Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Non-Admin Closure: There is no consensus that the Threshold of Originality is met or not. Discussion has gone stale, closing for archiving. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, this is a textlogo of US origin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree; I think there's enough original material in the word "Universal" (images of planets etc) that this one is over the line. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: There is no consensus that the Threshold of Originality is met or not. Discussion has gone stale, closing for archiving. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a simple text cover, so threshold of originality may not have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree; My opinion is that there's enough originality here that the cover qualifies for copyright protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; there's no consensus emerging that the image is PD. --Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The golden numeral and the blue smartie appear to be copyrigthable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; the proposal that the logo is PD-text has garnered not discussion or support. --Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; the proposal has not garnered any discussion or support. --Diannaa (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; the proposal that the image is PD has not garnered any support. --Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; absent solid proof, we cannot assume the image is PD. --Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Forrest died in 1943, and this looks like an official service photo, so this might be public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Probably {{PD-USGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Too weak a source I think to support either of those interpretations strongly enough - I'm not sure I agree that it looks like a service portrait where we'd be prepared to assume it was military; could easily be an informal picture by friends or family. Unless the background is the same as other photographs or something like that?Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, image is Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say very similar to Best Western (simple elements do not copyright make) - US country of origin. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality concern, This is too simple? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; this is not longer the current logo, per the station's YouTube channel. --Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; the idea that it is PD has not gained any support. --Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Distinctly artistic, so unsure even under US. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met?PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; the idea that the logo is PD has not gained any support. --Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looks a bit problematic. Compare with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png (de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image on the Commons was deleted on 18 July; this copy has been kept as fair use. --Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate at Commons, considered PDShape/Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The SVG file is possibly copyrightable as computer software. See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The file page seems to indicate the SVG was created by a Wikipedia editor, so the copyright indication would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; the idea that the logo is public domain does not seem to have any supporters. --Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure if this meets UK TOO, It's text with a simple gradient. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg meets the UK threshold of originality, but English Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the British threshold of originality is irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; absent proof that the image is PD, we have to leave the item as fair-use. --Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The subject died in 1862, Assuming the image is contempary with that persons lifetime, I find it unlikly that the the artist was still alive less than 70 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that we don't know whether it is a contemporary painting or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived; absent proof, we cannot assume the image is public domain. --Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the commentary in the linked article, this image was logically taken at a time the building was extant ( prior to 1896). It is thus a pre 1923 image of US origin and could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on date of publication, though. When was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming contemporary publication, but this isn't confirmed in the file description :(
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD in the US as a government edit, and Commons:Template:PD-BG-exempt in Bulgaria as it is an act of a government body. Image moved to Commons, see File:The law for protection of the nation (Bulgaria).jpg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
text cover for an edict,law or decree of an official governmental body. Review requested because I'm not sure these are automatically non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would guess that {{PD-laws}} applies here. Also, Commons:Template:PD-BG-exempt should apply for all Bulgarian laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: All instances replaced with File:Higgs-Mass-MetaStability.svg version and original PNG file nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 16. Further discussion should continue there if necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vector conversion listed is shown as free, if it's a derived work of this why is this also not free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is probably below the threshold of originality. If not, then it violates WP:NFCC#1 as the information in the image isn't copyrighted. The SVG file is a copyrighted computer program licensed under a CC licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- A graph of data does not fall under copyright.[1] There's nothing in this graph which goes beyond a simple visualization of the data. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is Public Domain as it is simple text. Image updated accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this {{PD-Text}}? Werieth (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Probably PD. An animated GIF file could maybe be computer software. The individual stills are not copyrightable and it doesn't look copyrightable as a film. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that images all meet WP:NFCC as they are all discussed in critical commentary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The number of examples of her photography should probably be reduced, per WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Those images are all reasonable to have in the article in my opinion as all of them are accompanied by sourced commentary referring to the specific image and as such one of them couldn't easily be substituted by the other one. Therefore I don't think there are issues with 3a here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image does not have valid FUR and therefore has been removed from Albanian Kingdom (1939–43). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Albanian Kingdom (1939–43). I am not sure whether "The album was printed in many copies, and high quality photographs could be affixed in the appropriate spaces" at the source link of the image means it was published around 1939 or not. If it was indeed published around that time, then it is in the public domain in Albania. Seems to still enjoy copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo and updated as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo and updated as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Text logo? Unsure about red-A's w/ star cutouts. Levdr1lp / talk 15:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A freely-licensed alternative cover for this book is available, File:Erstausgabe von Mein Kampf.jpg which is the book cover for the first edition. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is some of the images are fail TOO and have been tagged accordingly while any others fail WP:NFCC#3 and therefore have been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the situation is as follows:
- File:Me-TV Bay Area.png - The colored frame around the word MeTV probably places this above TOO.
