Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 55

Contents

File:ACL2 Logo 2014 transparent.png

The image is not released under a free license, and is not covered under the BSD license. The logo is non-free and the Commons version should be removed. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A copy of this file in a different file format is listed as free on Commons (see Commons:File:Acl2-logo-200-134.gif), although I have no idea if this is correct. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If the validity of the license can't be verified, then I think an OTRS ticket is required for confirmation. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's logo for software, the software having a BSD license. However, this license, while free by our rules, does not necessarily extend to the logo (free software can have non-free art elements). And this of course fails the TOO test. It might be worthwhile to verify what the license is intended for the logo. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

B movies (The exploitation boom)

As none of the non-free posters are of movies that are critically discussed in the article, they all fail WP:NFCC#8 and will be removed. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All those posters don't seem incredibly necessary. Many of the films they represent are not even discussed in the prose. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a few posters or movie stills (likely non-free) would be appropriate for an article that is discussing a segment of the movie history at large (this would be similar to using samples of art in articles on specific schools of art like abstraction), but as noted, they need to be from movies that are discussed in text and not just highlighted by captions. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Pam Nestor

The use of covers to illustrate anything but the covers themselves, or a separate article about the single or album fails WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The one album and two single covers used in Pam Nestor seem to be used simply for decoration and fail WP:NFCC, but since I removed them twice and was reverted first without any explanation and then secondly with an edit summary of "Please stop removing these images. They are legitimate and have been on this article for a long time. They are album cover images that fit Wiki criteria..", I thought I would start a discussion here to get more opinions in the matter.

File:Pam Nestor.jpg is used in the infobox to illustrate Pam Nestor and not to illustrate the "Hiding and Seeking (No More)", album/single covers are I believe never used in infoboxes to identify the acts themselves. The rationale states "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." which is incorrect since it is not being used as identification of the single.

File:Pam Nestor & Joan Armatrading 1972.jpg is a new image that goes against it being in the article for a long time and is the back cover image of "Whatever's for Us" and has no rationale for its use in Pam Nestor. While at least it is a section about the album, there is no justification of its use in the article and since it is the rear cover, it does not have strong ties to identification of the album itself.

File:Pam Nestor's only single - Hiding & Seeking (No More).jpg is a single cover for "Hiding & Seeking (No More)" in a five paragraph section of later works that only has one sentence about the single. Once again this is also a rear cover so its useful for identification is suspect.

It seems to me that all of these images are being used to show what the artist look like instead of being about the album and singles themselves failing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a double whammy as 1) they aren't being used to illustrate notable albums (nor are the cover art notable) and 2) she's still alive so to use these for general identification is inappropriate. I might argue the first album cover as reasonable fair as to describe her music career (as she is now out of it, and that was ~35 years ago, and there likely won't be an article on her albums specifically) but not as the infobox image. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Episode posters

Questions answered. In many situations it is a case by case consideration. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd appreciate some thoughts on this. I originally wrote some episode articles (Sardines (Inside No. 9), A Quiet Night In, Tom & Gerri, Last Gasp (Inside No. 9); more will follow) but did not include any non-free content. Multiple other editors have added the "film posters" released for the episodes, and each episode also has had publicity stills released. Each episode features a different cast and characters, and the plots are unrelated, so, in some ways, these are like short films or plays rather than episodes. Are these posters (or, alternatively, the publicity photos) justified? J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The question has sorta been asked before, but given that we allow an identification image for films, if a single TV episode has a similar publicity image - a poster or the like specifically made for that episode - then that is comparable for acceptable use, since this is reflecting the branding and marketing chosen by the copyright holder. We don't allow screenshots to be used automatically since the choice of screenshot is up to the editors involved, but when the copyright holder hands us something like this on a plate, it clears up that issue altogether. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks for your comment. In your view, is there any reason to favour a poster over a publicity photograph released to the press, or would that come down to editorial judgement in the way we might choose between different posters? J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If both were picked by the production people or broadcasters, it would be a matter of which one is believed to be more representative of showing the episode - that is, which is better tied to the text in question. If there's no really distinction there, I would use the production poster simply to be closer to how films work. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Simon Weston

Not allowable per WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall I add a pre-disfigured photo of this person? George Ho (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

He has no apparent public image pre-disfigurement (from the war), so no, there's no allowance to add a non-free to show this. (If you could get a free one, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Duddilla Sridhar Babu.jpg

Tagged as F7 Werieth (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The guy is alive and so the image is in fact replaceable. The rationale regarding commercial opportunities says that the thing was not created for profit but the source appears to be a commercial website. Sitush (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


