Wikipedia:Non-free content review

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

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

This page used to be used for:

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

After a community discussion, it was decided to shut down this process. This was due to files not receiving the attention they needed and confusion about whether to use this page or WP:Files for discussion. All of the above issues should instead be nominated at WP:Files for discussion.

Discussions started before this forum's closure are still shown below, and need to be closed by willing administrators.

How to nominate[edit]

Please do not nominate any files at this page. Instead, see WP:Files for discussion for instructions.

How to close[edit]

When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 30 days have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure.

Closing the discussion[edit]

Make sure to substitute both archive templates. Closed discussions will be archived by ClueBot III.

Media action[edit]

Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media file page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If there is no consensus after a reasonable amount of time has passed, use the {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} tag instead.

If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example:

  • If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{subst:nsd}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{subst:nld}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{subst:frn}} template to the media page.

If an article is tagged, follow the same steps individually on each offending image, and remove the Non-free review template from the page.


edit guidelines


File:Cityscape I 360.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles ending with the word 'painting': the file is not actually critically discussed in any of the articles, and WP:NFC#UUI §6 tells that you should just link to the main article (Bay Area Figurative Movement) instead. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Important work by an important artist used where it should be used...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
If it is an "important work", then that should be able to be sourced and included in the articles about the types of paintings, as to satisfy NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Done...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I still see no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance in those articles, although the painting is now mentioned in some of them. This looks like a prime example of the situation described in WP:NFC#UUI §6 where linking to the article Bay Area Figurative Movement is the correct solution. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Waldi, Olympic logo 1972.png[edit]

Image is used in Waldi, 1972 Summer Olympics#Medals awarded and Dachsund#Symbol of Germany, but only has a non-free rationale for "Waldi" and "Dachsund". "Waldi" is the image's Wikipedia article so I can understand its use there. I am, however, not so sure that the other articles satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly fine at Waldi, and definitely not at Dachsund. I would not accept its present use at the '72 games page but there could be if more sourced discussion about it could be added. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine in all cases. There is discussion of the use of Waldi as the mascot in Dachshund#Symbol of Germany, and I think the reader's understanding is enhanced by seeing the picture of Waldi rather than just a text description of him. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Association des Scouts du Rwanda 1980s.png[edit]

Image is being used in Association des Scouts du Rwanda. I removed the image per WP:NFCC#8 with this edit since it wasn't being discussed at all in article other than this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one." No source was cited in support of this, so it seemed to me to be OR, at least in a Wikipedia sense. Image was re-added with this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one, as the old flag was associated with the Rwandan Genocide". This is a much stronger claim than the original caption, but still no source is cited in support or any mention is made of in the article other than a caption. If such an unsupported claim statement was made in the article's body, it could at the very least be marked with a {{ciation needed}}, but I am not sure how that works with images themselves or their captions. One more thing is that the source given for the nfur says "collection of Chris" (I posted invitation to this discussion on their talk page) which makes it hard to know if the image satisfies WP:NFCC#4 and the purpose given is "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Association des Scouts du Rwanda, a subject of public interest. " which is certainly not true in this case. I guess the nfur can be edited so that it better reflects how the image is being used, but that's on the assumption that the image is OK to use. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty confident it is not needed - one can explain that the original logo (this file) used a flag color pattern in the BG that was associated with the genocide and thus changed to the current logo that used the newer flag. It definitely should not be using the non-free logo simplified rationale and better justification would be needed to keep. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. I posted that the non-free use of the image in the article was being discussed here at NFCR at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo (the user talk page the editor who re-added the image with the new caption), but their response indicates that they are unwilling to discuss this any further. That's fine, but that doesn't resolve questions about the image's non-free use. The image still does not have a source to verify whether it has been previously published and it the "new" caption still does not seem to satisfy NFCC#8. If the image doesn't satisfy the WP:NFCCP, then it shouldn't be used and can be removed. Yet, it can also continue to be re-added without addressing these concerns. For reference, the same issues involving a similar image and the same editor were also discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Scout Association of the West Indies.png. This image has yet to be removed from any articles, even though the consensus here is that it should not be used. Removing that image, however, might simply lead to it be re-added without addressing the non-free use issues as was done with this image. The cycle of removing, re-adding, removing, re-adding, etc., can be never ending and is eventually likely lead to a violation of WP:3RR. Are there any other options available to try and resolve this type of impasse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talkcontribs) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC+9)

File:Scouts of China 1930s.png[edit]

Image is being used in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China and Scouts of China, but it only has a non-free use rationale for "Scouting and Guiding in mainland China". The "Purpose of use" that article, however, says that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. The first usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10c because it has no nfur for the article, but it is not likely that it would satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if it did. Second usage has rationale, but it is incorrect and the image does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8.

Is a caption like the one used to describe the image in particular case sufficient to satisfy NFCC#8? What rationale should used for non-free images not being used as the means for primary identification in infoboxes, but still being used in an article as the subject of critical commentary? Should {{Non-free use rationale}} be used instead of {{Non-free use rationale logo}}? Can "Non-free use rationale logo" be used if |use= is set to "other" and |Purpose= is specified? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It would have to meet the requirements for a non-free historic image, and this doesn't seem to meet that. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean the images should be removed or that the license should be changed?
In addition, the source simply says "The logo may be obtained from Scouting in Mainland China." Not sure what that means. The original title of the article was "Scouting in Mainland China". Can the source of the image be the Wikipedia article it is being used in or a Wikipedia editor's user page? I've noticed that many of these scouting-related logos have questionable source information and rationales. In fact, this image in particular appears to have been deleted once before, only to be simply re-uploaded. Is there any recourse when a non-free image which has been deleted or removed once before is simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Note-the original image was speedied without discussion, both against Wiki policy, has nothing to do with "simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used". Get over yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo: Actually, the two sentences were meant to be completely independent of each other. The first one was about the image in question for sure, but the second sentence was really intended to be more of a general question and not a reference to you or any particular editor. In hindsight, the proximity of the diff and the tone of the second sentence connect the two in a way I failed to fully consider at the time. I certainly could have been more careful and phrased things much better (i.e., more neutrally), so I sincerely apologize for any offense I may have caused. I hope you will accept this apology and my explanation in good faith. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Removed the image from Scouts of China because it does not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by NFCC#10c. Still not entirely clear as to whether use in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China is acceptable as historical image so would like additional feedback if possible. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Image actually appears to be a user-created montage of two logos. It has a non-free rationale for 1. SC Feucht and is being used in the "History" section. The logos are not really being discussed in detail, so this usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Moreover, since image appears to be a combination of two images, this usage probably may also not satisfy WP:NFCC#3a. The source given for the image looks like the team's official page, but I can't find the image. This subpage looks like the team's history page, but again I can't find the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The left image would be PD-USonly as a simple-enough logo, while the right would be non-free. If the logos aren't discussed, the left image can be kept (as a new file) and the right part dropped. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Image appears to be a user-created montage of File:College Football Playoff Logo.png and File:GoodyearCottonBowl.png so likely doesn't satisfy Wp:NFCC#3a. Moreover, even though the image has a nfur for 2015 Cotton Bowl Classic (December), it's not clear if this is the official image of this particular, just the image of the event's sponsor per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI, or simply just original research. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete - most likely a self-made, unusable collage. The original uploader has uploaded several of such, already removed, logos for various sports events. Official website does not show that combined logo. The upload also lacks a clear source information (no URL). GermanJoe (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Withdrew own recommendation. I opened an analogous case here and am no longer sure, if such special collages are usable in that context or not. (I am not even sure, they count as "collage" and not simply as 2 logos displayed next to each other). This needs someone more knowledgeable to decide. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Hockey Canada.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 except in Hockey Canada. Fails WP:NFCC#9 on three pages. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg, I tend to agree with you Stefan2 about No. 17 of NFCc#UUI. However, as I asked in WP:NFCR#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, some may argue that the logo is the de-facto official logo of all of the teams under the Hockey Canada umbrella and, therefore, should be allowed to be used. Does No. 17 make any allowances for this kind of situation or is strict interpretation appropriate? -Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The teams are sub-entities of Hockey Canada, as far as I have understood. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Is this a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the history of this department, this is likely a work on the university and thus non-free. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:UCSCFD logo.jpg[edit]

Is this a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the history of this department, this is likely a work on the university and thus non-free. — ξxplicit 06:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:2010 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png, etc.[edit]

Image is a user created montage of two non-free logos. Source links for each image are given and it has a non-free rationale for 2010 IIHF World Championship Division I. It seems that each image is for separate groups at the same championship so perhaps instead of combining them together they each should be seperate images per WP:NFCC#3a with their own specific rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.

The above also applies to the following images for their respective articles:

- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming there is no overall logo for the yearly playoffs when the A and B groups meet, this would be a reasonable acceptable use of montaging both logos which have apparently equal weight for purposes of identification (it would be improper to favor GRoup A's logo over Group B, or vice versa). It does count as two images on the page but within NFCC allowances and logo use. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Does counting as two images on the page mean that a nfur is required for each image and that the each image should be uploaded and added separately to the infoxbox? Can the same nfur be used for two or more images being used as a part of a montage as long as a source for each image is provided?
Finally, I don't think the Group A and Group B winners for each tournament meet in a final match to determine the overall winner. Each group is like independent mini-tournament playing for promotion to a higher group/division or to avoid relegation to a lower group/division. For example, those in Group A were playing for promotion to the 2009 IIHF World Championship and to avoid relegation to Division I Group B for 2009. Likewise those in Group B were playing for promotion to Division I Group A and to avoid relegation to Division II for 2009. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Mechanically, I think it is okay to have one rational for a user-made image like this (which are meant as exceptions, not the rule), as long as it is clear that the two images are from separate sources and the final composite image is user-made. This has been done for the longer-running, updated image for the various roles of Doctor Who File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg, and I think is fair to only require a single rational for each use of the montage image. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul Hunter Classic 2012 Logo 2.png[edit]

Image appears to be a user-created montage. Two sources are listed in it's non-free rationale and the image is being used in European Tour 2012/2013 – Event 1. Both images might actually be simple enough to fall under the threshold of originality, but not sure. If not, however, then it seems that each image should treated independently of the other with its own non-free rationale per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The second image would qualify for PD-USOnly but for that reason we should not be using a montage. There is a page for the overall series that that top logo should go to, while the second logo (once split) can stay on the listed page. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok Masem. There is already File:Paul Hunter Classic 2012 Logo.png on Commons so I'm not sure how that affects the use of the top image "Betfair European Tour". Does this mean that the montage file should be deleted and the top image re-uploaded as a separate non-free logo. -Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:UCSY Logo.jpg[edit]

Non-free logo is be used in the infoboxes of Computer University, Magway and University of Computer Studies, Yangon. It has a non-free rationale for each use and ech rationale cites gives the same source, but different owners. If these universities are independent of each other, then each shuld not be able to claim ownership over the same logo, right? If the universities, however, are part of the same group/system, then No.17 of WP:NFC#UUI shuld apply and the logo only be used in one of the articles, right? Source given is for University of Computer Studies, Yangon so it seems as only the rationale for that article is valid. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk)

Computer Universities in Myanmar are administered by the Ministry of Science and Technology and some of these universities' logos are the same. Computer University (Magway) at the official website of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the logo of the university can be seen at the lower third photo and it is same as the logo of University of Computer Studies, Yangon. NinjaStrikers « » 13:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Is this image simple enough to be licensed as either {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-simple}} instead of as non-free? The only possibly distinctive feature is the EKG line through the call letters. -Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If uploaded or moved to Wikimedia Commons, you should use the PD-textlogo license. In my experience with similar "borderline" logos, few are even brought up for review, and even fewer are deleted. --Senator2029 “Talk” 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

File:3 Wuppertal.png and File:Elberfeld historical.png[edit]

Both images seem to be user-created montages. Each has a non-free use rationale for Wuppertaler SV, but neither use seems to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Checked the links given for the source, but was unable to find any of the image being used anywhere on the team's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of such historical logos are already problematic as is, so as such, these are both inappropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in Maia Brewton. According to the article, Brewton is still alive and was an actress active in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since she's still alive, this image seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, unless the argument is that it is used to represent how she looked when she was active as an actress. I don't think that's a valuedvalid argument in this case, but I'm not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to change "valued" to "valid". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)]

if she acted in the 80s I'm sure we can fine a press photo that isn't copyrighted and can be used for free. Redsky89 (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Image has non-free use rationales for Survivor: Borneo, Survivor (U.S. TV series) and Survivor (TV series). Since this is supposed the image for the first season of the show (i.e., Survivor: Borneo), its use in that article seems fine. Use in the other two is not so clear per WP:NFCC#8. "Survivor (U.S. TV series)" seems to be about all 30 seasons of the US version of the series; therefore, if a logo is needed then I think the logo from the most recent season should be used instead. "Survivor (TV series)" seems to be about the worldwide franchising of the show so not sure how the logo of the first U.S. season is needed for the reader's understanding of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that the logo changes every scene for Survivor (yes, I watch, so I know this :) , the use of a general logo on the US TV series page is fine, as otherwise we'd always be shuffling in the new logo each season. For the overall worldwide franchise, the question of which logo to use is questionable since the US series has had the most legs but the UK series was the original . I don't see it as a huge problem in this case. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:407 ETR logo.svg[edit]

Image's rationale claims that it is the official logo of Ontario Highway 407, but it is being used in combination with the free file File:Highway407crest.svg to illustrate that point. Not sure why this cropped version is needed when the original version includes the numbers "407" and seems to actually be "more" official of a logo. If the "ETR" image is really needed in addition to the free logo, then I think the original "full" version should be used instead of the cropped version. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The logo as it appears in the infobox for the article in question is the one you see driving on the route. The full logo could be used for an article on the company that owns the 407 though. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Is the "ETR" logo specific to this particular route or is it also used on other routes as well? The second sentence of the article says "The present highway is a privately operated tollway, which is officially known as the 407 Express Toll Route (407 ETR)". From this webpage, it does seem as if the uncropped version is the official logo of the highway and that File:Highway407crest.svg is just a generic road marker put in place by the governing body of the area. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Pallagorio, but the source given for the image is this Italian Wikipedia file. I cannot read Italian, so I am not sure about the image's copyright status. It looks like the image is not to be uploaded to Commons, so that might mean it's use is only OK on Italian Wikipedia. Typically when it comes to textual content, Wikipedia and it's non-English versions are not considered to be reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS, but I'm not sure how this applies to sources for images per WP:NFCC#10a. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Google translate is clear enough to identify that a user Lynxlynx made the image based on the heraldy of the coat of arms (which is uncopyrightable - a specific artistic version can be but not the general elements). However, it is unclear if that user uploaded it meaning it to be PD/CC or not. Arguably, someone else can remake the same coat of arms in a free version, so unless we can verify this with lynxlynx, we probably should mark this as where a certainly-free replacement can be made, if we can't verify this was meant to be free. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:4DOS icon.png[edit]

Image is licensed as non-free, but has no source. Image looks like a screenshot of the software's desktop icon. I tried finding a version of the image on its official website, but could not. Are images, etc. of software licensed as freeware also considered to be free? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, art assets of freeware may be copyrightable, one can't make that assumption. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Masem. Does the use of the image in 4DOS, in your opinion, satisfy NFCC#8? It is only the icon for one particular version of the software so it may not be the same for all versions. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the authors of 4DOS and I designed that logo icon. I don't see any reason it can't be used but I am not technically the owner any more as I sold the business years ago. However I can check with the owner if that's useful, I doubt there would be any issue.Tr09 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