- File:Ktzo2085.jpg - Probably above TOO due to the complex grey background.
- File:Kofy2094.jpg - Probably below TOO, essentially typefaces.
- File:Kofy.jpg - Probably above TOO due to the reflection/3-D effects on the letters.
- File:Kbwb logo.png - Probably below TOO, typefaces and simple geometric shapes.
- File:KOFY-TV logo.png - Probably above TOO due to the colored background.
- File:Yourtv20.PNG - Probably below TOO, essentially typefaces on a monochrome background.
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The use in Pokémon, I Choose You! seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFCI#5, film and television screenshots are only acceptable for critical commentary. I do not see how this use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: With no evidence of publication, there is no way to show if copyright has expired. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is noted on the image, that this may be an official photo by the British military, if so would the copyright have now expired? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- We'd need to know when the image had been published for the first time. That could've been much later than when the image was taken. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Lacking full source, we are unable to determine full copyright status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notes for the image mention that the image could be a 'service' photo, in which cases it would either have expired, or potentialy be a pre 1957 crown copyright image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Lacking a full enough source to substantiate copyright. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a reproduction of an 'early' work almost certainly out of copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a still produced during filming in 1915, but we don't know the original publication date, and thus have no way of knowing if it is in the public domain. --Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The notes for the image claim that the photo is pre-1923 and of US origin, thus public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- It says that it was taken before 1923. However, we don't know when it was first published, so the copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving; there's been no support for the idea that the image is PD. --Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met. This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seal was created in 1975, see this document. --Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a seal , the date is 1893, and if the seal is contemporary it's pre 1923, so public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's no evidence the crest is in the public domain. --Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this qualify for exemption as the symbol of an academic body? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would assume that Commons:Template:PD-UA-exempt doesn't cover this. Maybe it's covered if the academic body is run by the government... --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presumably taken before 1943, but no publication date. Source is listed as another Wikipedia, which isn't generally good enough. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Added interwiki link. There is something which might be a source on the other Wikipedia, but it's written in Serbian, so I can't tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; there's no consensus forming that the item is PD. --Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to COMMONS: Currency , Turkish banknotes can be freely licensed. Re-licenseable or replaceable with a free image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Might be nonderivative. See also Commons:Commons talk:Currency#Turkey. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; absent proof to the contrary, we have to assume the item is under copyright. --Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the front cover of an 'official' report presented to the UK Parliament as a command paper, Surely this would be covered under OGL, given it's offical status (and original publication by HMSO) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some works by the British government are licensed under the OGL, some are not. Do you have any source telling that this one is available under OGL? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not at present, but other command papers have been re-licensed under OGL.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notes suggest that as a state symbol, this may be exempt? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it isn't, would it even be eligible for copyright? It's just the East German flag (which is pd) with a border and three letters in a fairly generic font. --W. D. Graham 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Am I wrong, or is this a user-created SVG based on (but not copied from) the design of the official insignia shown in a photo? Maybe we should ask the uploader what license he wants to release his work under, and tag it with that (for the SVG), along with {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{insignia}} (for the underlying design). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly, that may not be of any use here, as the uploader has been indef blocked. But since it is only used in one article, only on en.WP, and the patch is at least partially visible in a photo on that page, I guess it won't be a big loss if this image is deleted. I'd say just delete. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think anyone has given any rationale for deletion at all. The question as I understand it is whether the image should be used as a fair-use copyrighted image, or regarded as public domain. Regardless of who made it, I think it falls very far short of the threshold of originality, and should be treated as pd-ineligible. The East German flag is pd, you can't just add a border and three letters and claim it's original copyrighted work. --W. D. Graham 21:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly, that may not be of any use here, as the uploader has been indef blocked. But since it is only used in one article, only on en.WP, and the patch is at least partially visible in a photo on that page, I guess it won't be a big loss if this image is deleted. I'd say just delete. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Am I wrong, or is this a user-created SVG based on (but not copied from) the design of the official insignia shown in a photo? Maybe we should ask the uploader what license he wants to release his work under, and tag it with that (for the SVG), along with {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{insignia}} (for the underlying design). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus emerged that the image is correctly templated as fair use. --Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to bring this query.)