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

An Unearthly Child

There is consensus to keep most of the images, but there was consensus to delete in a separate WP:FFD discussion one of the images. The issue is currently resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was going to nominate the infobox image for deletion, but then I saw there were two others in the article. What do you guys think of this article's use of non-free content? It does not appear that any of them satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The infobox image shows one of the defining moments from the whole 50-year history of that programme - it is the first time that we see that the police box is bigger on the inside. Just watch the episode - if you've never seen it before, it really does come as a shock, and the look on the face of Barbara demonstrates Jacqueline Hill's acting superbly. The other photo is from the untransmitted pilot, and is used to discuss differences between that and the episode as broadcast, such as the clothing. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've no opinion on the use of the screenshots, but the book cover, surely, is adding nothing. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
There's reasonable allowance for both screenshots (this is definitely a case that a episode could support a screenshot for identification), but yes, the book cover is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But that section of the article is about the novel An Unearthly Child, and surely usage there satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Both the images are useful to the reader - there is no problem at all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Covers of published works are only used when either the cover art is discussed in detail, or if it is the single identifying image for the published work in a standalone article about the published work. A cover of a novelization of a TV episode/series does not meet those requirements and thus is not appropriate per NFC. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Or, one can have a cover image relevant to a substantial subsection that is important to the main topic of the article...
But there is a more fundamental reason here. The original Doctor Who stories were typically broadcast once, and then never shown again -- at least not in their original country of origin. For a long time the books were the only forms in which stories the were accessible, and so the covers of the books became defining images associated with those stories.
That is exactly the criterion -- a defining image for the work, for a significant period of time, in a significant market for it -- that is used to test whether alternate record album covers are justified; and the same logic applies here.
The question we are asked to determine is whether the cover is something that adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. The status of the cover as the single image most associated with the work during that period means that it is significant to the topic, and our coverage of the topic would be significantly weakened without it. Jheald (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, period; this is the same wrong logic that people apply to historical logos. If this was 1982 (a year after the publication of the book), sure. Today, the most identifiable parts of this episode are the intro sequence, title card, and first walk into the TARDIS, because of the restoration of that episode. So unless the recognizably or other factors of importance of the book's cover are describe, it is no longer the most identifying image for the episode. The alternate art aspect for albums is different because that is when there are two simultaneous covers that provide roughly equivalent identification. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete File:Unearthly Child pilot.jpg and File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg as they both fail WP:NFCC#8. I have no issue leaving the infobox image, I believe there is just enough context around the discussion of what is going on in the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments - Pilot episode section deals with some of the changes, including the costume change. The picture there is a good illustration of that, so I'd say keep that. On the book cover - practically all Doctor Who articles have a cover of the novelisation, so if consensus IS no book cover, then the others need to be deleted as well. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep All files should be kept as each related to things-in-themselves, namely, realizations of the story. The broadcast is not the pilot is not the novelization. All are included in the article as related to the story, yet could potentially be articles unto themselves. So this is a multi-topic article, and each topic deserves a separate representation through image. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep I agree with ClaudeReigns, the broadcast pilot, the unaired pilot and the novelisation are all related but separate and thus each deserving of a separate image. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
comment - hmm, it appears the starter was unhappy at the fact that this discussion was going against him, and thus started another on a different place to delete an image anyway. Is that really acceptable? 94.194.111.16 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hardly unhappy. I started the FFD before people started expressing keep opinions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live

As there is currently no critical commentary on any of the images, the files (save for the main image) fail WP:NFCC#8. We generally allow for one cover image for identification purposes. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have 5 non-free covers with zero critical commentary of the covers, 4 of them should be removed. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep the main image, plus the two alternative historical covers, as it shows the evolution of the recording. The anniversary reissue covers are not necessary unless there's something significant about them. Three images in this context is acceptable, and the release history is discussed. The actual covers can be mentioned in the text if that's desired in order to increase an understanding of the release history. freshacconci talk to me 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • We don't keep secondary/remaster/reprinted covers for sake of showing the evolution of the album's printing, unless there is discussion about the new cover art. You get one cover image for identification and require commentary on others to include them, if the covers are otherwise non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Commentary can be added. Clearly there is a significance to the two historical covers -- I was clearly not referring to the reissues on CD. Deleting all images is overkill and ignores visually-oriented readers. And I remind you that "you get one cover image" is based on interpretation of policy as the non-free policy is very fluid (I'm not sure who the "you" is as I didn't add these files to the article). I will do some research on the album and see if I can find some discussion on the cover changes. freshacconci talk to me 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
        • NFC is not fluid when it comes to cover art. It's well established that there are very limited exceptions to allow for additional cover art for published works outside the one for identification which can be used without commentary on the cover art itself. This generally is only for alternative cover art that is marketed at the same time as the other release but in a different region or market. The ones used here for historical reprintings don't fall into those typical exemptions, and given that it is just text + photographs of Duke's band, I'm not seeing how this is going to have critical commentary, or help the reader understand the article. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the case of this album, the original phonograph version is rare and the album has been re-released in other formats with other titles and track configurations. The album was even awarded a Grammy under one of these alternative titles with a different cover. Allmusic has reviewed two of the releases separately and all of these permutations are discussed in the article. Based on this, multiple image usage for this article clearly passes both the affirmative and negative of WP:NFC#8's contextual significance test. Because a cover is the primary visual identifier of a music work, the images both "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Each version of the album has a different title and cover design in addition to content variations. I have added this commentary explicitly to the article. Having the article dependent on any one or two images would seriously mislead readers as to the sum of the article's content and (as User:Freshacconci notes above) erect a barrier to visually-oriented users. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The material you have added is completely unsourced, and has zero commentary on the pictorial contents of the covers. Just because an album has multiple covers doesn't mean that the visual covers are remarkable in any way. (Quite a few albums have had many many covers over their lifetime, and none of them where remarkable in any way). However cases like Virgin Killer are a prime example of the critical commentary that the policy is looking for. Visual elements of the cover are discussed in depth using third party reliable sourcing. Werieth (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a case where a single cover can serve for identification. Neither the original LP release nor the other issues are well-known graphic images that one can easily conjure up mentally as one might think of the Sgt. Pepper cover. In fact, as the images are for albums with different titles, maybe we should have five articles. Wouldn't that satisfy policy? ReverendWayne (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Reverend is on the right track, but hasn't gone far enough. The underlying article shouldn't be about an album, but about the concert, which "is considered one of the most significant of the Ellington concerts which survive as a recording." Each significant form in which the concert was released should have a subsection, with a single identifying image for each. I have to say the current NFCC rationales are quite inadequate, not actually identifying the sources for most or all of the images, and not readily associating the images with the relevant textual content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The Byrds