This states that the copyright on the August 1956 edition of Harper's Bazaar was renewed. (Renewal registration for: B00000606283 / 1956-08-02 Title: Harper’s bazaar. Vol. 89 [i.e. 90], no. 2937, Aug. 1956.) The license is invalid (PD-US-not renewed), the image can likely be kept as fair use, although there are a lot of images on the Anne T. Hill page already. Deadstar (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

From a note on my talk page: "Taffy's of California commissioned and owned the 1956 image and used it in their sales campaign. It is a full page ad in Harper's Bazaar, which Taffy's paid for, not editorial material. Harper's Bazaar reciprocated by running File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, an image also owned by Taffy's. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Taffy's went out of business in 1958, and did not renew the copyright on Taffyhbfn.jpg or Bazaar57fn.jpg after 28 years. Taffyhbfn.jpg, originally and ad, is now public domain. Schmausschmaus (talk)"
So from that it looks like the image was not originally owned by Harper's and as such should be free to use & we can remove the Fair Use rationale? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the fair use rationale. The images were owned by Taffy's and are now public domain. Many thanks. Schmausschmaus (talk)

A note from my talkpage (in regards to File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, but relevant here:
When I was working on the article I had access to archive materials. The image is a Taffy's of California flyer; it is not from a magazine. Harper's Bazaar did later publish the cotton in the evening image as a bonus for the full page ad. The full page ad Taffyhbfn.jpg in those days cost $5,500, about $50,000 in today's money. Taffy's then sent the cotton in the evening image and text, which they owned, to the magazine which included it in their content gratis. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2015

File:Joseph Papin drawing of himself in action.jpg[edit]

Image's description says that it was never published, but was rather a gift from the artist himself. Not sure if such a thing satisfies WP:NFCC#4. Also, the image itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, and another sketch of the artist is being used within the infobox of Joseph W. Papin as the primary means of identification so not sure if WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a are satisfied as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • NFC#4 also states:" publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor". So we can't be sure of that much. For source, it should read something like "From owner of the original, one of a kind work of the artist". But if this is just something that has been sitting in a drawer for 23 may not be something our fair use criteria covers.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mary Kawena Pukui.jpg[edit]

Invalid rational. The image is of a person recently deceased (non historic. 1986). The possibility of there being a free image is actually possible through family or request, but the image fails NFC#1 as most images like this of recently passed figures do. It also fails NFC#2 as it is a reversed version of the actual newspaper image and has indeed "replaced " that images market value by replacing the search results for the non free image to this reversed version. It also fails NFC#10 due to an incorrect link to the source and invalid reasoning under "Other information" and has the wrong license.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot immediately judge the NFCC#2 issue (as the source link does not lead directly to where that image is used), while #10 can be fixed if this is otherwise fine. However, the NFCC#1 issue is not appropriate. We do not make the expectation that family/friends will issue a photo under a free license (we can only expect control on volunteer wiki editors), and 1986 is way far in the past that the likelihood of other people having her picture is very low (compared to today with the world of Flickr and Instagram, etc.) This is fairly a non-free that does not have a clear possibility of a free replacement, though certainly efforts to find one would be welcome, but it is fine solely on NFCC#1 basis. But that doesn't matter if NFCC#2 fails (and there do appear to be other pictures of her out there that may not be as encumbered by #2 to be used). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Woodcraft Folk[edit]

Non-free images File:Woodcraft Folk Official Logo.svg, File:50 year anniversary logo.jpg and File:Woodcraft Folk 75th Logo.jpg are all former logos being used in the article. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but there is only a minor discussion of them in the article and none of the discussion is supported by a reliable source. Images seem primarily decorative to me, but not sure if all or any satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourced discussion about logo changes should really be present to have historical logos - there's discussion but no sourcing, so yes, these logos are primarily decorative otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I will post link to this discussion on the article's talk page to see if any knows of sources which can be used to support the use of the logos. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5280 magazine logo.jpg[edit]

Logo magazine 5280 is licensed as non-free, but seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

PD-textlogo worldwide. Could be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Understand. I will update the licensing. Would this still need to be tagged with {{trademark}} even though it is so simple? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of "trademark": "tradmark" to "trademark". -- 01:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)]
Trademark laws don't care about simplicity, if I understand this stuff correctly - trademarks is a very different restriction than copyright. That said, reminding users of the trademark status of an image is not as important as knowing its copyright status. I would still tag it, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Licensing changed to "PD-logo" per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (front page - screenshot).png[edit]

Non-free screenshot being used in the infobox of Image is not really needed because the website's logo (website) logo.png is already being used as the primary means of identification and no relevant additional information is being provided by the screenshot per WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Websites and software appear to have the standard practice of showing the logo and the main page of the site, so this appears to be fine. (Only issue to be begged is if any of the stills should be blurred out if these are people that were unaware they were being filled, for privacy rights but that's a separate issue). --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Would the same reasoning also apply to File:4OD Screenshot.png being used in 4OD. This one appears to show images from TV programs. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo tigre negro kungfu.gif and File:5fam5logo2.jpg[edit]

Images are being used in Ng Ga Kuen/Ng Gar King. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is being used as the primary means of identification as claimed in their rationales. Use appears purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is no sourced critical commentary for either image in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One of them could be used for the identifying logo image (I would suggest the second one, perhaps trimmed away to just the circular badge part), but both are not necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5Rhythms Medicine Mandala.jpg and File:Gabrielle Roth & The Mirrors - Waves 1994.jpg[edit]

Images are used in 5Rhythms. Each image has a non-free rationale for article, but it is unclear WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. Album art is not being used as the primary means of identification for the article and is not the subject of a sourced critical commentary within the article so I'm pretty sure this cannot be used. Other image seems more relevant and indirectly discussed, but once again it is not sourced commentary. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically fails WP:NFC#UUI#9 in concept (we're using albums covers to illustrate a topic that is not the album cover, and where the albums are not discussed in a manner requiring visual representation). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. I understand about the album cover. What about the other image? I'm not sure that it's an album cover. In addition, it's also tagged {{Non-free with permission}} so I'm not sure how or if that affects its non-free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Getting permission for non-free does not in any way impact how we review it, save for possibly interpretation of NFCC#2, that is that because they have given permission (hopefully documented by OTRS), there is less an issue of our impacting the commercial value of the work since the creator said we (wikipedia) could use it. This doesn't seem to be the case on that second image, and to me, that's some type of cover but not directly illustrating anything in the topic, so is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:The Many Faces of Optimus Primal.png[edit]

User created montage, violating WP:NFLISTS #1. Further, there is no sourced commentary regarding the evolution of the appearance of the character, meaning if the images were separated into a gallery, their inclusion would still violate non-free content principles. Also, the article where this image is hosted, List of Beast Wars characters, depends on a single source for every one of its 43 references...and that source appears to be a fansite, in violation of WP:FANSITE. There are some days when I just want to facepalm and walk away. Perhaps someone else wishes to tackle these problems. Today, it's not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A list of characters from a notable franchise series is actually fine though some of the details border on fan excessiveness. The image itself is likely not proper on this page but might be okay over at the franchise' main page to demonstrate the different art styles that the series has seen (which is fair game). As long as it is recognized that this image counts as 4 non-free uses in evaluating other images on the page it is one, that's okay. But it is definitely not appropriate on the list page (though we'd would accept a single non-user-created montage of a large group cast shot if such exists.) --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do whatever, the list was actually a consolidation of the five or twelve redundant individual lists of all the characters and toys and appearances etc. that were in one thing and then the other and so on. The info was pulled from those pages, cruft and all. The image was designed to make all of the other non-free character images unnecessary. By showing the shift in art style, you can assume what the character looks like from there.I'd say that the narrative nature of the image makes it much more "fair use" than most character images, but whatevs. I have no personal attachment, but I think it'd be more productive to clean out the information that this list makes redundant. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I Put a Spell on You[edit]

This article appears to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the covers of the various cover versions are inappropriate as none of them seem independently notable. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Commented out File:Nina Simone - I Put a Spell on You.png and File:Annie Lennox - Nostalgia.jpg per WP:NFCC#10c. Both of these were being used in other articles, so removing them will not lead to them being tagged as orphans. File:I Put a Spell on You (Creedence Clearwater Revival single) coverart.png and File:I Put a Spell on You (Sonique Single) coverart.png, however, are only being used in this article, so I'm not sure whether they should be taken to FFD or tagged with "di-disputed fair use rationale", etc. instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Iran Scout Organization.png and File:Iran Scout Organization card.jpg[edit]

The "Iran Scout Organization" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#Emblems which is nothing but a gallery of former logos. Image has a nfur for article which claims the image is being used in the infobox when it's not. Image's caption "2000s membership badge, reduced the Islamic imagery" is unsourced and the image is not discussed in the article. Use seems to fail WP:NFG.

"Iran Scout Organziation card" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#History. Its nfur claims "Images and pantings about Scouting from Iran from before 1979 are rare. Scouting was also banned several times, and existing images were deliberately/indeliberately destroyed." No source for the image is given except for a Wikipedia editor's user page, but the on the image it says "Copyright 1968, Boy Scouts of America" so I think the BSA probably could be listed at the source instead. Maybe the image has historical relevance because such images are apparently so rare, but none of this seems to be discussed in detail in the article. So it's not clear, at least to me, how the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg[edit]

Non-free image is not needed per WP:NFCC#1 because there exists File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg on Commons which is freely licensed. I've replaced the non-free versions being used in Brazilian Football Confederation, Brazil national futsal team and Brazil national football team with the free version so now the non-free is an orphan. My concern, however, is that the Commons image's licensing is incorrect and the image shouldn't be claimed as "own work", which means that the image will be eventually deleted. So, I am not sure if the image should be re-added to the confedration's article (the other uses fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) just in case, but this seems contrary to NFCC#1. What is typically be done when a replacement image exists on Commons, but it's licensing is questionable? Should the Commons image simply be used until it is deleted? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The uploader of the Commons image has had a number of their uploads removed, because "Mass deletion of pages added by Bastian rojas; Copyright violation; found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work.". I think the Commons image is likely a copyright violation for the same reasons (unless they are the owner of the federation or somesuch) and have nominated it for deletion; thus, we'll probably have to fall back on our local image if it gets deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. The licensing for the Commons image did seem rather questionable. If it is deleted and we have to use the non-free one the question, then is will it be acceptable for use in all of the Brazilian team articles or only the parent federation's article. UUI#17 seems to say no. Right now the non-free image is an orphan which means it will eventually be marked for deletion. Should it be at least re-added to the federation's article while the Commons image is being discussed? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The image, File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg should be reinstated and not orphaned as it is the file that is licensed appropriately. The subject of attention should be brought heavily against File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg and should be orphaned as well. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The image only has a non-free rationale for Brazilian Football Confederation. It does not have nfurs for Brazil national futsal team, Brazil women's national football team or Brazil national football team which is required per WP:NFCC#10c. A separate, specific non-free rationale is required for each usage; Multiple articles cannot "share" the same rationale, so your claim that "licensing is perfectly fine" for these other articles seems incorrect. WP:NFCCE says "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." If you want to write a nfur for each use then plaese do, but I don't believe a valid nfur can be written due to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Finally, the non-free image was not being used in the women's team article, and the Commons file has only been nominated for deletion. That deletion is still being discussed and no decision has yet been made. It may not be likely, but it is still possible that the image will not be deleted. So until it is deleted, it is still acceptable (at least for the time being) to use per WP:NFCC#1 in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The badge identifies not only the CBF but the uniforms of Senior, Youth and Women's nationale teams, therefore rationale use applies for the different articles about them. I don't see any reason to exclude the badges from those articles. - Fma12 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fma12:The reason the image should not be used in the other articles, as stated above, is No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the individual teams are considered to be sub-entities (or "child entities") of the confederation, then the logo should not be used even if each team does not have its own unique logo. This type of usage was discussed at NFCR a number of times before, such as at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg, and the opinion was that the logos of a "parent" should not be used even if the "child" does not have its own unique logo. If exceptions to No. 17 are allowed for national football teams like in this case, then the same argument could be made for other "parents" and their "children" as well, can't it? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

File:India FA.svg[edit]

Image is being used in All India Football Federation and India national football team. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but the use in the team article fails, in my opinion, No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I removed the image from the team article a few times, but it was eventually re-added. It was removed then removed by another editor with this edit, only to be re-added again here by an editor whose only edit was to re-add the image. I removed the image again, but it was quickly re-added here by an editor whose last edited almost one year ago. I am trying to assume good faith that these two edits were just coincidental and I certainly do not wish to engage in edit warring with anyone, but it would nice if usage in the team article could be clarified for once and for all. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png it isn't acceptable, but perhaps things have changed since that discussion. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling @Footydip: here - their argument appears to be that the team is not a child entity of the federation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File:US Soccer Federation.svg[edit]

Image is being used in United States Soccer Federation, United States men's national soccer team, and United States national futsal team. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article, but according to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI it should only be used it the parent entity "US States Soccer Federation". This interpretation of No. 17 is being disputed, however, at Talk:United States men's national soccer team#Use of non-free images. The argument in favor of the image's use in the team articles being put forth by Savvyjack23 is The US Soccer Federation is the "governing body" of its national team, so essentially they are one, and not separate entities. No team, no federation. If it was a sub-entity, it would (most likely) have its own logo as the MLS and its clubs do, which are governed by the league but are individual owned by its owners. This is an interesting point which I think needs further discussion because it would essentially imapct every national sports logo being used on Wikipedia. In my opinion, a national federation is indeed a seperate entity from each team just as each team is a seperate entity from the each other team at least when it comes to Wikipedia. The fact that the federation chooses not to have separate, specific branding for each team is not really relevant to the logo's non-free licensing for Wikipedia. For reference, the United States women's national soccer team is also "controlled" by the United States Soccer Federation yet its article is using File:USSF women logo.svg, which is (at least claims to be) specific to the Women's team. I am not claiming that the nfur for the women's image is valid, but since the women's team is also governed by the same federation as the men's, they should be using the same logo as the men's if Savvyjack23's argument is correct, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png[edit]

Non free logo being used in the infoboxes of Haitian Football Federation, Haiti national football team, Haiti women's national football team, Haiti national futsal team, Haiti national under-23 football team, Haiti national under-20 football team, Haiti national under-17 football team, Haiti women's national under-23 football team, Haiti women's national under-20 football team, Haiti women's national under-17 football team. Per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, usage seems acceptable in "Haitian Football Federation", but not so clear in the individual team articles. This edit sum says "The logo is indeed used by the entire organization as well as all of its subentities" so the question is whether the national teams are "subentities" (i.e., child entities) of the Federation and thus use of the logo is unacceptable per No. 17 regardless of whether each team has its own specific branding. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg, File:Hornets 55.jpg and File:1939-40hornetspostcard.jpg[edit]

Each image is being used in Pittsburgh Hornets. The two team photos have a nfur for the article, and the teams in question are being discussed, but none of the discussion is sourced and none of it is particularly centered around the images themselves so I'm not sure if the images are needed per WP:NFCC#8. The program's image does not seem to have the separate specific non-free use rationale it needs per Wp:NFCC#10c and how it satisfies NFCC#8 is also not clear. Image is also being used in WPXI#Local programming which also seems to fail NFCC#8 since the connection between the team and station can be sufficiently explained using only text.