File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg is currently being used in the main infobox of the article Yeezus, and is being claimed under fair use. However, I'm not entirely sure that it meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection – what exactly is being copyrighted? It's certainly not the disc or the jewel case – the orange sticker, then? Personally, I would have thought that this image would be ineligible for copyright, and that we could probably create our own free version in as high a resolution as we'd like, but then IANAL. I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Nothing unique in the image to warrant copyright (reminds me of when the non-free cover was replaced with a free commons version for We're New Here) If the pink figure in that cover was no issue, neither should the orange sticker here. Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Speedily delete per WP:CSD#F7. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Disagree per WP:FURE due to this image currently being used as the cover artwork for the album on digital retailers (iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, etc.). The specific way the jewel case is presented in the image is being copyrighted. Dfnj123 (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused. Is the cover art this specific image or is it just the sticker? In the former case, it would definitely be acceptable. In the latter case, I do not see what would be eligible for copyright protection in the cover and thus this image would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- On digital retailers the specific image is used as the cover art for the album, and thus as you pointed out is acceptable.Dfnj123 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- But surely, as Toshio points out, it's entirely replaceable? I could create a scan of my copy of the album and licence it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and we'd have no need for this fair use image at all – the free use one would convey exactly the same information. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Toshio also pointed out that the image should be acceptable being labeled as non-free content under the current circumstances since it is the specific image, not the individual items in the image, being claimed to be eligible for copyright. Also, I worry that a scan would not adequately "convey exactly the same information" due to the very specific manner the image of the jewel case is captured in the official cover art. Dfnj123 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good point, but that's kind of what's confusing me – how can we have discussions about the "official cover art" when, according to our article, Yeezus has "no album artwork"? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair that is in a section of the article that is specifically referring to the packaging of the physical cd copies of the album. There should probably be a clarification somewhere in the article to explain that while physical copies of the album have no cover art, "the image in question" of the album's packaging was used as cover art on digital retailers and for promotional reasons. Just to throw out there, Steal This Album! and True Magic are two other examples of albums in which physical cd copies of the albums were released in jewel cases with no cover art. Both of those albums currently use images from digital retailers as cover art in their articles. Both of those images are labeled as "non-free media". I fail to understand how the situation with Yeezus and File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg differ from those two albums. Dfnj123 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good point, but that's kind of what's confusing me – how can we have discussions about the "official cover art" when, according to our article, Yeezus has "no album artwork"? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Toshio also pointed out that the image should be acceptable being labeled as non-free content under the current circumstances since it is the specific image, not the individual items in the image, being claimed to be eligible for copyright. Also, I worry that a scan would not adequately "convey exactly the same information" due to the very specific manner the image of the jewel case is captured in the official cover art. Dfnj123 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- But surely, as Toshio points out, it's entirely replaceable? I could create a scan of my copy of the album and licence it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and we'd have no need for this fair use image at all – the free use one would convey exactly the same information. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- On digital retailers the specific image is used as the cover art for the album, and thus as you pointed out is acceptable.Dfnj123 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused. Is the cover art this specific image or is it just the sticker? In the former case, it would definitely be acceptable. In the latter case, I do not see what would be eligible for copyright protection in the cover and thus this image would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Quesion: If I went our to buy a physical copy of this CD, is this how I would see it in the store, that is, not that image printing on the cover, but effectively a semi-opaque case, an unlabeled CD, and an orange sticker on the side? (So that the digital art is mimicking this?). Calling this digital version the "cover art", assuming that the physical copies are the same, I would argue the image fails the threshold of originality, so the image can be marked free. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes to your question (although I think the case would be closer to transparent rather than semi-opaque). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as non-free media. While a good case can be made for the cover design not satisfying the threshold of originality it is rather obvious that the minimalism of the design itself is an artistic statement. In light of the high profile nature of this album and the likelihood of the record company/artist claiming copyright on this design I think it is better to err on the conservative assertion that file is an irreplaceable non-free media. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. User:Anetode makes a very good point. The design is like this for a reason, an artistic concept, and some might even argue that the lettering on the CD, the way the light breaks on the CD's surface in this official photo, the placement of the sticker, etc, are all part of this concept and therefore their combination passes the treshold of originality. Keeping the current license and rationale makes perfect sense to me. Yintan 11:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure': Consensus is that 11 non-free files is not justifiable and that only a few images showcasing different iterations should remain. 