There is consensus to remove two of the images. There is relevant discussion that points to there being too many audio clips, but as of two months of this discussion being opened, there has been no further consensus. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can this article really justify 16 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Images: Of those given, I don't think File:Roger McGuinn-glasses.jpg is needed (you can see these glasses in the lead image), File:The Byrds Raga Rock.png (the band is similar to the lead image at this point, and there's nothing interesting by the adding of a sitar that isn't described in text). The rest of the images do seem appropriate.
Audio: Too many samples when the songs that are being sampled are all notable (where the sound sample can be located) I would say one per section is appropriate to show how their sound changed over the years.
That should reduce the image use to about 9-10 files which seems reasonable compared to other major notable bands. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Maids and Music.jpg

Closing as No Consensus. There has been no discussion in nearly 2 months. I have personally resolved the WP:NFCC#10c issue. As all further use is questioned, this file could be taken to WP:FFD if deletion is the best route. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use in All-female band violates WP:NFCC#10c. Both, the use in All-female band and the use in The Ingenues might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:OwlCityGalaxies.ogg

Closing as No Consensus. There has been no discussion in nearly 2 months. I have personally resolved the WP:NFCC#10c issue. As all further use is questioned, this file could be taken to WP:FFD if deletion is the best route. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) violates WP:NFCC#10c. The uses in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) and Galaxies (song) both violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg

Closing as No Consensus. There has been no discussion in nearly 2 months. I have personally resolved the WP:NFCC#10c issue. As all further use is questioned, this file could be taken to WP:FFD if deletion is the best route. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. Unsure whether File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg#Fair use rationale is considered to bring the file in compliance with 10c in Chevelle per WP:NFURG or not. Both uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the uses in Alternative metal and Chevelle might both violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.ogg

Closing as No Consensus. There has been no discussion in nearly 2 months. I have personally resolved the WP:NFCC#10c issue. As all further use is questioned, this file could be taken to WP:FFD if deletion is the best route. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alice in Chains, Alternative metal, Facelift (album) and Man in the Box. All uses might also violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Tool - Undertow - Prison Sex - sample.ogg

Closing as No Consensus. There has been no discussion in nearly 2 months. I have personally resolved the WP:NFCC#10c issue. As all further use is questioned, this file could be taken to WP:FFD if deletion is the best route. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. The uses in Alternative metal, Prison Sex and Tool (band) might all violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might also violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Hombres y Heroes Logo 2.jpg

User:Orionist of the Graphics Lab came through with File:Hombres y Heroes logo.svg, a freely licensed image. ---- TLSuda (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The logo is obviously {{PD-textlogo}}, but are there too many light effects for {{PD-Art}}? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have the Graphics Lab make up a SVG image, that will remove the issue. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have made a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop‎. As soon as we get a free image, I will be happy to delete the photo under WP:NFCC#1. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like no bites over at the Graphics Lab. I attempted a png version: File:Hombres attempted logo.png. Is this good enough for now to remove the non-free image @Stefan2:@Masem:? -- TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. but keep the graphics lab require open, an SVG would still be better. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg

Kept on Commons, File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg should be speedydeleted. |FDMS 08:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my eyeys, this logo only consists of simple geometric shapes and as a consequence does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain (commons:Template:PD-textlogo). On the description page of the same file on de.WP it also says Erreicht nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um Urheberrechtsschutz zu genießen (= does not meet the required threshold of originality for copyright protection). However, a user has raised objections against transferring it to Commons, so please also see the discussion here. |FDMS 20:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to look at the country of origin here, not just its US take, prior to moving to commons. Germany takes a "civil law" take for copyright, meaning that unlike UK's more "sweat of the brow" take, it has a similar use like the US for considering originality. As such, this logo would like fail being original in Germany as it would in the US, and as such, should be considered uncopyrightable (The Commons page for TOO shows much more complex examples that are uncopyrightable in Germany, as a guide). --MASEM (t) 20:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think so too! Thanks for your fast clarification (it's from Austria BTW), I will now transfer it to Commons. |FDMS 20:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Austria is civil law too, so I would agree it's still okay there. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I see this as above the TOO, and subject to copyright. Especially if you take a look at the Zimmermann Fitness logo that was deemed copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked at that , but I think the irregularity of the trail in that Zimmermann logo is what is the problem there. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Still this isnt just basic shapes this is a fairly artistic work. This isnt just a few lines, squares, circles or other basic shape. This work has a fairly unique combination of corners, and placement of the mirror object in order to create a lighting bolt like symbol. Werieth (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Yuli-mamchur-dialogues-with-pro-russian-forces-in-crimea.jpg