In addition to the above, no specific source or copyright information other than "The Pittsburgh Hornets (defunct AHL team)" has been provided for any of the three images. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:680News 2015 Logo.png and File:CFTR-AM 680 News logo.svg[edit]

Each image is licensed as non-free, but they both appear to be nothing but simple combinations of letters and numbers. These seem at least simple enough to be licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Paradelogo.jpg and File:6abc IKEA Parade.jpg[edit]

Both non-free images are used in 6abc Dunkin' Donuts Thanksgiving Day Parade to show logos used for former sponsors. Neither image appears essential to the reader's understanding of who these former sponsors were per WP:NFCC#8 and neither image is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:6PR 882 Logo.jpg[edit]

Image appears too simple for copyright and at least OK to license as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I am not sure about in Australia though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"PD-USonly" would take that into account and the image wouldn't be tagged for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

File:6rph radio logo.png[edit]

Another radio station logo that appears simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I am not sure about in Australia though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg[edit]

Non-free image of a badge being used in the infobox of Carabiniers (6th Dragoon Guards). Website listed as source does not show the image at all and actually appears to indicate that another logo is used instead. Image actually appears to be photo taken, perhaps by uploader, and contains a watermark-like symbol in the lower-right corner. Uploader appears to have retired from editing quite some time ago, so not sure how to find original source for the image or how to verify image's copyright status. Finally, since the image appears to be some form of heraldry, I am wondering if it even satisfies WP:NFCC#1. Isn't it possible to create free equivalents of "heraldry-like" images? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The image does not come from the website given as source because the little logo in the right corner indicates this is an image from an hosting services used for many eBay lots. This image is not covered by crown copyright. As a photo of a 3D cap badge we require the permission of the author and this is clearly missing and unlikely to be found, so it should be nominated for deletion If all that is required is a logo then a drawing of the badge elements would be ok as the regiment only existed until 1922 unless you can find an existing image. The commons illustration workshop might make one. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The uploader has not retired; the image was uploaded by one of the alternative accounts of User:SonofSetanta, who was active as recently as today. The following deletion discussions for other uploads of his may be relevant:
In short, most uploads of his depicting military medals, badges, and insignia have been deleted on copyright grounds, but in at least one can he was able to secure the necessary permissions. Perhaps this is another such case.

Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ww2censor and Psychonaut for your replies. I did not realize that the original uploader was now editing under a different name. Since the image is licensed as non-free, I don't believe it requires "permission" to be used, does it? However, there is still the issues of WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. As long as the copyright status of the image can be verified and that no free-equivalent can possibly be made, the image can be licensed as non-free, right?
Finally, even if the above is resolved, there is also possibly an issue regarding WP:NFCC#8. The non-free use rationale states "There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: 'All regiments of the British army use different cap badges. This one is peculiar to the 6th Carabiniers.'" yet there is no such sourced discussion of the image at all within the article itself. Since the image is being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the unit, it's possible that such a generic statement is sufficient enough to establish the contextual significance of the image, but I'm not sure. -Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely the uploader took the original photo but we can ask. As a 3D image it absolutely does require permission of the photographer and it immediately fails WP:NFCC#1 because anyone with such a badge, or acces to one, can take a photo and release it freely. As I said, if it were a 2D logo we could probably use it as non-free for which we don't require permission. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#1 is complicated here. For the image for this section lead - a military group that was disbanded nearly a century ago - it is likely that the design itself was done well before 1922, and thus the design is public domain; this photograph on the other hand is likely copyrighted to whomever the photographer is , so we should be able to expect a free image... but, we also are talking about a artifact that a limited number of people would have had and that unlikely any of those people are surviving today (again, nearly a century). And as such, unless we are fully aware of a museum or other collection that holds one of these badges on public display, I don't think we can have expectation that a free image could be made (that is, someone to take and give a free photograph to use).
Note that, say in the case of the 1962 piece that has been deleted, the base piece was likely still copyrighted so even though a free photograph could be taken, that image would still be considered a non-free derivative work. But then the issue of finding a badge to take a photograph and get at least a free photo of a copyrighted work (as opposed to a copyrighted photo of a copyrighted work) becomes much more likely. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't we at the very least need to know where the photo came from so that its copyright status can be verified if the image is to be licensed as non-free? The source given for the image apparently is not really the "source" of the photo. The logo being used on that page looks quite different and it's not even clear if the two units are one and the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We do need the source or origin of the photo as to be able to assess whether it could be marked free (knowing the ID of the photographer) or for non-free (to demonstrated previous publication). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded the image and many others like it. There was a time when I cared about things like this but after the witch hunt of last year, which proved beyond doubt that the vast majority of the images I have provided were genuine and correctly uploaded, I gave up. My reason for that is simple: one goes to a lot of trouble to find free images, even donating a substantial amount of my own photographs, only to have them questioned by people who don't know anything about the subject matter. I was repeatedly called a liar by several members over images of which I could produce, not only the original of but also, the negatives. This didn't stop the persecution however so I just don't bother with images anymore or the fact that over zealous editors call my reputation into question. So fill your boots - I don't care. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Soumission cover.jpg[edit]

Is this eligible for copyright in France? George Ho (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

France has a low bar for originality (it is based on the work bearing the imprint of the personality of the person that created the work), so I would assume it could be copyrightable. Definitely falls under PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: Is it acceptable to use "non-free book cover" and "PD-ineligible-USonly" together in such a way? Not saying it's wrong, just asking for clarification since they seem to be contradictory. Why is a non-free use rationale needed for a file which is not considered to be eligible for copyright protection within the US? Just curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
We must be respectful to laws of home country, France. Nevertheless, copyright in US might not apply to works containing just common elements. We don't want the US to be the center of copyright issue. George Ho (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Image from Khamenei twitter of a what appears to be Obama pointing a gun at his head[edit]

Original source for this appears to be here: [1]. Lots of media have apparently concluded they can use it, e.g. CNN[2], USA Today [3], New York Daily News[4]; googling will turn up others. Can Wikipedia use it? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, the lack of a copyright agreement between Iran and the US means that an image made there is effectively PD in the US. However, practice on Wikipedia is that Iranian copyrights are still respected for our NFC policies, so that image would be a non-free image unless it's freely licensed or PD even in Iran. <Not a lawyer disclaimer>. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Also consider that the Twitter account is only claimed to be associated with Khamenei, not proven, so we are clear enough on the origin to meet the sourcing requirements for NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye, Twitter has methods to mark accounts that are proven but I can't see it there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

File:University of London.svg[edit]

This is marked as a non-free, non-replaceable logo. However, it is an armorial shield, not a logo. It is replaceable with a free graphic based on the blazon from the University's 1838 grant of arms. (unfortunately the image at that page is too low a resolution to read) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That graphic and the current logo look almost identical, albeit not completely so (the book is narrower in the older). Unfortunately I can't find any larger version of that older logo. I also notice that the current image is used in three pages but has a NFUR only for one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I have found a black-and-white one whose original is public domain, but not a colour one. (I think I used the wrong deletion process here. I should have used delayed speedy deletion as it is certainly old enough to be replaceable with a public domain version. As Jo-Jo already replied, I guess it is too late to switch to delayed-speedy.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the graphics in question is to depict what is effectively being used as LU's logotype, not some historical version. As the image uploader, I was not sure whether the graphics was in public domain (unlike the historical drawing, which has narrower arms, etc.), hence I tagged it as fair use. I tend to believe that there was a degree of creativity put in creating the current offical logo based on the historical coat of arms. Whether it crossed the threshold of originality, I don't know. It is thought that the threshold is lower in the UK than in the US, hence the image might be protected. But no, this current logotype cannot be replaced by a historical coat of arms: the two are different things, both materially and functionally. Regards, kashmiri TALK 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
We should also review the use of File:UofLondon logo.png.
I agree with you that the vector art may cross the threshold of originality so you were right to tag it as fair use.
However I do not agree that because the University currently uses that particular version, that we need to display that particular version in Wikipedia's article about the university. It is shown in the infobox as a coat of arms, and for most old universities, we use an old or re-drawn coat of arms, not a modern non-free version.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree re. vector art vs. raster art. Copyright protection extends to the work of art irrespective of what file format it has been rendered in.
I also quickly scanned Oxford University, University of Cambridge, and University of Sheffield - and did not see us using anything else than the official coat of arms. Actually, I am not even sure there would be different versions of the official coat of arms.
Of interest, an old coat of arms does not mean it is in public domain in the UK - see here:
Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a good question (and a very useful link). It is possible that Sheffield meant that it is restricted by trademark law or heraldic law, or they meant that their own coat of arms artwork is restricted by copyright. None of which would affect most educational uses of a free version of Sheffield's or London's shield
As a counter-example, we have this free shield on Commons, that is used on numerous Wikipedia articles: File:Cambridge shield.png
There is a long article about this at Commons:Coats of arms
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
To demonstrate that the official shield has been redrawn many times, I just found one on an official UL document in a fuzzy grayscale scan that is probably free (pre-1890 original) and has the same heraldic elements as the logo, but a different shaped book. It is on the first page of this large (13 MB) PDF
Better to ask an artist to draw a fresh one (such as at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The blazon for the arms is "Argent the Cross of Saint George Thereon the Union Rose Irradiated and Ensigned with the Imperial Crown Proper A Chief Azure Thereon an open Book also Proper Clasps Gold".[5] With this, a heraldic artist should be able to draw a new version. If the idea is to depict the arms rather then the specific logo (which appears to be the case), this should be sufficient. Robminchin (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ultimate Play the Game[edit]

Multiple, contested non-free content issues.

  1. File:Knight lore 3.gif (used in another article) The game may have been important and its isometric style may have been copied, but the useful image would be how other games have copied it, not that it uses an isometric view. (NFCC#8) And is there really no free-use replacement for isometric projection in all of those piles of open source games?
  2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: The text says they used full page ads that did not describe the product. The image does not add any additional significance to that understanding (NFCC#8)
  3. File:Sabre wulf box.jpg is decorative, does not illustrate anything that can't be adequately explained through text
  4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif I'm less concerned about this one because the image's significance is discussed in the article, but I don't think the blurry shot adds anything over what the text adequately explains on its own. – czar 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The two images that you removed and I didn't revert (Image:Jetpac.gif and Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg) are the only ones that can be said to be used for decorative purposes; and I have doubts abour the Sabre wulf box, since the high-end "luxury" packaging is discussed as part of the company's strategy to deter copyright infringement.

As for the images currently in the article, they are textbook applications of WP:NFCI acceptable use:

  1. File:Knight lore 3.gif. WP:NFCI#6, screenshots from software products for critical commentary. It's used to illustrate the Filmation engine technique as used by Ultimate. A free image would not illustrate its usage by that company on that very game, which is the one that influenced all the others. A free replacement should be included at the Isometric projection article, but it's important to show what the players who bought the game got from the company as state-of-the-art graphics at the time - (which is important for the topic; as this is the article of Ultimate Play the Game, not of isometric projection in general, the image should illustrate how they did it).
  2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. The text says they used full page ads without screenshots of the game, explaining how this fueled speculation by the specialized gaming press; and the image shows how those full page ads looked like. Without the image you would not have an idea of what the press saw and how it prompted them to pump anticipation up. To what degree this improves understanding of the topic is a matter of personal taste to be agreed upon here, but the contextual significance is there.
  3. Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg (currently not in the article): Again WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. As said above, the image illustrates the following passage. "This coincided with the introduction of the distinctive Ultimate "big box" packaging [...], which the company felt might also help justify the price increase and encourage gamers to buy the game rather than copy it. The strategy paid off as Sabre Wulf went on to sell over 350,000 copies on the Spectrum alone." Text alone can't display the quality of the box and printed art for the readers to judge it by themselves.
  4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif: Both WP:NFCI#6 and WP:NFCI#4, screenshot and promotional material with critical commentary ("CRASH magazine published a reader's photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer.The possible existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen) had been speculated on since the game's release). The blurriness of the image was there in the original, this is exactly what readers got and prompted them to enquire about its genuineness. Diego (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The Knight Lore image is unnecessary on the page about the developer, as we have a separate page for the game itself, where it is appropriate. There is no need for showing an image of an ad that does not use screenshots - this is readily explained by text. The box packaging - of just the cover alone - does not help to aid in explaining the "big box" aspect - here, instead, we should be using a picture of one of their "Big box"es next to a typical boxed release at the time as to demonstrate the physical difference that the cover alone cannot (this also possibly can be done with simple 3D boxes of the right size without art, or by a photo taken at such an angle to make the cover art unusable and meeting de minimus use). There's no need to show a screenshot of a unreleased game to demonstrate that a magazine provide such an images, or the impact of the blurriness factor. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion about the images. However, third party reliable sources have considered relevant to comment upon such images, and our policy on non-free content is that such usage is allowed when there is critical commentary provided by reliable sources, not merely when editors think it's a good idea to include them (or not).
Oh, and the File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif is also an instance of WP:NFCI#9 acceptable use, "Images that are themselves subject of commentary". (The Stampers shrugged off questions about whether this screen shot was genuine, but stopped short of actually denying it. There have even been suggestions that Ultimate themselves may have created the screen shot to generate more interest in the game.) Diego (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"NFCI" is not some kind of kind of panacea—it explicitly says that the image needs to meet all of the non-free content criteria. NFCI are just suggestions. It's still an issue of NFCC#8: it's nice to have images but the screenshot isn't necessary for understanding the article. There is nothing about the image that makes the prose more understandable. – czar 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that the level of understanding that readers get from a description of the image without the image itself, will be the same as the description plus the image accompanying it? The editors of the reliable sources that included the image in their articles begged to disagree.
Now that we are at it, what is the criteria that you use, to consider some prose more understandable with an accompanying image than without it? Is there a situation where you don't think that a prose description of an image is enough to understand the image? Because if the criteria stated in policy to establish NFCC#8 (critical commentary in RSs) is not enough for you to consider it significant, there must be some other alternative, objective criteria that we could agree upon and doesn't reduce to "I think it's needed" or "I don't think it's needed"; so what is it? Diego (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Two keys are NFCC#1 - the free replacement (which can include no image but text) and NFCC#8. Of the three last cases:
  • The ad image is presently being used to say that unlike other print ads at the time, this company opted to forgo screenshots. This can be described in text and does not need an image to show this (per NFCC#1); if anything, one would have to show a competiting ad to demonstrate the lack of screenshots, making that 2 non-free images would be even more problematic. And it is readily described by text, making the contextual significance weak.
  • The box image to say the box was bigger than others as to convince people to buy it can be replaced with a free photograph of that box next to a regular retain box to make that a much stronger point.
  • That they released a blurry photo of a game they were developing can be stated in text - there's no specific discussion of the features of the blurry photo to require it and failing NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The ad image also serves to identify the visual style of that company's advertising -i.e. the topic of the section where the ad is placed, which is the other recognized valid purpose at WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, and is something you can't do without having seen at least one ad from the company. Why would you need a competing image from other companies? Other ads are not mentioned in the text for critical analysis, but this series of ads is. And why do you need an image with screenshots to show that this one does not have screnshots?
  • Fine, we can replace the current photo of the box with the one you suggest when someone provides it (but how do you achieve a free photograph of the copyrighted cover art, without at the same time making it impossible to assess the quality of such art?).
  • There is specific discussion of the features of the photo, I've provided it above. It discusses specific parts of the image ("photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer"), a comparison of that feature with the same feature in other images from the company ("existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen)")-which prompts readers to compare the similarity of this image with those others-, and the possibility that the image itself may have been manipulated ("questions about whether this screen shot was genuine","It has since been proven that Lunar Jetman's 48K of code does not contain graphics for a trailer.")-which requires the image for readers to assess by themselves whether it might be a fake. (BTW, the image being blurry may be one contributing factor for why people gave it credibility as it makes it harder to spot any possible tampering, but there I'm just speculating - that's not part of my argument). Diego (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ELO 2[edit]