7 images removed from article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't see justification for 11 non-free files especially given how similar they all re Werieth (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, as there's very little different between iterations, only a couple images appear to be needed. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive; there's no consensus that the image is PD, and the copy on the Commons has been deleted. --Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Netrunner is 'free' software according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is needed evidence the site releases material in compatible licenses, that the screenshot showed in the computer has a similar license, and that they have the rights of these works. I requested speedy deletion there. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that there are at least two non-free images that are not justified in their use on said article. Removed 2 discussed images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there justification for 7 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to me that one of {File:Gasolinealley31233.jpg and File:Gasalley.jpg} is superfluous and File:Gasalleymoores.jpg isn't justified by commentary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived; there's no support for the idea that this image might be PD. --Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is nothing in this media above TOO, although it's an artistic script. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#1. The image itself is not the subject of commentary, but rather appears to illustrate how the game is played. Presumably a free mock-up of what the bowling pins look like could be made. Deleting this image would be in line with previous precedent at NFCR for a screenshot of Plinko being played failing NFCC, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 19#File:Plinkoseason37.jpg. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used in four articles and violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of them. The rationale does not comply with WP:NFURG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#8 in After School (band) and Virgin (After School album). None of the two articles would suffer from acute unintelligibility if the sample were removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Nominated for deletion with NFCC concerns tag due to lacking rationales for multiple articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tagged this file for violating WP:NFCC#10c as part of the NFCC task I perform. The file obviously lacks rationales for Economy of Turkey, High-speed rail in Turkey and Turkish State Railways. Is the content of the section File:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg#Fair use rationale what is considered a valid rationale per WP:NFURG? I would argue this is not the case and thus the file also lacks a rationale for EUROTEM. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fast-track) - Image may not TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that there is not a need for 8 non-free files, but due to differences in character appearance, five selected images from main appearances were kept. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there really a need for all 8 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think we need to have a wider discussion on the use of non-free media on fictional character articles that span multiple generations/media formats or with long protracted stories. Clearly one for identification (if the character is notable) is reasonable, but any beyond that need to rely on free images, or have better contextual significance than just "here's this version" or "here's a image of a plot element" and then dwelling into the fictional details. (mind you, in the comics world, the whole DC + Marvel reboot elements which basically have created brand new versions of the characters doesn't help, but that's part of the discussion to have). --MASEM (t) 13:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am really uncertain here. The character looks very different on several of the images. If a character has one visual appearance during one decade and a very different visual appearance during another decade, then it may be appropriate to show both of the visual appearances, provided that both of them are notable. I'm guessing that there may be room for multiple images here but not for all of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've limited it to the 5 main appearances for every version (basically different characters with the same name, not merely redesigns or art style changes). The old game version's pic wasn't really necessery for two reasons, that is for being based on the original comic character and actually not being all that representative for how Karai looks in the game itself (and there she looks like a man). --Niemti (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: No discussion has been had in over a month, therefore closing stale discussion as no consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The file should only be used on Nebula Award and not sub-awards Werieth (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is PD-textlogo including peacock. Relevant Commons discussion happened Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg. File updated to reflect discussion outcome. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Textlogo? If not, WP:NFCC#8 violation? --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 04:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is surely a case of PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not with the peacock symbol. Additionally, on the page about the station, they have a separate image of the channel number and peacock alone, so this image is duplicative, and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- The peacock isn't original either. See also Commons:Category:MSNBC. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image only meets WP:NFCC 8 on the article about the subject of the image. The image has been removed from the remaining articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I dont think it meets NFC#8 except for the article about the person themselves Werieth (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is unnecessary in the articles other than Miguel Pro, so should be removed from those. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that there were too many images on the article to justify use under WP:NFCC. Many images have been remove with only seven remaining per discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really cant see justification for 15 non-free files Werieth (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Suggest for reduction:
- The first newspaper appearance can be used for the infobox (if there is not a free logo (in PD-textlogo approach) that could be used. Irregardless, this image is fine.