{{archive top}} This file should not be deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because per WP:NFCC:

  1. There are no free equivalents of this photo.
  2. This photo respect commercial opportunities as it is not used in a manner that does not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
  3. This photo is minimally used: it is only used on the article Yuli Mamchur to portray the moment in which Mamchur engaged pro-Russian forces amicably.
  4. This photo is a previous publication of a photo by the Associated Press which has been published by several outlets such as Metro.
  5. This photo meets Wikipedia's content standards and is encyclopedic.
  6. This photo adheres to our Wikipedia:Image use policy and fully describes the image origins and copyright details on its description page.
  7. This photo is used on one article and one article alone: Yuli Mamchur.
  8. This photo significantly increase our readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
  9. This photo is used only on the article namespace and only one one single article.
  10. The image description of this photo identifies the source of the photo, its author, and its publisher clearly and unequivocally. The description page also indicates the policy provision claimed to permit its non-free use.

Therefore, this photo adheres clearly and unequivocally to our WP:NFCC policy and to the fair use doctrine in the United States. Because of this, I contest its deletion and strongly believe that its deletion will be detrimental to Wikipedia and to our readers.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The photo is from Getty Images, which is a press agency, and per NFCC#2, our use immediately impacts their commercial opportunity (since Getty is in the business of selling these photos), and as such the image is not usable on WP unless the image itself is the subject of significant discussion (mainly, if a separate article could be created about the image.) --MASEM (t) 01:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No, this photo is from the Associated Press and the photographer is Ivan Sekretarev. I got this particular version from [1] which is a blog, specifically from [2]. Neither is from Getty Images. What makes you believe that it is from Getty Images? (honest and respectful question) I myself reduced its size and its quality in order to protect its commercial endeavors and in order to comply with the United States fair use doctrine. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
On hold until : OK, give me a minute. You might be right. I found it on WSJ at [3] under the claim that the author is Sean Gallup. Give me a few minutes to do more research. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The source in the file page which is [4] says "Getty Images" right there, and thus I was able to track it down to this [5] from Gettys. (Photos from the AP would also be considered a problem if they owned the rights , by the same reasoning) --MASEM (t) 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Verified. I found four other sources that credit Sean Gallup from Getty Images as well: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Considering this I'd say we must proceed with caution and delete the image. Agree? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Remark: heh, I just noticed that in order to find out the source on Metro you have to hover over the image. Since I never did this I didn't know the author was Sean. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Picasso and the Ballets Russes

NFCC issues resolved including costume image deleted. ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a little messy, most of these should be pd-1923 except for the costume which is probably replaceable Werieth (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated all of the paintings/drawings to be {{PD-USonly}} as appropriate. The costume is only replaceable if it is on display, where someone could take a photo of it. According to the museum (the website where the image originated) the piece as last shown there in January 2011. It was on display at the National Gallery of Art through October 2013. This set seems to travel some, but is still owned by V&A museum (originator of the photo). Based on this research, I would say that the image is replaceable, if one was in the right country. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Calculator (Windows)

Consensus is to keep only two of the non-free images. ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do we really need 9 images? Werieth (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You definitely don't need to show the calculator's look across all iterations of Windows. I think only 2 images are appropriate - the UI in the normal mode, and the UI in the scientific mode. These could be from different Windows versions. Arguably, one image could be sufficient, using a free mock up to show the different layouts of the "keys" between versions. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why was the Windows 3.11 calculator screenshot created using Windows 95 or later instead of Windows 3.11? If you create it using Windows 3.11 itself, then you get something which is arguably {{PD-ineligible}}.[10] --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Joaquín Guzmán Loera, aka El Chapo Guzmán.jpg

Although the rationale needs adjustment, it seems to currently be impossible to create a new free image now. If the trial is open to photography, there may be an issue later, but for now it is acceptable under out WP:NFCC policy. ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear Fail of WP:NFCC#1 : the subject is not dead and has just been paraded before the media LGA talkedits 21:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos of people who are at an unknown location are typically seen as irreplaceable. Photos of people who are inaccessible because they are kept in prison are also typically seen as irreplaceable. It says that he was "paraded before the media", but AP, AFP and Reuters (who took the photos in the BBC article) do not publish free photographs. Was anyone else able to take photos of him? It says that he was taken to a prison, so it seems that it is not currently possible to take photos of him. It says that he was arrested in Mexico, so presumably he was taken to a Mexican prison, meaning that we can't expect {{PD-USGov}} photographs to be created. Unless it can be shown that freely licensed photos of him were taken as he was "paraded before the media" (or at some other point), I don't think that the image currently is replaceable. It says that US authorities were involved in the operation, but it doesn't say whether they took any photos of him. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Well we now know where he is and the fact he is alive, and the burden here is to show one can't be created, the FUR bases its claim on "The individual is an armed fugitive thus dangerous for a Wikipedia editor to photograph personally" and that he may "in reality, be dead" since neither is the case. LGA talkedits 06:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's ignore the rationale issue and consider the facts: the person is now under arrest and appears to be waiting a trial. Regular public access to him is now highly limited, so at the present time, it for all purposes impossible to create a new free image. As such, until free images of this person are brought forward, NFCC#1 is met. Should previously-taken free images be found, then yes, replacement will be required, but since we can't create one at the present (even though one might have been possible the past) we can use non-free. The rationale should be improve to identify the person's in prison to justify it better. --MASEM (t) 06:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Will it be possible for the general public to attend the trial, and if so, is photography permitted there? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Access to him in prison does not look like a problem, a quick Google images search for "Joaquín Guzmán Loera prison" shows a number of shots taken when he was in prison prior to his escape. LGA talkedits 20:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lord Edmund-Davies.jpg

Image deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise citing WP:NFCC issues. ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Lord Edmund-Davies.jpg is an image of a portrait painting by a (presumably) living artist. As I understand it, such images are rarely if ever acceptable.

Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) is questionable. The subject being dead appears insufficient. The artist is a professional painter[11], and her rights should be respected. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:TheCityXM.png

Image is PD-textlogo. ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC#9, but perhaps {{PD-textlogo}}? There is the background and the colour effect, though... Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The use in AFC needs to be removed, but it is used in a mainspace article. I don't think the font is a regular font however - I know there are typewriter-like faces out there but this shows an irregulatity around the edge that seems well beyond the design of such fonts. So this is likely still non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's {{PD-textlogo}}. To be clear, it does not need to be an "off-the-shelf" font to fall short of protection in the United States. If you simply design your own font, and the letters are not pictorial representations (think letter in the shape of an animal), U.S. law states that it's ineligible for copyright. From their website:
Similarly, names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright.
The Haz talk 07:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No, that statement doesn't imply that; it does say the "wave" effect on City in this logo wouldn't be copyrightable. That said, I did take a look at various typewriter fonts and I think I can restate that it might be from some typewriter font set, though can't tell which one. So this is probably PD then. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries. It does't need to imply it. It explicitly says it. The Haz talk 02:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Downtown Troy, looking east up the hill, 1904.jpg

According to the source site, the postcard was postmarked (likely on the back) 8-23-1904, and is therefore published prior to that date. The image is {{PD-US}} ---- TLSuda (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use is claimed and the image is currently unused. However, it is clearly a postcard (so clearly published) claimed to be from 1904.Can we assume that the postcard was published in 1904, or can we only assume that the photograph was taken during that year? The paper looks quite old. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Music of Nigeria

All but one of the music pieces violate WP:NFCC as they are not mentioned in the article and the information in the captions arent sourced. I've removed them all. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a. We probably do not need 10 non-free files in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:KlingonInsignia.png

Image seems to be copyrightable, and it seems to have successfully stayed out of the userspace. ---- TLSuda (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagged as non-free and used outside the article namespace, but is this copyrightable in the first place? Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I've removed from the userspace draft to which it was linked. As to copyrightable, I think that Wikipedians have tended to draw the line loosely around "unoriginal" geometric shapes, and think it's better safe than sorry. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Texas Premier Soccer League (TPSL)

OTRS Permission received. Image is CC-by-SA-3.0. -- TLSuda (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No matter how many times I remove them, non-free images keep being readded to this page in clear violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ive re-removed them and warned the user. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
They've asserted to have sent permissions emails, but has anyone with an OTRS account verified this claim yet? TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 10:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Crowned Portcullis.svg