Four album covers are used. Which ones shall be retained? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arguable the original cover and the first of the 30 year anniversary one would be best suited. The original alt cover has nothing, and if you use the first 30yr one, the second one of those is nearly duplicative. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't remove the US alt cover, Masem. This is an album, not a single. --George Ho (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a "Extra album cover" template for the album infobox that just has to be removed to get rid of the image. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant that I can't consciously. First CD reissue still used the same image; other reissues have used the standard international one. --George Ho (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the US vinyl image was also used for the 1990 reissue. I was thinking about removing the 30th anniversary image instead of the US vinyl/CD one. That 30yr one would not be that significant as it was one of reissues. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Non-free images File:WSVNlogo.jpg, File:Wcktlogo.png, File:7 HD Open.jpg and File:WSVN HD.JPG all have a non-free rationales for the article, but usage in each case seems purely decorative and not needed per Wp:NFCC#8 - Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:7 Med Bn Gp Flash plus Logo.jpg[edit]

No source is provided for the image. Is the information given in |Description= sufficient to satisfy Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no real reason to doubt that it came from the group mentioned and would be overly nit-picky to delete it for lack of a valid previously published source. It would be highly recommended if this could be found, however even if it is a print work (as it might be). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png[edit]

Image has a non-free use rationale and is being used in New York Cosmos (1970-85)#Colors and crest. Image is briefly discussed in the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged.", but the statement is unsourced. Moreover, File:New York Cosmos 77.png is provides essentially the same information (minus the "New York"), so I'm not sure per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 if we really need to see the older logo to understand that "New York" was dropped. In my opinion, this is more than adequately being explained using text alone. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a significant enough change (the removal of text) to require the image to be seen, particularly that it's not sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Rajkumar in Sri Krishnadevaraya (1970).JPG[edit]

There's no discussion of the image or the film within the article where it's used. I don't believe it meets our non-free criteria. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have a non-free of the actor out of costume/make-up serving for the infobox (good), and that the comparison between the two images shows little difference in the person's appearance (the film costume does not involve excessive makeup/etc.) and that there's no discussion, it definite is a problem to keep this image. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Non-free image is being used in Iraqi Communist Party. A similar free version (File:Icpsymbol.svg) is being used in the infobox of Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) to identify the same organization. The images appear to be the same, except the free version has the additional text on the flag. Is this additional text important enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#1 or should the non-free image be replaced by it's free counterpart? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I must ask, is that SVG really free? It's marked as "own work", which would only work if the uploader was the artist that made the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically, within the US, there is no recognized copyright for works from Iraq entities (among about 10 other non-recipical countries) - eg it would be copyright by Iraq's laws, but US does not recognize that. That said, Jimmy Wales has asked that despite these types of non-recognizition that we still respect country copyrights. So the SVG image as a derivative work of the ICP would not be considered free despite the user creating it themselves, and should be deleted, with the existing PNG acceptable to use. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could the Commons image be used as a replacement for the non-free one per NFCC#1 if (a big "if" perhaps) its licensing is acceptable?
Regarding the Commons image, there are plenty of similar flag/logo images being used in articles about conflicts/organizations in the Middle East, etc. like List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive. Most of these are .svg files uploaded to Commons as "own work". I've found some which have been nominated for deletion such as c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syrian Resistance Flag.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syria Armed Forces Emblem.svg for the reasons Jo-Jo gives above, but they have been kept. I once asked about a different .svg flag at the Village Pump, and the answer I got wasn't very clear. "Delete" or "keep" seems to depend upon whether the uploader drew the .svg image themselves or simply uploaded a copy. Honestly, it's all a bit confusing to me since many of the images I've seen used on Wikipedia (for example, File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Kata'ib Hezbollah logo.svg) licensed as "own work" are fairly detailed and professional looking so they do not look as if they were redrawn. I also asked about the PD-USonly use for Iraqi images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/July#Use of PD-USonly for images created by Iraqi citizens, but even after reading through that RfC I am still not sure what the final consensus was. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've asked about validity of the licensing of the Commons version at c:COM:VPC#File:Icpsymbol.svg just to see what they say. If Commons feels the licensing is OK, then I think we can safely replace the non-free version with it. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to wonder if Commons keeping such files has something to do with SVG files not being derivative works of the files they are made to resemble - that appears to be the thrust of the keep arguments in these deletion requests. I find it odd but it might be true. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Many of the flags, logos, etc. I've seen on Commons which look non-free to me do seem to be .svg files and I have really no idea as to why that makes a difference. How can something like File:Asaib-ahl-alhaq logo.jpg be non-free, but File:Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq flag.svg be non-free? To me it's exactly the same image only in .svg format with a white background added. Moreover, if the .svg version is OK as "free", then I'm not really sure how the non-free version still satisfies WP:NFCC#1 because both provide essentially the same information. There are many other examples of the type of thing thing. Infoboxes in articles about wars/battles happening in the Middle East, etc. are filled with them. Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bumping to note that the Commons image was deleted per the discussion here but the "derivative or no" question is nebulous.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:West Dunbs arms.png[edit]

Image of coat of arms appears to be licensed as non-free for use in West Dunbartonshire, but only a very bare bones non-free use rationale is provided. Source is simply given as "council document" and nothing about the coat of arms can be found on the Council's official website. This photo, however, from the Council's official Flick'r account does show the CoA so I'm pretty sure it is actually used. I also found two versions of the CoA online at Heraldry of the World and The Heraldry Society of Scotland and the former more resembles the one shown in the Flick'r photo. I have two questions about this usage:

  1. Is it acceptable per WP:NFCC#1?
  2. Can a combination of the Flick'r photo and the "Heraldry of the World" links be used as the source of the image if the image is OK to be uploaded as non-free?

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have the textual heraldry of a coat of arms, a free version can always be recreated (it will not look exactly the same, but heraldry only describes the necessary elements that the free image can be developed from). --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:STWhomGods Destroy.jpg[edit]

Non-free screenshot currently being used in Whom Gods Destroy (Star Trek) and Steve Ihnat. A non-free use rationale is provided each article, but use in the actor's article does not seem warranted. Ihnat seems to have appeared in many well-known series so singling out an appearance in a Star Trek episode seems like close to WP:UNDUE. Also, there is no sourced discussion of the appearance in the article (His connection to Star Trek is only mentioned twice and one of them is the screenshot's caption) so the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is non-existent. The same screenshot can be seen in the episode's article, so it's use in actor's article is not needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If I expand the article and explain the picture, would that help? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The answer to your question Kiraroshi1976 is pretty much the same as the one I gave above for the screeshot used in Yvonne Craig. I think the screeshot is probably OK for the Star Trek episode because it is being used as the primary means of identification of two of the main guest characters in the episode, Garth and Marta. Using the screenshot in "Steve Inhat" is much harder to justify per NFCC#8. "Garth" was only one role that Inhat played througout his career, so if the purpose is to simply show how Inhet looked, then any screenshot/photo could do the same. It would be better to try and find an image (photo) of Inhat as "Steve Inhat" and use that instead at the top of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Broun.jpg[edit]

The page it links as source says "Photos for News Media Use Only"

Attributed to the Smithsonian with government free use rationale. The Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the U.S. government, but separate from the government's federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

I havent used FFD before so I apologize if this shouldve been a speedy. Savonneux (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The language you quote suggests that works of the Smithsonian employees are PD works, but we have no idea whom the photographer is here, if it was a work for hire or not. The language of "news media only" suggests the copyright belongs to the photographer who is not necessarily a US gov't employee and thus this would not be free. And this should be a NFCC#1 if it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"Works prepared by officers or employees of the Smithsonian Institution are not considered works of the U.S. government if the author-employee was paid from the Smithsonian trust fund."--Copyright Office Compendium 3rd ed. §313.6(C)(1) RJaguar3 | u | t 02:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So yes, it's probably best to assume that with both the language on the site and this, we aren't looking at a free image here. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png[edit]

Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in Rhondda Cynon Taf, but I am not sure if the amount of information provided about it is sufficient to constitute a non-free use rationale or if it should be tagged with {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. I am also not sure if WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The non-template rationale is reasonably fine to prevent an immediate di deletion, but it definitely would benefit from a more accurate source bit, and fleshing the rationale out more can't hurt. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Masem. I've tried to flesh out the nfur as best as I could, but please correct any mistakes I might have made. Still not sure if this satisfies WP:NFCC#1 though since it includes heraldry elements. Also, from this webpage it appears that this is not really the coat of arms of the borough per se, but rather the coat of arms of the borough's mayor. I'm not sure how that affects the image's use in the article or if the image would be better suited for Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. Perhaps this logo from the borough's official website should be used instead of the COA? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that might be better in terms of which image is used where. On whether that COA can be replaced, I don't know if "modern" elements come into play or not for that determination. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Liv Tyler as Arwen.jpg[edit]

Non-free image used in Arwen. Image has a non-free use rationale for article, but usage appears to be purely decorative. Not sure how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since Tyler is only mentioned in the image's caption and two other times in the article. A non-free image is not needed to help the reader understand a statement such as "In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Arwen is played by Liv Tyler." Is there some kind of allowance made for non free images used to identify fictional characters? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was the only identifying image of the character available then yes it would be okay, but as a secondary one and where there is no discussion of the appearance or the like it does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. Not sure of the meaning of "secondary one" since there is only one image being used in the article. Are you by chance referring to any of these free images found on Commons? While Tyler's portrayal of the character may be the most recent and well-known, I believe something such as File:Arwen Undómiel.jpg should be OK as a replacement, right? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:ORCID logo.png[edit]

This logo is tagged as non-free logo, but it appears to be solely coloured text with a dot. Is that really copyrightable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Easily PD-USonly, but I would suspect it should be PD everywhere as just switching colors on a font is not "sweat of the brow". --MASEM (t) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Changed licensing to "PD-logo" per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:80-20 initiative Asian American voters.PNG[edit]

Does this qualify as {{PD-USonly}} or is the flag imagery copyrightable? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reasonably PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Understand. Do you think this is OK to tag for a move to Commons since this group using the logo is based out of the US? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Commons requires images to be free in their origin country and in the US, not in the whole world. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Licensing has been changed to {{PD-logo}} per above and since organization is based out of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talkcontribs) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC+9)


File:850 buzz logo.jpg and File:WKIX850.png are former logos licensed as non-free for use in WPTK. Neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article itself, so usage appears to be purely decorative and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am, however, wondering if these can be re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. The "Buzz" logo seems be just a combination of text which is too simple for copyright protection, but I am not sure about the record image used in the "All Time Favorites" logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either qualify. The first one has additional glossy text that gives it a general 3d appearance that is above and beyond standard filters, so there's some creativity in that. The second has more hand-drawn elements so it is beyond just simple geometries. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Masem. OK, they should stay non-free, but then I'm not sure if they satisfy NFCC#8. Do you think they should stay or go? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Old logos that aren't the subject of discussion should go. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Would File:WPTK850.png, another former logo, being used in the same article be considered too simple for copyright protection? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:891 ABC Adelaide.png[edit]

Should this be re-licensed as {{PD-Textlogo}} and tagged for a move to Commons? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That one would not be copyrightable in the US, being only slightly modified text. I dunno about Australia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Image has a non-free use rationale for use in 8 Flavahz, but not sure if this kind of group shot satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since seems possible for someone to take a photo of the group in concert, etc. and license it for free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think NFCC#1 is met. Unless the group owns the copyright to photos of it, which I don't know any examples of. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thanks for taking a look. If NFCC#1 is not satisfied, then I understand the image shouldn't be being used. I don't quite, however, get what difference the group owning the copyright makes when it comes to NFCC#1. The "no free equivalent" requirement is satisfied if the group itself owns the copyright? I guess if the group owns the copyright they could donate the image themselves, so that means a "free equivalent" could be created, but that seems also to say that a "non-free version" is not needed. If I'm getting this all backwards or otherwise mixed up then please forgive me. I'm still learning new things all the time. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of a situation where the copyright for a photography of someone by default belongs to that somebody, even if they aren't the photographer (when they didn't photography themselves). That is not how copyright law works to my understanding; one does not own copyrights to one's own image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is correct: the subject of a photograph does not automatically hold the copyright; that is the photographer. There can be a transfer of rights (such as work-for-hire where the photographer is paid for that, and the rights go to the subject) but that would need to be proven for us to assume that the subject has the rights to make the image freely licensed. There is the idea of personality rights in that if I take a photo of a famous person in public (eg all legal) but try to make money by selling that photo as to capitalize on the image of that person, then I may be afoul of the person's personality rights, but as we are talking Wikipedia and free content with no money involved, that doesn't come up for us (reusers are warned of this). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the clarification Jo-Jo Eumerus and Masem. 8 Flavahz is the only article the image is currently being used in. If it is removed, the image will be marked as an orphan. Would it be better instead to nominate the image for deletion via FFD instead and give NFCC#1 as the reason? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg[edit]

Isn't this file awfully big for it to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b and be considered non-free? Maybe it should be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}? Also, I'm not sure if attribution to the artist(s) who drew the map needs to be given in the image's caption, does it? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably should be reduced or a section of the vector file used instead to showcase the color-codings (which are a thing of note per the article). The work will be non-free (the person that vectored from the photo is not the original creator, this should be made clearer). And no, we don't require credit in the caption, though in this case, an explanation that the viewer is looking at a modern remake of the map would be good. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Image has a non-free use rationale for Pi Kappa Phi. The building pictured is referred to by it's address in the article, but that's about it. Usage seems purely decorative and does not satisfy NFCC#8 in my opinion. Also, the source provided for the image is just to the fraternity's national website so there's no way to verify when it was taken or by whom, and whether it is even the building in question. Is there some other way to verify how old the image is to see whether it is still protected by copyright? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a possibility this may be free by age. The larger version of this photo appears to be here [6], which you can see the people in front are dressed in the same period of clothing as other photos (that are licensed as free) on the Phi Kappa Phi page, and seems to be related to meetings at the start of this organization's history pre 1910. As such, if we can presume that data is correct, this should be out of copyright, but I would get second opinions on that. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I did try to trace this image back but didn't get farther than here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:875 caricia.png[edit]

Came across this one while running through Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files - the page it was used on is now redirected to another article that uses a different non-free picture. Does this one meet the TOO and thus eligible for deletion under F5? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely PD-USonly at minimum. (and arguably worldwide since XM is US-owned). --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So which is the better option: (1) {{PD-USonly}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; (2) {{PD-logo}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; or (3) something else? For reference, I had removed this from Caricia (XM) since, in my opinion, its non-free usage clearly failed (and still fails) WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. That is why it became an orphan. It was argued in WP:NFCR#File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG, however, that old radio logos are OK to be used in gallery-like way in such articles per the guidelines of WP:WPRS, so I readded the image until that discussion could be resolved. If this is PD, then there are no issues other than perhaps adding a section titled "Former logos" and tweaking the caption to include the years of use really left to fix. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
PD-USOnly means that it can't be moved to Commons. Commons accepts images if they are free images in both the US and the country of their origin. If it's US-made then it should be PD-logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for catching that Jo-Jo. I meant to delete that before I hit "save", but forgot. I originally had option (2) as (1). Anyway, I struck that part out. Sorry for the confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to change the licensing to PD-logo, but I cannot find a source for the image. The channel's website is no longer online and I cannot find an archived version of it. Is there a way to work around this? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG[edit]