- The cast image can be moved to the characters, eliminating the 4 individual character shots.
- The rhino comic is fine due to discussion about it.
- The Bohlwinkle image is absolutely unnecessary to understand the name change issue.
- We have an article on the Golden Fleece movie, not needed here.
- The stage production image doesn't help to understand beyond saying there was a stage production. Remove here.
- The stamp page is actually good since it gives us a montage of the styles over the years under a single copyright, and shows the importance of the characters as to be made stamps.
- We have an article on Breaking Free, no image needed here for that.
- For the Tintin Alph-art stuff, we have an article on that artist, with a representative sample there, so the book cover is unnecessary.
- The internal museum exhibit photo (which likely has to be non-free) doesn't aid beyond the text of explaining there was an exhibit, in particular as there's no obvious TinTin article visible.
- On the other hand, the external one, that includes the Tintin image on the side, does help better than the internal.
- On my count, that's 10 possible removals to leave 5. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fellow editors, please explain your aversion to illustrations? The featured article is illustrated as required per WP:FA?. WP:NFCC is being met in every case: Each non-free illustration's justification is made on each file description page. The Tintin cast image been in this article's infobox undisturbed for approximately six years. I personally sought and received permission to use many of the files, such as those appearing in the Theatre and Exhibition sections. In each case, the illustrations are appropriate for a featured article, and certainly make a long article more pleasant to read. If you wish, I will remove the Breaking Free illustration as I was thinking we need only one, not two images there. Thank-you for your consideration. Prhartcom (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Some suggested reductions:
- Section "Characters": all listed characters have their own articles and are illustrated there. Remove all images from this section.
- Tintin and the Golden Fleece poster: The film has its own article so there is no need to have this image here too.
- Tintin postage stamps: Remove here and add to Tintin postage stamps instead.
- Yves Rodier cover: Not needed here. If fr:Tintin et l'Alph-Art (Yves Rodier) is translated to English, then the image can be used there, but it is unclear if we need it even in Tintin and Alph-Art.
- Centre Pompidou exhibition photo: I'm not convinced that we need an unfree photo of an exhibition to understand that there are exhibitions. You barely see anything anyway.
- User:Masem suggested moving the Soviet Union image to the infobox, but this doesn't seem to be a good idea. In 1930, he looked very different to how people remember him today. Either use File:Adventures of Tintin Cast.png or File:Tintin and Snowy.png, I think. They provide a more common appearance. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have complied with these demands to remove illustrations from the article.
- Advice please: When I requested permission from the photographer of the Exhibition photo, his kind email response was, "Hi Prhartcom, Sure, you're welcome to it. Best, Matthias." Out of respect for him, I labeled his work as non-free and gave him copyright privilege, but perhaps I should have taken him up on his implicit offer to label it as a free image. Perhaps there is still time for me to do that. Thoughts?
- Could someone please help me understand, as I requested above, to "please explain" why were are doing this, as WP:FA? requires illustrations and WP:NFCC is being met in every case. Thank-you in advance for answering.
- Prhartcom (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
----
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that although the image is not the current logo, it is indeed PD-textlogo and has been updated appropriately. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Text logo. Note that all three yellow "E's" match. Levdr1lp / talk 22:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly PD-textlogo (removes that issue from the splotted logo from before). --MASEM (t) 23:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Masem: This is not the current logo. I uploaded a plain white background version of File:Extreme Talk logo.png which Diannaa transferred to the Commons. Levdr1lp / talk 23:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is it is indeed PD-textlogo and has been updated appropriately. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Text logo? Unsure about word balloon. Levdr1lp / talk 22:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
----
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These images are ultimately from a US Government source, thusly a free replacement could be generated from the relevant data source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do note the uploader mentions the problem with accessing the PD data due to the US gov shutdown in that rationale. I'm sure that's not going to last indefinitely so I would agree that it could be replaced, just not immediately. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tagged as replaceable as it could be replaced as soon as the government shutdown ends. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this image too simple to be copyrighted? --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.