File shown to be clearly in PD; has been copied to commons with same name and local copies deleted. Same with House of Lords and House of Commons logos. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, except in Parliament of the United Kingdom. Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep all - "The crowned portcullis has come to be accepted during the twentieth century as the emblem of both Houses of Parliament. As with many aspects of parliamentary life, this has arisen through custom and usage rather than as a result of any conscious decision." per House of Commons information office i.e. it is an emblem of the House of Lords as well and not just Parliament. All the uses, explained fully in very detailed rationales, are appropriate, as indeed you might expect given that the relevant pages are maintained by experts and enthusiasts (imagine!)
I've updated the links to the crowned portcullis factsheet (which had become defunct) for the benefit of those too challenged by internet search engines to locate it themselves.
I should be curious to hear from you, Stefan, your rationale for posting here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
And that reason clearly establishes okay on the Parliament article where it is the official emblem, but no other. For example, it has no place on the Leader of the House of Lords or House of Commons since that is not that position's logo. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's the emblem of the House of Lords (you do know the House of Lords is one of the UK's two Houses of Commons?) as well and so can appear there (and indeed does, but as part of a more elaborate logo). I don't have the expertise (correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but I suspect that neither you nor Stefan have the expertise either) to judge whether where the other uses are correct. I do know it's reproduced on Commons notepaper and virtually all their stationary, including Hansard. I should think use on the Leader pages at least is appropriate. Frankly I think it would be more constructive to research whether it could be transferred to Commons. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Logos can only be used on the page about the entity that the logo represents to identify the organization - any other use requires sourced discussion about the logo. That is long-time standing practice. The different logos on the Houses of Lords and Commons are fine since the symbol is reused differently there and becomes a different argument. The logo on any other page but that of the Parliment page is inallowable. And no, it can't go to commons - UK does not have the equivalent of PD-USGov, and the threshold of originality is very low that this would easily be shown to be copyrightable under UK law, so it remains non-free. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I defer on going to Commons and indeed suspected that would be the case. But the fact is that is an emblem of both Houses of Commons, which Stefan plainly didn't appreciate, and the use on other pages becomes a matter of debate. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This specific file is not used on either Houses page, as there is a more specialized logo for those pages, and as such, Stefan's not even considering that. There are four pages that use this logo where it does not belong : Government of the United Kingdom, Leader of the House of Commons, Leader of the House of Lords, and Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), and it cannot be used on those four since this logo is not the logo for any of those organizations or groups, period. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I meant Parliament of the United Kingdom. The other uses are a matter of debate. I'll check on Leader of the House of Commons since one has rather had occasion to interact in the past. Masem, this is not a hill of beans. Stop turning it into a pile of shit. Seriously. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you're trying to argue against the status quo of how non-free images are used minimally and weaken the policy against the Foundation's mission goals. This file is the logo of one and exactly one organization (as it stands) and therefore it has only one place where it can be used for identification that otherwise meets our non-free policy. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No, Masem. It's the emblem of both the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the House of Lords. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
From a non-free standpoint, this SVG is the logo of only Parliament. File:House of Lords.svg is the logo for only the House of Lords, and File:House of Commons of the United Kingdom.svg for only the House of Commons. Yes, graphically, there's a common element, but non-free we're looking at the limit of the specific file, and that file only applies to the Parliament. Note that the other two SVG I mention are perfectly fine in those two repsective articles. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reached a personal resolution here with the issues involved. Good luck with the rest of it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can confirm that the portcullis is reproduced on the stationery of the Leader of the House of Commons (see here). I thought it was. Incidentally, for the sake of clarity those who know me here, I did momentarily confuse the Leader with the Speaker - apologies. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the risky step of personally releasing this faithful reproduction of Charles Barry's work to Wikimedia Commons, the image is here. Should his copyright agent wish to contact me, I will be only too happy to put it up for deletion. As Charles sadly passed away in 1860, I would be surprised if anyone was concerned enough to waste their time protecting his copyright any more when there is no legal basis to do so, even if they are the Queen of England. -- (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fæ! Nice to see you here. I linked your upload of File:Lydia at Afternoon Tea LACMA AC1996.27.1.jpg into the gallery at Gardner (Cassatt) Held by His Mother. I really would like to complete the sandbox start I made on Mary Cassatt's famous Durant-Ruel aquatints. Maybe, we shall see (erm ... that wasn't a royal we). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying that this was made by a man who died in 1860? This should make the logo PD. The only question is then whether the SVG is copyrightable in itself, which sometimes is the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
"Wait" is a laugh because you banged right in didn't you Stefan? You certainly didn't bother to locate the information file whose link had gone defunct. If you had bothered you could have read all about Charles Barry and the ubiquity of this emblem in the Palace of Westminster. Why should we pay the slightest attention to what you have to say now? It's plain that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the issues here. Really I can't grasp what motivates you. Fæ is quite right in his comments he makes at Commons about the copyright status of this emblem (i.e. is to say it's not in copyright). If you read the rationale (did you?) you will see it makes the same point: "This is a heraldic device; as such, it is protected under special United Kingdom legislation for heraldry, rather than copyright or trademark." Would the UK law of arms be another of your know-all specialities, Sfan (perhaps you run an approved account dealing solely with the issues)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I copied File:House of Commons of the United Kingdom.svg to Commons under the same name (commons:File:House of Commons of the United Kingdom.svg). I think the information provided by Fae settled the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: can I ask you do the same with File:House of Lords.svg which follows the same logic for the House of Commons svg? Once that's done, I'll delete the en.wiki versions of these files so that the commons versions are set and close this discussion. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Please note that Commons is also a wiki, and so you could do that yourself. Yann (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Original St. Helens Theatre Royal (Matcham Design).jpg

Discussion withdrawn. ---- TLSuda (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whilst this clearly meets NFCC, I am querying if this is a pre 1923 image, in which case {{P-1923-abroad}} might apply. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the postcard depicts the theatre as it appeared from 1901 to 1960 (Matcham design). This suggests the postcard was made (and probably also first published) during that period. Now, if it was first published before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States. If it entered the public domain in the UK before January 1, 1996 (the date of restoration in the UK), then it is in the public domain in the United States as well. If it was first published after 1923 and did not enter the public domain in the UK before January 1, 1996, then it is still copyrighted in the United States (if it was published in, say 1924, then it is still copyrighted until 2019). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
See my theory is that if this file went to Commons then there would be a sfan waiting there wanting to delete it because its pre-1923 status is uncertain. Probably why it was uploaded as NFCC in the first place in the pious hope of avoiding that drama. The uploader on his Talk page has very nicely explained to you concerning another file you're anxious about:
"I AM NOT SORRY TO BE SO BLUNT, IN FACT I AM GETTING REALLY BLOODY ANNOYED ! NO - I DON'T WANT IT PUT ON COMMONS - I NEVER DID - I CHOSE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. IT'S YOU THAT SEEM OBSESSED WITH PUTTING IT ON COMMONS. WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE IT IN THE INITIAL STATE IT WAS WHEN I FIRST UPLOADED IT AND ALL THE OTHER PICTURES FOR THAT MATTER ?
so I would call that a polite request to indulge some self-copulation and bugger off (we brits are like that we just can't fucking help it, sorry), wouldn't you say so Sfan00 IMG, correct me if I'm wrong. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Request withdrawn, and this can be speedily closed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait of George Bodington.jpg