Former logo of radio station being used in WWLB. Image has non-free use for the article, but the image is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the the article and use appears purely decorative (WWLB#Previous logo). I removed the image per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8, but it was re-added so just asking for opinions as to whether this kind of usage is acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image has a valid FUR, so non-free use is out the window. "Sourced discussion" of an image is the silliest thing I have heard. Please show me an image that has a sourced discussion and I'll show you oceanfront property in doesn't exist. The image has existed just fine, under the current and valid FUR, since it was moved a few months ago. I'm not sure why this has become an issue for this user, as he has commented out other images under NFCC#8 on hundreds other pages. - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sourced discussion (that is, references that talk specifically about the image or concepts it relates) implies NFCC#8, that there is contextual context for the image's use. If there is sourced discussion about an image, that means removing the image will impair the reader's understanding of the article. If there is no sourced discussion, then the image is simply being decorative and its removal will not impact the reader's understanding. Old logos run afoul of this all the time - if the logo changes but there's no explanation given for this change, then for the encyclopedia, it is not necessary to show the old logo, and is standard practice to remove such logos in these cases. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that images used in this way are not allowed for the reasons given by Masem above, and why non-free images are not generally considered accpetable for use in galleries or in a gallery like way per WP:NFG or in lists per WP:NFLISTS. Remove the image and no significant information is lost to the reader, so it seems that the image is purely there for visual reasons. As for an example of a image being discussed within an article itself where said discussion is supported by a reliable source, I think there are some that can be found. It's not a radio station logo, but I think Real Madrid C.F.#Emblem evolution is not too bad of an example. The four images being discussed there are not non-free, so they don't need a non-free use rationale, but even so they are the subject of sourced commentary so it could be argued that removing them would be detrimental to the reader's understanding if they were non-free. File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png is used in the infobox of Rhondda Cynon Taf, but if it was being used somewhere else (say in a section titled "Coat of Arms"), then discussion about it could be supported by this source. Maybe it's harder to do this for old radio/TV station logos, but I just don't see how a reader needs to see this particular former logo to understand the sentence "WLFV changed their format from country (as 'The Wolf', which moved to sister station WWLB 98.9 FM) to classic country, branded as '93.1 Hank FM'". Would the understanding of that sentence be affected in anyway if there was no former logo used in the article?- Marchjuly (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Have you actually seen a sourced discussion for an image? I haven't either. I believe that rule unnecessarily limits previously used images. There isn't a newspaper article or other source for the change of a radio, TV or other logo. That would just be silly. - NeutralhomerTalk • 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, actually I have: see Guitar Hero (series) where we include the old logo and the new, because we have two sources that talk about the change in the logo to reflect the series' new direction (the last paragraph under "Sale to Activision and development by Neversoft (2006-2009)"). Another example is several of the logos at PBS logos (please note, this is not a perfect page as the # of non-frees that aren't discussed are still too high); applicable of discussion of logos are those under the "Public Broadcasting Service IDs" describe how they came to using the "human" "P" to be inclusive of such. So logos can be the subject of sourced commentary, so that's a metric we use. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To add that a google search of "best logo changes" shows many many hits from RSes, so people in marketing are very much aware and track this too. Sourced discussion of logo changes do readily exist, just likely not for every logo on the planet. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, while you can say alot about the Guitar Hero logo, you can only say so much about the change from one logo to another when it comes to radio stations. The logos are different, different branding, used during diffrent times with different formats. I could write something up, but it would be unsourced (it's a radio logo, no one cares about those) and there would be more about the logo than the actual station. Again, unnecessary limits. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No they are necessary limits. It's within the mission to minimize non-free and to avoid indiscriminate information. Radio stations go through format and ownership changes all the time, and as you note, the logo often changes without note by anyone else. The fact that this goes unnoticed for the most part tells us that holding onto all of our non-free radio logos is indiscriminate information and because they are non-free we should only keep the one that is current (as for marketing and branding aspects per WP:LOGO) and any that are the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
One additional point to add is that radio station logos can be the subject of discussion, its just that the majority aren't. WMMS, specifically the Buzzard aspect, comes to mind. But's an iconic symbol of the station (and of the city at the time) so it definitely falls within allowable use. Demonstration of iconic nature of a logo would be a point towards keeping it. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK. Six years later and we're still having this debate? I note also that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Logos disagrees with policy (2nd to last sentence of that section). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. Granted it was six years ago. :) Being a member of WP:WPRS, and knowing more in the six years since, I still disagree with the policy (like the rest of WPRS). - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I wasn't trying to "break" the encyclopedia. I was editing in good faith and only removing images whose usage, which I believed (and still believe), did (does) not comply with WP:NFC based upon discussions I've seen and been a part of at NFCR and my reading of the NFC. I wasn't, however, aware of the KOTK case or the WPRS guideline cited above by Hammersoft, though in the latter's case I don't believe a WikiProject's guidelines take precedence over a community-wide policy/guideline like WP:NFC. Since there does seem to be strong disagreement about whether the use of non-free images in this manner is acceptable, I decided to go back a self-revert my edits per WP:STATUSQUO. I believe I got all of the pertinent ones, but a couple may have slipped through the cracks so I'll check again later on. At least in this way, any clean up will be minimized and images will not be incorrectly deleted if it turns out the edits were wrong. On the other hand, if it turns out the images should not be used, then they can always be removed again. Hopefully, this is acceptable to all involved in this discussion and this issue can be resolved in an amicable way. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Let the image people and the policy people rangle with one out. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's we are trying to do here. Aren't we as editors also considered to be "image and policy people"? WP:NFC is community-wide guideline and thus takes precedence over any consensus achieved at the project or article level, doesn't it? I believe all editors are free to participate in discussions such as these and try and make their case either way. Masem makes some good points above regarding using images in such a way which seem consistent with the current NFCCP. Tacking on former logos to the end of articles like this just seems purely decorative: the image is just sitting there and not being discussed. If the former logo is needed because it will significantly increase the reader's understanding in such a way that removing it would hurt that understanding, then the image should be incorporated into the article in such a way that makes this more evident. There is already an image in the infobox representing the station's current branding so another non-free image is not really needed for identification purposes. I think that once we get outside of the infobox more developed and specific commentary is needed to satisfy NFCC#8. Simply writing one or two lines (or adding a caption) describing what the logo represents and why it is contextually significant is likely to be considered to be OR, unless it's supported by a reliable source. WP:LOGO#Copyright concerns says that it's the responsibiltiy (i.e., the burden) of the person wanting to include a non-free logo to prove that its use complies with WP:NFCC. I don't see how this is all that different from an editor adding unsourced statements to an article being asked to WP:PROVEIT. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, there are editors, then there are people who specialize in image rules and creating and revising policy. BIG difference! It's like apples and's not even close. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume that the editors who specialize in (non-free) image rules and policy are also the ones who have been heavily involved in hammering out the concerned parts of WP:Logo, WP:NFC, WP:NFCC and other relevant community policy/guideline pages over the years. I'm not totally sure, but I think a few of them still readily particpate in the discussions taking place on this page or at WP:MCQ. Wouldn't the respective wording of those policy/guideline pages have been revised accordingly if the majority of those involved in the process felt it was "unnecessary limiting"? These pages do seem to currently say/imply that using a non-free logo/image in such a way (i.e., a purely decorative way) is not acceptable. Is there anything specifically written on any of the community-wide pages which leads you to believe this type of usage is OK? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. FWIW, I am not interested in imposing "my will" upon the community and will happily defer to any consensus it reaches or has reached regarding this. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I for one gave up. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC apply project wide...except where they don't. There are quite a few special, if unwritten, exemptions to the policy. Currency articles and broadcast stations are two such examples. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File:QNET logo official.jpg[edit]

Another logo that appears to be {{PD-textlogo}} suitable (Also, is .jpg the right file format?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PDtextlogo. And while nothing wrong with the JPEG this is one of those logos that we can recreate as an SVG (WP:GL might be able to help. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Changed image to "PD-logo" per above. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Image is used as primary means of identification in Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada. Usage in SSR seems fine, but I don't think usage in the SC article is allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the company is a subsidiary or "child entity" of SSM, then using the logo is not something typically allowed. I removed the logo, but it was re-added with this edit by Bearcat. The fact that "Sirius Canada never had a separate logo; it just used the same one, and no 'specific to Canada' alternate version ever existed." seems to be convered by No. 17 and still usage is not allowed. Anyway, just interested in other opens here. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirius Canada must be allowed to contain a logo — it is absolutely, uncondtionally unacceptable for there to ever be any rule which has the effect of permanently prohibiting it from ever containing any logo at all. If you can figure out some alternative solution which enables the article to contain the logo it used, then by all means go right ahead with it — but it cannot and will not be left permanently unable to ever have any logo in its infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why it "must" contain a logo. WP:NFCCP says that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Why is Sirius Canada an exception to the requirements of WP:NFC? Moreover, per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." If the image should not be being used per No. 17 of the UUI, then a valid non-free use rationale cannot really be written. Just for reference, I looked to see if an alternative existed. The logo being discussed here does not even seem to be the one being used any more so using it as the primary means of identification no longer seems warranted. The logo used on the company's official Facebook page, [ or this one might be too simple to be covered by copyright. If they are, then I believe they could be used instead of the non-free logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
#17 is not a feature of any external copyright law that inherently binds Wikipedia content, but is a rule Wikipedia made up for itself that's considerably stricter than any actual law actually governing what is or isn't actually fair use. Sirius Canada was not a subsidiary of the US company, but was a completely separate, independently incorporated company in its own right — but any rule which makes it impossible for an independent company to ever have any logo in its infobox at all just because it happened to share a logo with another company by fully legal agreement between those two companies, and thus prevents the former company's article from ever being able to include exactly the same "visual identification of the company's branding" that would apply to any other company on earth, is quite simply a patently unreasonable rule that deserves nothing but unyielding pushback.
There's something extremely wrong with any rule which sets up two different classes of content rights, whereby some companies are eligible to have their logos in their infoboxes while others aren't, for reasons which have nothing to do with any clause in any actual copyright law but are purely crap we invented all on our own.
As for the matter of the "current" logo, what you're missing is that Sirius Canada and SiriusXM Canada aren't the same thing. In exactly the same way as the US versions of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio were formerly two separate companies that merged to create the contemporary SiriusXM as a third new thing, there used to be separate Sirius Canada and XM Canada companies in Canada as well — which merged into a new Sirius XM Canada, almost three years after the US companies did. So the "current" logo would be incorrect in the Sirius Canada article, because it was never used by any entity that was incorporated as Sirius Canada — it's the logo of a separate successor company, which was formed by a merger with another company, and not the logo of the defunct company that was the subject of the article under discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The url I provided above was listed in the infobox of Sirius Canada as the company's official website. If it is for a different company, then it probably should be removed. Did Sirius Canada have its own official website which may be used to verify the logo was used?
Regarding the "strictness" of WP:NFC, it clearly says that they were purposely designed to be more strict than US copyright law with respect to the usage of non-free content on Wikipedia. Any discussion about whether the NFC is too strict or unreasonable should probably take place at that talk page since it involves issues that go beyond the use of this one particular in the article.
Regarding this particular image, it doesn't seem to be the one even being used by Sirius Satellite Radio anymore. Maybe the current logo SSR is using could be used in that article and this older one could be used in the Sirius Canada article. I say "could" because once again usage of non-free content is not guaranteed and it must be supported by a valid non-free use rationale.
Finally, pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been created with Wikipedia specifically in mind and not to necessarily reflect the common practice of the outside world, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sirius Satellite Radio isn't "using" a different logo than this either; it's also a defunct company, and the "current" logo is the logo of a successor company that was formed after it merged with a competitor to form a new third company with a different logo than either of the predecessor companies ever used when they were separate companies. The old Sirius logo is the only correct one on Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada, and the old XM logo is the only correct one on XM Satellite Radio and XM Canada — the new one belongs on Sirius XM Holdings and Sirius XM Canada, but not on any of the four predecessor companies.
And frankly, I care not a whit about how much "stricter than US copyright law" the NFC rules were designed to be; if they create a patently unfair situation where the Canadian companies are permanently unable to ever have any logo in their infobox at all while the American ones are allowed to have them, then they're unreasonable rules which deserve to be opposed and exploded. If there's a conflict between "NFC policy as currently written" and the principle that companies should be able to have their logo in their infobox, then the latter principle is the one that matters more. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the "latter principle" you are referring to above WP:LOGO? If it is, then WP:LOGO#Uploading non-free logos says "Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." There is also a hatnote for the same section which clearly says "This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos." Wikipedia's image use policy (WP:IUP#Fair use images) says bascially the same thing. The application of the NFC in this case has nothing to do with the "nationality" of Sirius Canada, so I'm not sure how this is being biased against Canadian companies. The NFC would apply and has been applied to companies/organizations whose parent and child entities are located within the same country, even those located solely within the United States. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We're not preventing logos of Canadian companies from being used, only when the Canadian company is a child company of a US company, which does appear to be the case for Sirius Canada. If there was a case of a US company being a child of a Canadian one, and both used the same logo and both were separately notable, then we'd not use the logo on the US page for the same reasons here. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

People (Microsoft service)[edit]

This page consists of merely 596 words but has five non-free files. Two of which, File:Windows Live Mail Contacts.png and File:Windows Live People.png are questionably too large. I have linked here from the article's talk page, as I feel we're going a little too far with the non-free media MusikAnimal talk 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A logo and a identifying screenshot is generally acceptable in the infobox for software, but none of the interface aspects of the previous versions are subject of discussion so they should be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Made in chelsea logo.png[edit]

File is being used in 12 articles but only has a non-free use rationale for Made in Chelsea. Is this logo is considered simple enough to be {{PD-USonly}}? If it is, then WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI are no longer an issue for the other articles. If it is non-free, then it needs to be decided if a valid nfur can be written for the other articles. If the consensus is that it can, then I am happy to go and do that. I am just not sure which is why I am asking for clarification. Finally, image is also tagged as a "screenshot", but that doesn't seem to be the case so I am just wondering why. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The crown image is creative enough so that this must be treated as NFC. It is a title card for a show, so being a screenshot is legit. With TV shows, the usage that we generally allow is the main series (which should only use the most recent title card unless other title cards have clear NFCC#8 contextual significant), and the first season that uses that new titlecard. Here, because it appears all seasons use the same logo, none of the season articles should have this titlecard. For the two special series (the LA and NYC ones) as the NYC did not appear to adapt a special titlecard for that, and likely the LA one will not, it is also inappropriate on those two (they aren't a different show for all purposes). So the only valid use is on the main show page. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the crown image and just use the text? I am not saying that would be acceptable in terms of content since the crown may be essential to the image, but I've seen copyrighted items removed from images before on Commons to allow the image itself to be kept on Commons (c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg) so I am wondering if something similar is allowed in a case like this. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, yes, at least for the other seasons where I outlined non-free would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. How would one do that? Download the image, crop out crown, and then upload it as {{PD-textlogo}} to Commons or as {{PD-USonly}} to Wikipedia?
Just for the sake of discussion, suppose it is argued that the "crown" element is essential to the logo and removing it is something that should not be done especially since the logo being used in the main article would still have the crown. Is there some sort of valid nfur rationale which could possibly be written for current version for use in the infoboxes of the individual season articles, etc.? Is there no wiggle room? I've been down this road before only to have those wanting to keep the image say No. 17 of NFC#UUI and NFCC#8 are not applicable or are already satisfied. I am thinking about adding a post to each article's talk page suggesting the crown element be removed and want to base this suggestion on accepted policy as much as possible, so any suggestions that anyone has on how to best do this would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure the crown is not just a derivative work of a freely licenced crown or is the UK threshold of originality too high for this logo? It looks rather close to being a Prince of Wales crown with simple stars replacing several elements. ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that I'm not sure. Clearly the title card is based on File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg which itself is marked PD everywhere, and if the crown is essentially the same, I would find it hard to claim that this titlecard it a novel copyright atop that , even in the UK. We may want to check at commons where there's people better versed in how this would apply. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look at it Ww2censor and Masem. I don't know anything about the show, but the logo did seem familiar to me. I've seen the "Keep Calm" imagery used on all kinds of different things so maybe as you say the "crown" is protected by copyright as well. I ask at the Commons VP if the logo is a candidate for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I presume you mean like one of these c:Category:Keep calm and carry on. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VPCOPY#en:File:Made in chelsea logo.png. I may have phrased my question badly, so please feel free to correct me as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer given there is correct: it is not the same crown shape as "Keep Calm", and should be considered novel, which means that for us, we'll treat the whole title card as non-free. But as noted above, just the text along would not be so that could be used on all season pages. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not notice the differences between the two crowns, but can understand the reasoning given in Commons. I'm not sure, however, whether the "crown" used in the titlecard is taken from a different free image. As stated above, the safe bet seems to be to remove it from the logo, and use the crown-less version for all articles besides "Made in Chelsea". Technically that is probably fairly easy to do, but I'm not sure if contextually it's the right thing to do. Is this the type of thing that should be discussed on each respective article's talk page? Perhaps something like "The non-free logo for the series cannot be used here per WP:NFC, so it should removed. A non-free logo specific to this particular season (if one can be found) or a freely licensed 'crown-less' version of the main logo may be used instead. Is there a preference?" - Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed the logo from every article without an an nfur. I also did some googling and found that at least some and possibly all of the individual seasons have been released on DVD. Would it be possible to use the cover for an individual season's DVD (like this one for Season 3) in the infobox of its Wikipedia article? A non-free rationale could be added and the image tagged with {{Non-free video cover}}. Could an Amazon page be used as the |source= if these images are OK as non-free? - Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Villegas[edit]

