digits. I would guess that it isn't copyrightable. Also, as a pre-1978 logo, it was presumably published without copyright notice somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:New VCU Rams Logo.png

A PD-text copyright-free logo (c.f. WP:LOGO)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Horn twist at the end pushes over the originality line. Fine as a logo on the pages indicated in the non-free rationals. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Electric Car Corporation logo.png

This looks too simple to meet TOO , Country of origin? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ECC is UK, but the simple negative flip of one letter I don't think is sufficient for sweat of the brow there, and this should be okay as PD-text. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Patrick Abercrombie.jpg

This was being used on the subject's biography page, but I have found and uploaded an image (File:Patrick Abercrombie, 1945.png) taken as a screen grab from the 1945 Ministry of Information film The Proud City - A Plan for London. The film was produced by the British government and crown copyright of it has expired. Consequently the existing image is no longer required for the purpose it was being used.--DavidCane (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)