Transferred to Commons Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If this indeed is from 1830, then I don't see how it can be unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose the uploader simply didn't know anything about the issues. Amazing! I've templated it for transfer to Commons.
You could have done that Stefan BTW. Not even bothered with discussing it here.
Jolly well spotted anyway and lets hope the uploader mends his way when he sees your template on his Talk page! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, just for fun I'll concoct a theory and tie one hand by accepting the 1830 claim. Perhaps George Bodington's grandson, Oliver Bodington, showed creativity when he coloured in the photo in 1906.[12] Oliver died in 1936 so the coloured image was still in UK copyright in 1996 and therefore US copyright holds until 95 years after the (unknown?) publication date, quite possibly after 1923. Mark as PD. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, even better well spotted. 1830 is really early for a photograph and it was buried in the metadata. I confess to imagining it was a painting. I do think it's reasonable to suppose it was first published before 1923, thus evading the URAA issue (it's not clear it was actually coloured by Oliver?) Anyway I'm going to transfer to Commons Categories Category:Physicians from England and Category:1830s portrait photographs and let Stefan2's doppelgänger over there tag it back if so minded :) ... I don't know how to close discussions or stuff, so would appreciate help there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Transferred here Portrait of George Bodington.jpg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:KeepTheTinTech.png

Transferred to Commons Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is obviously PD-text logo, right? -- TLSuda (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, particularly as it's a US-based logo. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've transferred to Commons here :File:KeepTheTinTech.png. Don't know how to close the topic or whether I may, so would appreciate help there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg

Close as No Consensus due to no discussion in two months. No prejudice for later relist if discussion is necessary. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

As a procedural note, I could have sworn this photo has come up before either at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: It looks like it was take to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_8#File:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg where it was closed as no consensus for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Blue Network

File:BreakfClubBlue.jpg deleted per WP:NFCC#10a. Other files might be public domain, but no further discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

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

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

File:James Cotton - Cotton Crop Blues.ogg

No Consensus as no discussion has taken place in nearly two months. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

File:Palpasa Cafe by Narayan Wagle.jpg

WP:BOLD closure as the file fails WP:NFCC#3b. I've replaced the whole cover with just the front. Orphaned non-free revision will be deleted in due time. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Why the backcover if not the frontcover? Call me stupid (but in educated English please if I may insist). Just curious. Some sort of backdoor issue perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3b says "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." The back cover does not identify the work as well as the front cover does. Therefore Stefan is saying that an image that is just the front cover would fit within policy better than one with the whole cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I can take that as authoritative? That you are as fluent in Urdu as you are perhaps in Russian? Indeed you have me at an advantage there. It's a fracking cover Timothy. Come on. It would be a real pity if it was mutilated just because of Stefan's backdoor issues. Is he in by the way? I would really like to have a word with him about his Mickey Gove post. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I can say with 100% confidence that I am as fluent in Urdu as I am in Russian. But I'm sure that you know that by now. And its not relevant here. If there was critical commentary about the back cover, then it may be useful, but as the image is only used to show the cover of the work (under WP:NFCI#1) we still should only use a portion of the image. The image is not "mutilated" because we only show the front cover, actually that is what the standard is here, and what is currently in use in most articles that use cover art (whether it be a book, film, album, etc). I don't know what you are talking about with "backdoor issues" or a "Mickey Gove post," nor do I know if Stefan is in. I'm sure you could try to reach him at his talkpage and ask him about these. Cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:BalikaVadhu.jpg

I've WP:BOLDly merged the two articles as they were both about the same television show except in different languages. No NFCC issue. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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.

Jutsu (Naruto)

No Consensus per no discussion in 30 days. No prejudice to reopening at a later date if discussion is necessary. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article contains the following non-free images

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


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

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

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

File:Le Théâtre Italien in Paris.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

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

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

File:Palais de Soubise.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

File:Print of Young Saint-Georges.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

File:The Angelos' Fencing Academy. jpeg.jpeg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

File:Title page of Saint-Georges concertos.jpg

Image is in Public Domain. Issues such as this could be WP:Boldly resolved. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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


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

File:TVNZ TV2 logo.svg

Discussion effectively closed when User:Coat of Many Colors moved file to Commons. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Eh, this should be free. It is (apparently) the logo's owner and this is their SVG which they can't copyright. If it was the case the logo SVG was made by some third-party, I'd agree that a true free version made by our graphics lab or something like that would be better. But this is out of their own hands, and thus is uncopyrightable to start. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Er, anyone who makes a vectorisation of a logo can hold the rights to the vectorisation, provided that the vectorisation meets the threshold of originality for computer software. Note that User:Ollieinc has overwritten the file with a different file from an unknown source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The logo itself is just a simple numeral, which does not appear to be eligible for copyright protection, so a non-free SVG is clearly a violation of NFCC#1 and should be replaced with a free version. My understanding is that although the logo fails TOO, the XML code of the SVG may be copyrighted. I don't know if it is possible to create an SVG of this logo with different XML code, or if a new file is created which produces the same or similar XML from scratch, whether that could be considered a copyright violation or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I' transferred the file to Commons per Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_logos_that_just_consist_of_basic_text_in_the_userspace. Can someone close this please (I didn't raise here). Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Clifford Chester Sims.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC#1 per FUR. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