The following files are affected by this NFCR:

These four images seemingly belong to the owner, who released them here non-free. As such, they may fail NFCC#4, and more likely NFCC#8. -- (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I have to agree here; we generally require all user-created contributed content to be in CC or PD licensing, and if these are photos that were not published yet, that makes it more difficult. We should encourage the user if they can use a CC license in which case all such issues go away. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian Riflemen's Union[edit]

This page contains a fair amount of material tagged as "fair use" which is rather vaguely sourced - somewhere here apparently. I wonder what should be kept and what should be removed, and whether any of these images may be old enough for its copyright to have expired by now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives for File:Football Federation Australia logo.svg[edit]

Federation logo is being used in the articles for individual teams. Just wondering if the following would be acceptable non-free alternatives for use in Australia national soccer team and Australia women's national soccer team respectively:

Are each of the above logos distinct enough from the federation's logo to satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI? The only real differences I can see are in the text, and the coloring inside the globe. I think the text for the women's logo is enough to distinguish it from the federation's logo, but I'm not entirely sure about the men's logo. If these are acceptable replacements, then they can be uploaded using {{non-free use rationale logo}} and {{non-free logo}} and used in the individual team articles, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


This was uploaded as a nonfree image eight years ago, and the uploader is long gone, so I can't expect an answer from them.

Nice as this image is, every article that it's used in (Other Worlds (magazine) and Hannes Bok) now also includes free images serving the same purpose, so it looks like this nonfree image should be removed and deleted. However, I can't find any evidence that the (magazine) copyright was ever renewed, so this image may well be free.

The "First copyright renewals for periodicals" page [7] reports that copyrights for Other Worlds were renewed beginning with the March 1950 issue. However, the Catalog of Copyright Entries shows renewal only for that issue (not even, as one would expect, the remaining issues from 1950). The LOC database, covering later years, shows renewals of individual stories by their authors. This isn't unusual for genre fiction magazines that stopped publishing in the 1950s; the publishers are defunct, their assets, if any, are not being actively managed, and whatever rights they held in the magazine contents aren't plausibly monetizable. The authors, in contrast, typically retained book rights, and could monetize them via short story collections, anthology sales, and, occasionally, expansion to novel-length. (Other Worlds is a bit more tangled-up than the standard case, but that only casts doubt on whether the renewal of the March 1950 issue was valid.)

Anyway. This isn't the cover to the March 1950 issue, and I don't see any evidence of copyright renewal, either for the issue as a whole or for the cover discretely. If it weren't for this having been identified as a nonfree file, I wouldn't have serious doubts. I've got a set of covers for the magazine ready to upload as free images, but if I've missed something about this file, it probably applies to most or all of the others.

Anybody have some helpful insight? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A question to ask is what period of years were you able to search for in the LOC for renewals? If we're certain that the LOC search encompassed the allowed range for this work to be renewed, and there's no evidence for that copyright (assuming you've done the search in good faith) then we should be able to treat these as free images, though I would make sure to expand the file page to explain what methods you've worked to assure this. (eg the description above). But at least last time I used the LOC copyright search, there are periods it did not coverage (the records only in print form or per request) so that's what I want to make sure we're not missing that. --18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I turned up authors' contribution renewals for every year Other Worlds was published, except the last (when it published very little by pro writers). The magazine's first publisher shows up as renewing copyrights for every (monthly) issue of another of its magazines, Fate, for the years when it published Other Worlds. There are also a batch of issues at the Internet Archive (which is hardky perfect about checking copyrights, of course). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Then it is probably reasonably fair to consider these images in the PD due to expired copyright, but as noted, just list out what you did to confirm the lack of renewal. You've done the right homework to show that you haven't missing any obvious copyright-loophole cracks these might have fallen through, so it is completely fair to presume the expired copyright works for this case. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


Canadian radio station logo uploaded as non-free, but seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. Logo is essentially nothing but test, and I don't believe the font and colors used are subject to copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG on Sahaja Yoga#History[edit]

Do we need a non-free picture of religious leader Nirmala Srivastava on the history section of Sahaja Yoga article?

Ms. Srivastava no longer alive, so, I understand the use of this image in her biography. But I don't agree the presence of this non-free image "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the history of spiritual technique Sahaja Yoga.

The article says Srivastava invented Sahaja Yoga, and this is important. But what she looked like is not relevant.

Do we use non-free pictures of people in sections discussing topics related to that people, just because they are mentioned? --damiens.rf 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, this is one of those uses that we disallow. If it was Srivastava perhaps actually demonstrating the technique there might be some logic, but not just a picture of the person with no other concept. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Masem:, is this just an opinion or is it based on some policy or guideline? Recently, I have unsuccessfully tried do remove this image from that article a few times.--damiens.rf 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#8. The picture of the person (otherwise doing nothing directly related to the yoga exercise) can be removed from the article without hindering the reader's understanding of the topic of the yoga exercise; it is effectively decoration in that manner. That's why I mention that if it was the person actually doing one of the positions that the yoga exercise calls, that might help contribute towards the reader's understand. Instead, we can link to that person and the reader can click through if they really know what it is. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Damiens.rf: I agree with Masem on this. I do not see how this image is needed for the article. There's a wikilink to Nirmala Srivastava in the very first sentence of the lead (in fact, it's the first wikilink in the entire article) where any reader interested in learning more about Srivastava will see the same picture in the infobox. Definitely does not meet the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8. I'm not sure, however, if it was a good idea for you to remove the non-free use rationale for "Nirmala Srivastava" and the image's licensing with this edit because now the image has no nfur for any usage or any licensing at all. If the image is non-free, it needs to have a nfur for each use per WP:NFCC#10c and I believe all images are required to have information on their copyright and licensing status per WP:IUP. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: That was by mistake! The rationale can now be seen, after I have fixed a template parameter name.--damiens.rf 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
From what I saw, there several photos of free license of Nirmala Srivastava in Wikimedia Commons. It is not necessary a photo with Copyright of this woman in Wikipedia.--Isinbill (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Non-free logo being used in Albert Folch Folch. Image is provided with a source link, but not sure if that constitutes a non-free use rationale. Also, "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is unclear. Although the logo is mentioned in the article, I can't find it anywhere on the cited source provided, and the department actually seems to be currently using a different logo. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding this usage? Is it simple enough for {{PD-USonly}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The logo does meet PD-textlogo (if its from a US school, then its free around the world). However, before asserting this is the logo we definitely should have some reasonable proof of that as that can become a trademark issue. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The website of the department in question shows this logo but with additional text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Even with the added text, still easily falls into PD-textlogo then (though we should use that link for the source of the image). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerous. So retagging it as {{PD-logo}} and using the source link Jo-Jo found is the agreed course of action? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Licensing changed to "PD-logo"/"Trademark" and source link update per above. Image also tagged with "Copy to Wikimedia Commons". - Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:COPS intertitle.png[edit]

Is the logo eligible for copyright in the US? George Ho (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My own guess is that the worn appearance is a somewhat creative choice and thus yes that it is copyrightable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm checking around and the stencilling effects around the letters doesn't appear to be from an original font, so those were added in and have artistic value. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Simple Minds Alive and Kicking single cover.jpg[edit]

Is the British image eligible for copyright in the US? George Ho (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Would be ineligible in the US but likely copyrightable in the UK. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Logo of organization Ansar al-Sham uploaded as non-free. Logo has a non-free use rationale for article, but my question is whether it is significantly different from the freely licensed File:Logo of the Islamic Front (Syria).svg. The only difference I can see between the two is the text added to the Ansar al-Sham logo and that it is a png file. I cannot read the text, but my understanding is that text is not protected by copyright. Does the non-free logo satisfy WP:NFCC#1 and does it need to be non-free? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if these shapes (outside of the text) are original enough to be copyrightable. I would prefer to use the SVG file regardless of copyright status though, it has a higher resolution and quality. Whether it's right that both images have different copyright status I don't know.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

National identity cards in the European Economic Area[edit]

The non-free files in this article should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There are atotal of 10 non-free images being used in that article.
I agree with Stefan2 in that they should all be removed for not satisfying not NFCC#8 and NFG. FWIW, many of them also fail WP:NFCC#10c. All of them except the two Latvian ones have stand-alone articles so removing them will not directly lead to deletion. The two Latvian images do have nfurs for the "National identity card" article, but I don't think the nfurs are valid. Anyway, removing them will make them orphans so maybe it's better to take them to FFD instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree that the images aren't needed in the larger article but okay on the individual ones. For the two Latvian ones, either just allowing them to be treated as orphans with 7 days to fix, or to FFD for discussion should work. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Commented out all of the non-free images mentioned above plus File:Gibraltaridentitycardreverse.jpg per above and left link to this discussion in edit sum. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Corbis logo.png[edit]

I did assess this image's non-free content rationale as being sufficient but I must ask, is that r-b shape creative enough to make it copyrightable? The image is also currently tagged as "PD-textlogo"; either that or "non-free logo" need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's just a font pattern even if the underlying font glyphs make unique shapes like that (eg the FedEx logo has the inverted space arrow but that's still just PD-textlogo). This can be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Is this image eligible for copyright in the UK? It contains just black background, album title, and record label logo. George Ho (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would fall under the threshold of originality. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I at least tag it as "PD-ineligible-USonly"? --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


File:Weber State Wildcats logo.png

This seems to be the logo of Weber State Wildcats and should only be used in that article. The logo violates WP:NFCC#8 in Weber State University and WP:NFC#UUI §17 in several articles. Since there are two identical copies of the logo, one of them could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F1, provided that that version is unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree on all points, though of which of the two logos to keep I can't see any real difference even though one has a small byte size than the other. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that use of the logo is only valid on Weber State Wildcats and not in the university or individual team articles. I am wondering whether the photo/logo used on the Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team's [Weber State Wildcats official Facebook page] could be used for that article. It is the same logo, but the basketball in the background might make it specific enough for use on the team's article. Not sure if its acceptable since it seems to be the logo superimposed upon a photo. Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
File:WeberStateWildcats.png has been been nominated for speedy deletion per WP:F5 since it was replaced by the other image in the articles where it was being used. The problems with No. 17 and File:Weber State Wildcats logo.png, however, still remain since it is now being used in six articles. There are also new problems with WP:NFCC#10c since the image only has non-free rationales for three of these uses. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Miss Moneypenny by Samantha Bond.jpg[edit]

Over the years, people have added this file to the infobox for the real world actress Samantha Bond. I've always thought that we couldn't use non-free content in biographical infoboxes. Also, we couldn't use an image of the character that an actor plays in the infobox for the actor. Basically what WP:NFCC#1 says about the possibility of a free image being made.

Recently, another editor has again brought up this discussion and they claim that it's a common practice to use Fair Use files in actor bios, especially for soap opera actors. That discussion is on the talk page for the article at Talk:Samantha Bond.

Could we get a review of this so that maybe this can finally be settled for this image and this article? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A non-free image of a living person is nearly never permissible since we can take a free image of that person. Just because they have a famous on-screen role is not an allowance to use a non-free; rare occasions will allow for this if, as an actor, their visual appearance that can only be captured by the non-free is of critical discussion, which I don't find to be the case here. So the image should not be used on Samantha Bond's page, though find at Miss Moneypenny's page. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
NFCC#1 seems pretty clear about this kind of usage. It's not really whether a freely licensed image of this person has ever been taken, but rather whether such an image could be taken. Since Bond is still alive, it is possible for someone to take her photo and freely license it so the use of the "Moneypenny" image is not justified. Another problem with using this screenshot in Bond's article is WP:NFCC#10c. It is the responsibility of the editor wishing to use non-free content to provide a separate, specific non-free use rationale for where they want to use. Such a nfur must comply with all 10 of the criteria in WP:NFCCP. This screenshot has no such nfur for "Samantha Bond", so it shouldn't be used there for that reason as well. FWIW, if an image is really desired for the article then maybe an image request could be made at c:COM:Picture requests to see if anyone there can help. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Same situation. Living actress, no reason for a non-free on that page. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I've commented at Talk:Samantha Bond, the editor suggesting that nonfree images in soap opera actor articles is commonplace may have seen some that have yet to be removed, but is totally incorrect in the suggestion that this is acceptable.— TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg[edit]

Using the image in Threshold of originality and Copyright law of Switzerland is OK in my assessment since the image itself is the topic of discussion of aspects in TOO law that aren't easily described in text. But on Christoph Meili I am not certain - might fail WP:NFCC#1 since it's being used to illustrate a living person. Unless this specific shot with the tomes is both nonreplaceable with freer stuff and of contextual significance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it fails NFCC#1 on Meili's page. The photo is reasonable on the copyright law page as it is a specific example of discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Raelian symbols.svg[edit]

Two questions: (1) Is this image sufficiently creative for copyright protection to begin with? I'm leaning in the direction of no. (2) If it is sufficiently creative for protection, I don't believe that the use in Korindo (Raëlian temple) meets WP:NFCC#8. The use in swastika is more arguable. But I'm inclined to say that we should simply retag it as PD-ineligible. -- B (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the copyright status, partly because it's a vector version of a logo; my impression is that the logo itself is borderline in terms of originality if these case studies are anything to go by. It needs non-free use rationales for the other pages it's used on, though, if we keep it there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if US or Switzerland law would apply here, but I would agree they might fall under PD-USonly if they are still copyrighted in Switzerland (where Realian is HQed). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The standard for copyrightability in Switzerland is whether the work is a "creation of the mind with individual character". The logo could be copyrighted here (since I live in Switzerland). Suggest PD-USonly thusly if it isn't original enough for the US.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Both look like simple geometric designs - not copyrightable in the US. In Switzerland, which I know nothing about, Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality was an interesting read. Their court doesn't even find all photographs to be copyrightable??? The photo of the guy holding books would be unquestionably copyrightable anywhere else, I would think. Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States has some examples of things not held to be copyrightable in the US ... I would think that the NIKKEN, Bruce Lee, and Best Western symbols are all more creative than these two symbols. --B (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:97.3fm logo.png[edit]

Logo for Australian radio station 97.3 FM (Brisbane). Not sure about Australia, but this seem too simple for copyright protect in the US since it simple text and shapes. "PD-USonly"? -Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:97.7 HTZ FM.png[edit]

Are the cross-shapes in the "9" and "O" considered artistic enough for copyright protection or should this be "PD-USonly" or "PD-logo"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:97.9 The Box logo.png[edit]

Logo of American radio station which seems to be nothing more that text in a fancy font. Should this be "PD-logo"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:IC 1101 by SDSS-II.jpg[edit]

It seems by searching Hubble Space Telescope raw images there are about 12 images of Abell 2029 (and IC 1101) one could process and use. Does this fail NFCC:1? -- (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think so, but only a few would make good replacements.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Good replacements or bad, free versions exist and must be used in lieu of non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is something about this specific version of the stellar bodies that is discussed in the article, which there doesn't appear to be. Visualization definitely can be done by free images from other scopes. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Pretty clearly a textlogo IMO - just some lines are not copyrightable. Just wanted to know whether it'd be PD-USonly or the general PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

PD-textlogo. It's a NY based company (it appears) and as such the logo is ineligible for copyright in the US and thus the world. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" per above. Image did have problems with WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9, but these should no longer be an issue. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Kenya Rugby logo.png[edit]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. Additionally, the fair use rationale mentions multiple articles, which is a violation of WP:NFCC#10c which says that there should be one FUR per article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on both points. FWIW, I think the image should only be being used in Kenya Rugby Football Union since that appears to be the most likely candidate as the "parent" article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a table of non-free images in userspace, which is not allowed. The editor is active so we might want to ask them to remove these.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. @Shrejmann: could you remove the non free images from your user page please?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg[edit]

This seems to be used in unreasonably many articles. It also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be removed at least from that user sandbox. Not so sure on the others; I'd imagine that images of such planetary subjects tend to be in short supply. Incidentally, it looks like this image is being propagated through a template or somesuch.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
For example, non-free files should not be used in list articles, but this seems to be used in multiple list articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, got it. On Dwarf planet the image is used in the infobox along with the images of other large dwarf planets. I do think it does have contextual significance there if we stick to having the mini-gallery of 5 earliest recognized dwarf planets. Haumea and Moons of Haumea are OK; subject of the articles and in the latter article it does rather nicely show the moons. Hiʻiaka (moon) and Namaka (moon) do we need the whole image? The moons are only a segment of the full image, but I think the non-free usage there to illustrate the article subjects is OK. List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System has the image as part of a table with other free images; I am generally inclined to opine that in such situations images should be used in an "all or nothing" fashion, i.e either omit images wholesale or include the lone non-free image if we don't end up with a mostly or excessively non-free gallery. User:Rfassbind/sandbox/Leadimage compilations violates NFCC#9. Each article needs its own use rationale but I don't think we need the same rationale twice for the same article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In Dwarf planet, it is only necessary to present pictures of dwarf planets, but it is irrelevant which planets we show in the infobox. There is therefore no need for non-free files there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png[edit]

This seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. In addition, it only has nfurs for three articles, but it is being used in nine so it also has problems with WP:NFCC#10c. These kind of No. 17 violations are fairly common since it seems as if almost every editor who edits sports article like this feels there is nothing wrong with using the same non-free sports logo in multiple child article of the same parent. FWIW, It should definitely be removed from the userpage asap. It should also be removed from the child articles, but expect it to be re-added fairly quickly so it might be a good idea to link this discussion in the edit sum and possibly post on the article's talk page explaining why the image should not be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I commented out the image from the sandbox it was being used in per WP:NFCC#9 and from the articles it was lacking nfurs per WP:NFCCE. Image is still being used in the two team articles for which it has nfurs. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) screenshot.png[edit]

This image's use in hero graphic could easily be replaced a free use substitute. There's no special reason to use a shot from as opposed to any generic website. czar 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely replaceable, even if just a user-made mockup. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Cabinn Hotels logo.gif[edit]

Simply put, I'm not sure if this actually eligible for copyright and should actually be tagged as a {{PD-logo}}. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is between simple and complex enough to be copyrightable. I think it's best to err on the side of caution and leave this as a fair use image. AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Toby Suzuki.jpg[edit]

Photo being used in Toby Suzuki. A non-free usage rationale is provided for the article, but there is no copyright tag provided for the image and it is tagged with {{Attribution}}. The nfur says for "source" that "subject provided this photo at author's request specifically for article", so I'm not sure why this is being treated as non-free. If the subject provided the photo, then this usage would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1 since the subject or someone else could provide the same photo or an equivalent photo for free by following the steps listed at WP:DCP. Finally, the image is also being used inline at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop (instead of being linked) which fails WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c if the image is really non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling Kintetsubuffalo here about that.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then help me out. I don't upload this kind of image often, have no idea what tag should apply here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kintetsubuffalo. A photo of a living person almost always fails NFCC#1 since it is possible that a free equivalent could be taken by someone and uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. Generally, the photographer, not the subject of the photo, is considered the copyright holder. Do you know if Mr. Suzuki took the photo himself or whether the photographer transfered the copyright to him? If either is the case, then he can simply upload the photo to Commons himself as {{PD-self}} or one of the free licenses listed at WP:ICT/FL. He could also donate the image to Wikipedia per WP:DCP#Donating your photographs. You could upload the image to Commons on his behalf if that's easier by following the instructions listed at c:COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. If, however, Mr. Suzuki is not the copyright holder or did not take the photo himself, then I believe you need to request permission from the photographer to use the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
He's submitted the letter, I also forwarded Wikipedia the letter, received ticket #2015101410000721.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
His original ticket # is 2015101310005067. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Kintetsubuffalo. The image has been tagged with "OTRS pending", so I think it's safe until OTRS decides either way. For reference, Wikipedia OTRS currently has a backlog of only 1 day, so there shouldn't be much of a wait until a volunteer gets to the file. If things seems to be taking longer than necessary, then you can always post at WP:OTRSN and directly ask an OTRS volunteer to check into things for you. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Looked through my files and found and trimmed one up I could label mine, changed the license appropriately.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
OK Kintetsubuffalo. Just for reference, I think it's better to simply upload the different image as completely separate file since it's not really a "new" version. This helps avoid confusion and allows each file to have a unique name and edit history. I think that's why it was tagged as {{Split media}} by Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Different files should be under different file names, in particular if they have different authors and and copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, this should only be used in Cricket Association of Nepal, but the FUR is for one of the other articles in which it is used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also fails NFCC#9 in a userbox. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Commented out the image from User:D subash/stores/tamplates/User Nepali Cricket Fan which has taken care of the NFCC#9 concerns and left a link to this discussion in the edit sum. The No. 17 still need to be taken care of however. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada leadership elections[edit]

The two non-free images fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume they are one of the portraits in the tables, which yes, that's a NFC violation. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, two of the portraits are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the table's incompletely pictured, anyway, thus reducing the Principle of least astonishment violation from removal.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the non-free File:Joe Greene 1968.jpg (also btw being used in a similar manner in Minister of Agriculture (Canada)) and File:Paulmartinsr.jpg should be removed from the aritcle. Only the The nfurs provided for them for the articles for each individual are valid per the reasoning given by Stefan2 above. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg[edit]

Non-free screenshot which has non-free use rationales for Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) and TV-am, but does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either usage. The nfur for the "Good Morning Britain" states that the screenshot is needed to "To show both the style (including set and clock) and presenters of the Good Morning Britain television programme at that time. Note that this displays a different aspect to the logo image File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg, and thus use of two shots is believed justified.", but this is something that is can be more than sufficiently done using text: The reader does not need to see the image to understand that the main set consisted of a sofa and other furniture or that a "famous" analog clock was displayed at the bottom right of the sceen. The nfur for"TV-am" states "This was both TV-am's flagship show and the one for which they are best known, so it was core to their success and thus warrants inclusion here", but that information is not obtained from the screenshot at all. Doesn't a screenshot of four people sitting on a sofa smiling simply show four people sitting on a sofa and smiling?

Usage in both cases seems to be, at least in my opinion, purely decorative and not warranted at all. - Marchjuly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 2015-10-11T12:22:25

File:Baruj Benacerraf.jpg and File:Kuznets portrait.jpg[edit]

The question around the use of these files in Columbia University School of General Studies has resulted in back and forth reverting. I oppose the use of these files in this article because there is no contextual significance (WP:NFCCP#8). The article section is a list of alumni and nothing warrants displaying the pictures of these two specifically; there are plenty of free images of other alumni who are listed. Even if these two Nobelists are the most important among the alumni, as Veritaslux1776 (talk · contribs) notes on my talk page, I don't see how the "omission [of the images] would be detrimental to [the] understanding" (WP:NFCCP#8) of what this section, let alone the whole article, is about. The images themselves aren't the object of critical commentary either, so the use fails both aspects (identification and object of commentary) of contextual signification.(WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion)

I also oppose the use of File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg on that article because it's not specific to this institution but rather a representation of the university as a whole. As such, it isn't necessary for identification here, unlike the seal. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I've removed the two images. They clearly fail NFCC8, and also NFCC3a because they're already used in their own articles. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion on File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg, Black Kite? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It only has a non-free use rationale for Columbia University, so its use in Columbia University School of General Studies does not comply with WP:NFCC#10c. It is possible that this is too simple for copyright protection and its licensing may be changed to {{PD-logo}} which would make compliance with WP:NFCC a moot point. The only problem is the "crown". This is similar to the discussion in WP:NFCR#File:Made in chelsea logo.png. From that discussion, it seems that if the crown is removed or it is a derivative of a freely-licensed "crown", then the logo might be OK as "PD-logo"? Perhaps Masem or ww2censor can offer more insight here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The crown is definitely pushing it over the threshold of originality. Removing it would make it PDtextlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. While NFCC#2b calls for a portion to be used when it carries the same educational value as the whole work, for logos this is somewhat different. Template:Non-free use rationale logo says: "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image." This makes me think that a cropped logo is not a a free equivalent because it misrepresents the logo. In sum: there is no free equivalent of the logo, but File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg can not be used in Columbia University School of General Studies because it fails NFCC#8 (contextual significance) which prevents the problem with NFCC#10c (rationale on image description page) from being addressed. Is there dissent about my interpretation of NFCC#8, which I think is the real issue here? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In addition to problems with NFCC#8 and NFCC#10c, there is also No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Basically, it is generally considered OK to use the logo of an organization in the "parent" article, but not in any of "child" articles of said organization.
This logo from the school's official Twitter account seems specific enough so that it could be used in the article with out any NFCC problems. I think the Twitter logo is better suited than the crest currently being used (not sure how that serves as the primary means of identification) and incorporates both the crown and "Columbia", so it makes the second logo unnecessary. In addition, this from the school's official Facebook page might also be possible. It could be tricky if it's a photo because even if you add a nfur for the logo/crest, you might still need OTRS permission from the photographer/copyright holder of the photo. Anyway, these are just a couple of suggestions. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sydney Roosters logo.svg[edit]

Non-free logo being used twice in Sydney Roosters. The first usage in the infobox seems problem free since the logo is being used as the primary means of identification of the team. Usage in Sydney Roosters#Emblem is problematic per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG. There is really no need to use the same image twice in the same article since no new information is being provided to the reader that cannot be done using only text alone (NFCC#3a). The second usage also lacks the separate, specific non-free use rationale it needs per NFCC#10c and is being used in a gallery which is not really allowed per NFG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs uses the same image twice (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs#Name_and_emblem). Without the current logo in the Emblem History gallery, the gallery would be missing vital information. Another example would be the Miami Heat who also use the same image twice (Miami Heat#Logos).
KC RoostersTalk 05:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The same non-free logo shouldn't be being used twice in those articles as well. The fact that non-free images are being inappropriately used in other articles is not really a good reason for doing the same thing in this article. Each usage of a non-free content (not each article where such content is being used) requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale. Each usage of non-free content must satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. The non-free use rationale for the Roosters' logo states that it is being used in the infobox, not in a section of logos. Since it is being used in the infobox, there's no really no good reason to use it again since no new information is being provided to the reader that cannot be provided using only text. You can add a caption to the logo being used in the infobox if there's a need to explain when it was used. Moreover, non-free images are generally not allowed to be used in galleries for decorative purposes, which means the other non-free logos being used in that gallery also have problems with WP:NFG. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@KC Roosters: Please note that per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". The only non-free rationale for the logo is for use in the article's infobox, so that is the only place the logo can be used per WP:NFCC. If you wish to use the logo twice in the same article, then please provide a "valid" non-free use rationale which complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That whole non-free image gallery has a very shaky rationale. I would have opposed that article at FAC on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Violation of WP:NFCC#8, except in Frank Walsh. Also violation of WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed image from all articles, except Frank Walsh, and the user sandbox per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Michigan State Spartan Helmet.svg[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §14, WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9 on numerous pages. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a possibility that this is too simple for "non-free", then I agree. Image also fails WP:NFCC#10c for the individual season articles in addition to UUI No. 14. Personally, I think the image is only acceptable for use in Michigan State Spartans and should be removed from every other article per Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Commented out the image from all season articles and from individual team articles lacking an nfur per above. In addition, File:Michigan-State-logo-block-s.svg also appears to be a logo of the school and it is freely licensed. Although it is not the same as the helmet logo, it is being used in a number of Michigan State sports related articles so perhaps it should be used instead of the helmet logos in all the team and season articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:4chan front page 2015.png[edit]

I'm not sure if this image is appropriate to represent the subject which it is meant to represent, 4chan. My worry is in regards to the picture at the top of the image: the picture of the Atlantis spacecraft. Yes, this is an entire screenshot of the web page with the "recent images" section blacked out, but does the image of the Atlantis spacecraft need to be blacked out as well to meet proper fair use guidelines? Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The photo is credited to "hiroyuki", Hiroyuki Nishimura, the current owner of 4chan. This is referred to by him on Twitter as well: [8]. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Let's Face the Music.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure if this image is being used properly as fair use (at least per the presented rationale), given that the subject of this image only gets a passing mention in the article, and really adds more confusion that assistance to the reader due to lack of the article having an explanation of the subject of the photo. Steel1943 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It's OK. The same album was released with different titles. This image is the album cover for the album (subject of the article) when it was released in the US. You mention that it only receives a passing mention, but it's actually the cover for the article subject. I don't think there's any need to repeatedly mention that the album had a different name/cover when released in the US, since it's just a start class article. AHeneen (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fallas Stores Trademark Logo.jpg[edit]

Simply put, is this image eligible to be tagged as a {{PD-logo}} instead of a non-free image? I'm not sure: I only see geometric shapes and text in this logo, but it seems like it may be considered "unique". Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Marginal IMO. Unlike the previous ones, this might not meet TOO per the examples on commons:COM:TOO - it's text and coloured lines and appears to be most similar to File:Best Western logo.svg which I've always considered the "high water mark" for TOO issues. I am not 100% sure however. As an aside, this logo needs a proper source link and a version that is not as badly artifacted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Heriberto Hernandez standing next to the 13 foot whaler he was manning when he was mortally wounded in 1968.jpg[edit]

Since this is a non-free image used to identify the subject of the article it is placed, shouldn't the image be cropped so that the subject of the article is the main focus of the image? Otherwise, the image seems to distract from its purpose (which is to identify the article's subject), which could potentially violate some sort of fair use rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye, but the boat should be included in part as well since it's part of the NFCR. Someone with better knowledge of how these folks operate should clarify whether that image is copyrighted or not, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's okay to not have to crop for this. But the caption needs to be clear who it is in the photo (I assume he is front left). --MASEM (t) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded this image, and I am surprised that I wasn't given a heads-up that it was under discussion.