SBS One

Images fail WP:NFG and WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:Eastern Airlines logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:Pan Am Logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:Endeavor Global Logo.png

Image is PD-textlogo as it is below TOO. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:Philippe, Duke of Orleans.jpg

Image is in the public domain per PD-old. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It's first publication date may be more recent, but there's no way going by age of the (late 1700s) that any type of copyright can still exist even if published, like, this year - it's certainly more than 70+life/95+life/120 years considering the painter. PD-old applies. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's a photograph of a 2D work of art and the photographer has no rights per Wikipedia policy. Best dealt with by transferring to Commons. I've templated accordingly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Busted in 2002.jpg

As the band has disbanded, it is acceptability that the file is not replaceable by a free image. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:CSUSB seal.png

Image is not PD-CAGov as the school is not part of the state government. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:Ura logo.gif

The logo is from a Singapore company (maybe the Singapore government), and therefore would most likely be created in Singapore and subject to local copyright laws. As Commons:COM:TOO has no information on the TOO in Singapore, I'm closing this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

File:CovelliCentre.PNG

Image is not PD-textlogo. -- TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I think the United States copyright office would not regard the decoration as de minimis (it forms a visually recognizable part of the logo) and as such I think it might be creative enough for them to register it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree - the curvature is not simple. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

Consensus is the 6 non-free files all fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 and should be deleted. TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The six files would seem to be the three entitled "On September 9, 2013, an internal NSA presentation on iPhone Location Services was leaked by Der Spiegel" and the three "In February 2014, The Intercept and NBC News released several GCHQ documents detailing the agency's propaganda and deception tactics". Can you clarify please where you think these breach the English Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy.
Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't need images of the nearly-all text files to talk about the content of the programs - eg, the publication by sources like Der Spiegel is sufficient validation to prove they exist, and the content of these slides have been or can be summarized in text (they fail NFCC#1 as text can be used to replace these) In addition, while Der Spiegel and others published them, they likely did it without permission/consent of the NSA, and thus these should be considered failing previous legal publication (NFCC#4, previous publication). Now, arguably the core NSA files would fall under PD-USGov, but again, they have not been published by that organization formally, so even if "free" they would fail copyright policy. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The three images under British Crown Copyright appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: easily replaceable by text, and the article can easily be understood without the images (so removal wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the article).
  • The three Iphone images also appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, for the same reasons. All of them are used in three different articles, and they appear to fail both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in those articles too. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the three iPhone images should go. One of the GCHQ slides can stay as a historically significant image imho. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Polonium.jpg

The previous discussion about this image only centered on whether the image was replaceable. The determination by consensus is that it is not replaceable as there is limited access due to limited quality. This new discussion is whether the image meets WP:NFCC (specifically WP:NFCC#3) By policy, non-free images should be used minimally (WP:NFCC#3) and should be the subject of critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8). There are exceptions for identification, but only on the subject's main article. Therefore, the use on 4 addition pages violates both WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8 and will be removed. TLSuda (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Yes. I'm inclined to wonder what this image might add to an article, other than in its stand alone article. Course there can't be too may imges of Polonium around, scary stuff. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This image, then used in four articles, was listed for review on 30 Aug 2013 and closed as a keep on 6 Oct 2013, here. As far as I can see, the grounds for its use in a fifth article are identical. There are 344 articles that mention polonium. The five articles that use this image do so in order to illustrate their elusive subject matter, either self-referentially (polonium article) or in the context of related chemical elements (chalcogen; metalloid; p-block; and other metal articles). As per prior review, there is no free equivalent. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The previous review focused on the replaceability of the image, not necessarily how it was used. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The 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 Gurdjieff Journal

Per WP:NFCC#3 the article should use only one cover to identify the subject, not three. TLSuda (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The page shouldn't be there at all. I'm fed up with all these guru pages on Wikipedia. Someone should start an approved account to get rid of them all, they really should. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, I see it survived a speedy delete, I'd better strike. I agree it only needs the one cover for visual identification. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It didn't, although an administrator decided to redirect the page instead of deleting it. The original author later recreated the article by removing the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I do actually think the defence that it's a bona fide journal is fair, but it's hard to find a convincing cite for notability. Gurdjieff himself of course a noted figure. I though this iffy researching incidentally File:Georgi Ivanovitch Gurdjieff -- The Man, The Teaching, His Mission.jpg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If the original author recreated the article from the admin-closed decision without seeking review to recreate or essentially recreating the same article, that's something that can be speedily undone (it's a CSD allowance) --MASEM (t) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the admin that redirected it to get his take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, but I shan't initiate that. Years ago I knew a rather brilliant lawyer totally into Gurdjieff. He's passed on of course, but perhaps he was right all along up there dancing in the fourth sphere. I've never understood how fantastically brilliant people can fall for this kind of stuff (Isaac Newton himself is an example) - probably I lack imagination, certainly the genius :(. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ray of Creation absolutely brill, Masem. Not to be missed and don't even think about tagging it (Morrison's plonk getting to me a bit earlier than usual ..., sorry). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Patrick Abercrombie.jpg

I have tagged the image with the appropriate DI tag. That process is better suited than NFCR to handle this type of request. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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.