    Note: The USCG listed this as a "courtesy photo" in a surfeit of caution, or inappropriate courtesy. As I noted in the description: "...although the Coast Guard lists this as a courtesy photo, it was taken by one of his shipmates, on his ship, and even if the bosun told the seamen to 'take five', I personally think a strong argument can be made that they were all 'on duty' -- making this a public domain image." Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Chicago Police Patch.png[edit]

This image is probably used improperly. There is already a free image in the infobox in Chicago Police Department that helps identify the subject. For that reason, this image seems improperly used and unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Per my response above in WP:NFCR#File:Chicago Police Logo.png, usage of logo in infobox seems unacceptable per WP:NFCC#3a. It may be possible to use later in the article is the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 can be provided. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The Chicago Police Patch can stay. The Chicago Police logo can be deleted as I already removed it from the infobox. Asher Heimermann (talk)
Writing in bold-type does not necessary make the file NFCC compliant. The number of free images being used in an article is probably something that should be discussed at the article's talk page. The patch in question, however, is non-free, so what determines whether an it should be used is WP:NFCC. I think Steel1943's concern about WP:NFCC#1 has some merit and should be discussed a little more. "Primary means of visual identification" implies a single image, at least it does to me, so if a free equivalent is available that provides essentially the same information and serves essentially the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., to identify the article is about the Chicago Police Department), then the free image is to be preferred over the non-free. So, simply removing the free image because you wish to use the non-free image instead is not really in accordance with NFCC#1.
FWIW, there may be another option worth considering based upon the c:COM:VPC#Baltimore police patches at the Commons Village Pump. Apparently, it may be possible for the patch to be considered {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} if it can be shown it was used prior to March 1, 1989. If that's the case, then WP:NFCC would no longer be applicable as long as the copyright issues related the photograph of the patch can be resolved as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The logo of the Chicago Police Department and the patch was in the infobox for years until I keep along and updated both. Then I have User:Marchjuly come along and complain. As I stated above, I've removed the logo and the patch can remain because there are numerous other articles about police departments, sheriff departments, fire departments, and other public safety agencies that have patches in their infobox. Are you going to challenge all of those as well? The image in question is a photograph of the Chicago Police Department patch, a photograph I took and own the copyright of the picture. So once again, the patch stays. The logo has been removed. The issue here is resolved. Time to move on to real copyright issues here. Asher Heimermann (talk)
@Asher Heimermann: That's not how this works. Concerns presented in this discussion have yet to be resolved, including my belief that the free image that is already on the article is the most adequate logo for the subject of the article since, plain and simple, it exists. Also, in most cases, if a person takes a picture of a unique work where the work is the clear focus of the image (such as what you have done with taking the picture of the patch), the photo could be considered a derivative work, and the copyright would belong to the creator of the design. Either way, primary concern is that this image's use, in my opinion, violates WP:NFCC#1 since the free image currently on the article illustrates the same point you claim that the patch illustrates, leaving the patch image's use in the article a violation of fair-use per WP:NFCC#1. The proper fair-use in the infobox is to illustrate specifically the subject of the article as best as possible, and the free image seems to do that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Asher Heimermann: Just for reference, it was Steel1943 who started this NFCR discussion about the patch, not me. I just feel there is some merit to their concern so that this should be discussed some more. Moreover, the fact the other stuff exists is not always so clear when it comes to WP:NFCC because each usage requires its own separate, specific non-free use rationale. Since you say the photo is yours, I am assuming you uploaded it to "Wisconsin Public Safety". That site says "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, so you may need to provide a free license for the photo (possibly something like {{self}}) in addtion to the non-free rationale for the patch. Finally, the {{non-free review}} tag should stay on the file's page until the discussion has be formally closed. At that time, it will be changed to {{non-free reviewed}} by the editor who closes the discussion or simply removed depending upon the result. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
using a patch image is OK for the purpose, as that is what will be distinctive about the uniform, in order to distinguish from other police. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Understood, so my "derivative work" concern doesn't apply here. However, that still leaves my concern about the image's placement since it is placed in the infobox identifying the subject of the article, which is the police entity. There is already a free image in the infobox that serves that very purpose, so the need for a non-free image in the infobox is unnecessary for illustrative needs (WP:NFCC#1.) In my opinion, for this image to remain in a useful fashion, it would need to be moved to a "yet-to-be-written" section in the article explaining a subject which the patch could provide contextual significance, such as a section describing the various stars and/or patches that represent levels/awards/etc. for the police force. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, yes, I did notice that there is a field in the infobox for the patch, but is there any consensus to use non-free images as such in the infobox to illustrate these fields, given that the purpose of infoboxes is to describe the subject of the article and not subtopics (unless a separate section is created in the article with a separate infobox to identify the subtopics, such as how songs may be redone by a different artist, and thus have a different album cover in a section identifying the alternate version of the song?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I am more worried about File:Chicago Police Star.png which claims to have been produced by GoBlue85, but is so low resolution, and so unlikely that it is either a copyright violation or a fake (not genuine). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Good point. Obviously, if no free alternatives existed, then my concern regarding using a non-free image would be absolved. If the free image is deleted as a copyvio, as you state, then the patch would truly be a means to identify the subject at that point since no free alternative would then exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If the Commons image is deleted as copyvio, then I could also see using the patch in the infobox as well. I'm not sure, but it is possible that the image came from here or here. Since the file is already on Commons, any nomination of it for deletion needs to take place at c:COM:FFD. Regardless, a copyright license might still need to be provided for the photo in addition to the non-free rationale for the patch. That should be fairly easy to do if needed since Asher Heimermann says the photo is theirs.
There is another possibility as well. If the patch was used prior to March 1, 1989, it may be eligible for "PD-ineligible" based upon the Commons VP discussion I mentioned above. In that case, only the licensing of the photo needs to be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, As discussed on Commons, this patch design is most probably {{PD-US-no notice}}. @Clindberg:, do you agree? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. I see you've changed the licensing to "PD-no notice" for the patch, now all we need to do sort out the licensing for the photo and I think WP:NFCC will no longer be an issue. @Asher Heimermann: Since you hold the copyright on the photo, all you need to do is pick an appropriate file copyright tag, add it to the file's page, and replace the non-free use rationale with {{information}} and everything should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Attribution}} was added by Asher Heimermann for the photo, so now both the photo and patch are no longer non-free. File still has a non-free use rationale which it no longer needs and this probably should be changed to {{information}}, but otherwise this all appears to be resolved. Anyone disagree? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Derbian 2015 Super Mario Bros. speedrun.png[edit]

This image possible fails WP:NFCC#1 since the intent of this image is to illustrate the person, but since the person is still alive, an image to illustrate who the person is can still be created. However, the image states that the image's purpose is to illustrate the person's emotion in a moment, but this really doesn't seem illustrated in the least here. The image doesn't seemingly add substance to the article in a way for the image's fair use claim to be considered proper. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree and will also add that this doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS as well. The non-free rationale claims the image is needed "To depict the current world record holder of Super Mario Bros. speedruns and give a somewhat more concrete idea of his feelings during the speedrun, in ways text could not." Looking at the image does not do any such thing in my opinion and the usage appears to be purely decorative. It's probably OK to add free images of Darbian and the other record holders, but not non-free ones (at least not in this way). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - I can't really argue against this. Though I felt this image met requirements, I understand your arguments. ~Mable (chat) 07:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Is something like this replaceable as a free alternative for its intended purpose, or would that be copyright infringement as a derivative work? Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, a free version can be made to demonstrate this. Most of the articles under American football strategy appear to use freely made images, and I can't see how the actions of the players on the field is a copyrightable element. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea @Steel1943:. I will replace it, but feel free to put a better one up if you were planning on doing it. Cake (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Latin Kaleidoscope.jpg[edit]

Are the logos in the top right hand corner of the album cover de minimis enough for this to qualify as PD-simple or PD-textlogo in which case the NFUR rationale can be amended to a simple information template. Nthep (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would argue yes, it just meets de minimis - of the logos, its the MPS one that has potentially copyrightable elements but at the size that this exists out there, they're not usable so should be okay. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Manitoba Provincial Road 542.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#10c on numerous pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It the image seems to be being used by Template:jct to add the image to Manitoba Highway 1, Manitoba Highway 41 and Manitoba Provincial Road 257. I don't see how such usage complies with WP:NFCC#8 so simply adding a nfur for each of those articles does not seem appropriate at all. I believe the |shield= in Module:Road data/strings/CAN/MB is what needs to be edited, but I have no idea how to do that and don't want to much up the template. So, I am pinging the creator of that particular module, @Happy5214:, and hoping they can help figure this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue is not the module per se. The module looks for File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg, which currently redirects to the offending file. This should be a separate file like File:Manitoba secondary 248.svg, which is a free-use image. @Fredddie: Can you create a new free-use shield to replace the aforementioned redirect? -happy5214 07:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There is already a free variant under that name on Commons, but the redirect prevents us from using the Commons file on English Wikipedia. See c:File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree and feel it only should be used in Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. I removed it from the draft per NFCC#9, but it's still being used in Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Amarillo Campus. I think it's important to note that Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso uses File:TTHSC ELPASO SEAL.png, so there's no reason the Amarillo Campus cannot use it's own logo if one exists or use the one being used on it's official Facebook page. File:Texas Tech University academic signature.png could be used to create a version of the Facebook logo per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Percy Phillips record.jpg[edit]

Is this PD-ineligible? Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, if it originated from the UK. It would definitely fall into PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Pluto discovery plates.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#10c as the fair use rationale doesn't specify a single unique article. Also seems to be used on too many pages. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

When there's no template, I could reasonably expect the approach used here to identify the targets, but in this case, the use on all but Pluto seem inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Masem's assessment. Removed from all article except Pluto per Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Image re-added to Planets beyond Neptune by ‎Serendipodous, however, non-free use rationale appears probably needs to be perhaps a little more specific per WP:NFCC#8 and not just copy-and-paste tweaking of the nfur for Pluto. However, if the consensus is it's OK, then fine with me. One other thing, however, is that if "Planets beyond Neptune" is the main article concerning the discovery of Pluto as the PBN nfur claims, then maybe it is actually the usage in Pluto which is not needed, especially since there is a {{further}} directing the reader to PBN. Just a thought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO this image can be kept on both articles. The image is significant in the context of the discovery of Pluto and that topic is handled in both articles. Checking over WP:NFCC#3 I don't think it restricts the number of articles it can be used in.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

List of micronations[edit]

The nine non-free files violate WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Stefan and commented out all nine. The files are as follows:

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This one is an edge case. What is the standard for a table which is either incomplete or contains non-free images? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't include them, particularly given the table has empty rows already for other places. Non-free are not to be used in tables with limited exception, as generally the table (like this one) has zero discussion about the image, failing to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if some of these fall below the TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Seems to appear on 39 pages but only has FURs for 28, unless I'm miscounting. Seems to violate WP:NFCC#10c on about 11 pages[which?] and seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The logo edges on being PD-USonly but I would get a second opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The text is obviously copyright free, but not sure if the circle fits in with these. It's also worth noting that the "Omega Globe Design" is given as an example of something above the TOO. Maybe the thing to do is specifically ask about this at c:COM:VPC. If they say it's OK for Commons, then it can be tagged as {{PD-logo}}. If, however, it's not and {{PD-USonly}} is also out of the question, then it should be removed from everything except Stagecoach Group per Stefan2 in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO above the TOO. I think this one is an edge case where we'd need a court ruling for a definitive statement. The structure of the circle seems complex enough to have some creativity.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no chance that this is fine for Commons as the logo is more complex than File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which was found to be too complex for this logo's source country. With respect to the United States, there are some logos like this which have been found to be too complex, and the thing to the left of the text seems to be at the same level of complexity. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Understand about Commons Stefan2 and see your point about complexity Jo-Jo Eumerus, but the logo was changed to "PD-ineligible-USonly" was added to the file by George Ho, so not sure if further discussion should continue here or at WP:PUF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by MarchJuly to correct wording -- 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)]
I didn't change; I just added it. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Stand corrected George and sorry about that. Any suggestions on how to best proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is only for files marked as unfree while PUF only is for files marked as unfree, so it seems that both this page and PUF have become the wrong venue. Maybe best to relist the file at FFD since FFD should be able to handle the file no matter how it is tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bihar Legislative Assembly election, 2015[edit]

Users keep re-adding non-free files to this template in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete galleries are just begging for them to be completed. I do recommend to remove all images per that and because an incomplete gallery looks bad. Otherwise, we might try to explain NFCC#9 to them (no non-free images in non-article namespace) - I'll call Chanakya Knights here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


The table contains non-free logos in violation of WP:NFCC#9, but some of the logos claimed to be non-free are in fact {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The non-free ones should be removed from the table and the free ones should be re-tagged as such. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There are 11 non-free logos being used in that sandbox.
  1. File:Bellville Sassoon.jpg
  2. File:C & J Clarks International company logo.png
  3. File:Cotswold Outdoor logo.jpg
  4. File:Logo of Dunnes Stores.png
  5. File:Logo Hawes & Curtis.jpg
  6. File:Monsoon accessorize logo.svg
  7. File:Peacockslogo.png
  8. File:Viyella logo.jpg
  9. File:USC (store).png
  10. File:C&A logo.png
  11. File:Fenchurch.svg
Numbers 5, 78 and 10 should stay non-free in my opinion and definitely be removed per NFCC#9. I'm not sure, however, about numbers 6 and 11. It might be best to leave them as non-free just to be on the safe side and also remove them per NFCC#9. The remaining six are probably simple enough for "PD-ineligible-USonly" or an equivalent tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to change "7" to "8" -- 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)]
By my reading, Bellville Sassoon, C & J Clarks International, Monsoon accessorize, USC (store) may or may not be copyrightable (are these unique styles or unoriginal fonts?), Cotswold Outdoor and Peacockslogo may be copyrightable but more likely not and either way the former needs a copy that isn't so artifacted, Logo of Dunnes Stores is a classic textlogo, Logo Hawes & Curtis and Viyella are copyrightable. Fenchurch and C&A I dunno.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. Actually, I mixed up Nos. 7 and 8, so I agree with you about "Viyella" and "Hawes & Curtis" and think removing them would be uncontroversial. As for the others, maybe a little more discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Commented out File:Logo Hawes & Curtis.jpg and File:Viyella logo.jpg per above. Remaining logos still need to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Add File:Hackett (clothing).jpg, File:Jaeger logo.png and File:MK One.png to the above list. These may also be "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
MK One and Hackett definitively are, the former may be USOnly though. I dunno if Jaeger is original enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted on Davidstewartharvey's talkpage and explained WP:NFC and NFCC#9. I believe he decided to remove the remaining logos himself. If any of these are eventually changed to "PD-logo" or "PD-USonly", I'll let him know so that he can readd them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja YYYY[edit]

These articles (from Ilaiyaraaja 1976 to Ilaiyaraaja 2015) all seem to contain non-free files in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, though not all years have non-free images, however, those that do do not have rationals for that use and most likely cannot make one. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)