Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
.JPG){kind=link}
{{discussion top}} I question the use of this image in Los Angeles Times under WP:NFCC#1 as there is at least a public domain partial front cover already in use in the article and per here and some research I was doing yesterday, issues up until the early 50's are likely public domain (although the particular images and articles on the pages would require additional verification), so it appears to be reasonably replaceable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... that's brings to my mind a thought-provoking question, does a circa 1950 LA Times front page serve the purpose of identifying the subject of the Los Angeles Times article? The modern-era LA Times front page looks pretty different (see here for 1949 front page). Perhaps a fair-use rationale for the use of an image of a modern-era LA Times front page could be made, under the argument that the available free images don't accurately identify the article's subject. However, I do agree that the rationale as it currently stands is completely unacceptable -- not only is the essential "Replaceable?" field completely blank, but I find the low-resolution statement to be inadequate ( I think the image itself could and should be smaller) —RP88 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hrmm... you're probably right about it not serving the same purpose of modern identification. Now to just figure out the best way to reword the FUR (and possibly work up the motivation to start looking into the copyright of 1949 AP articles and photos, because that's quite the find). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy close. FUR updated. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Two images on Lockdown (Lost)
{{discussion top}}
Both of these fail WP:NFCC#8: contextual significance. There is no discussion in the text about why these particular visuals are important to the subject or how they help increase reader's understanding; they are nothing more than decorations in a simple plot summary. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I would go as far as including File:Lost-Lockdown.jpg. None of these images portray anything that can't be described in words. SpigotMap 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as File:Lost-Lockdown.jpg goes, isn't it just as relevant as any screenshot for a particular episode of a TV show? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, those images don't meet WP:NFCC#8 on Lockdown (Lost). Both of the referenced images have been removed from Lockdown (Lost) for more than a week, and there doesn't appear to have been any significant objection. File:Henry Gale ID.jpg is now unused, but File:Lost 2x17 - The Map.png remains in use in the Dharma Initiative article, but there is no fair use rationale on its image description page for File:Lost 2x17 - The Map.png's use on use in Dharma Initiative. Interestingly, I actually think a weak argument can be made for fair use of File:Lost 2x17 - The Map.png in Dharma Initiative. There is actual commentary and analysis of the map on Dharma Initiative. Is anyone interested in adding a fair use rationale for File:Lost 2x17 - The Map.png's use on Dharma Initiative? —RP88 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to believe that the use fails to "significantly increase readers' understanding", but that's just me. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, any attempt to write a fair use rationale for it would almost certainly also involve a bunch of work on the article itself to expand upon the commentary. I don't think its worth it myself, which is why I asked if anyone anyone else was interested in doing so. —RP88 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, the article has been expanded some, but I'm still hesitant. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, any attempt to write a fair use rationale for it would almost certainly also involve a bunch of work on the article itself to expand upon the commentary. I don't think its worth it myself, which is why I asked if anyone anyone else was interested in doing so. —RP88 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to believe that the use fails to "significantly increase readers' understanding", but that's just me. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I re-read the article and realized that it was placed in the wrong location. I placed it in a section that talks quite extensively about it and as noted above I expanded that section a bit. It should qualify and pass now. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Both images have been removed from the article in question. File:Lost 2x17 - The Map.png has been placed in the Dharma Initiative in a section which discusses it and an appropriate FUR has been provided. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} There is basically two non-free images for every version of the OS. There is a logo and a screenshot. To me, this seems like non-free image overuse, because the user can easily click on the "Main" article section heading, and be taken to the main article on these topics that include both logos and screenshots. Furthermore, I noticed some of the logos are PD-text. If it's possible to have some PD-text logos, why can't they all be PD-text logos (just remove the windows flag graphic element). And do we need a screenshot for each OS version? Just wanted others to review the situation (and, one thing I noticed is we'll have File:Windows XP SP3.png for the Windows XP article and File:Windows XP.PNG for this article. Even if we decide having a screenshot is perfectly fine for the history article, per NFCC #3, shouldn't we just have one screenshot image that is used in 2 articles, not 2 separate images?) -Andrew c [talk] 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I was bold and replaced the logos. Still want opinions on the screenshots. -Andrew c [talk] 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think of File:Windows 1.0 logo.svg? It is text and near-simple geometry. Could we claim it's PD ineligable? It's just a rectangle with rounded corners and 3 thick lines intersecting it. It's borderline in my opinion (the configuration may be unique enough to qualify for copyright), so opinions on that would be nice as well. -Andrew c [talk] 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's too unique to qualify as PD. Plenty of design went into it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps explain a little more, because plenty of design can go into something like, say, a typeface, but they are not eligible for copyright under US law. That said, I agree that PD-textlogo is often abuse (just browsing the links, I found File:SunBeltConference 100.png), but there are examples like File:Sflc.svg File:CKNDCurrentLogo.png and File:Stanleylogo.gif which are logos that contain multiple simple geometric shapes, but being claimed PD-textlogo. It's a tough call for some, and perhaps we should always err on the side of caution (and perhaps none of those examples should be listed as PD). I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Thanks! -Andrew c [talk] 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like an opinion on the screenshots in these articles. I'd gladly boldly remove them, but I don't want to be too bold without outside opinions. -Andrew c [talk] 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The screenshots are very important for illustrating the history of the product. As long as specific elements are mentioned in the text that's on this page, I see no problems with them. Powers T 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's for the reply. I'm curious more about your "specific elements" threshold. Do any of the screenshot images on that specific page meet that threshold? Are you considering a single sentence like Windows 3.0's user interface was finally a serious competitor to the user interface of the Macintosh computer. and Vista also features new graphics features, the Windows Aero GUI, sufficient? It's clear to me that at least a few of the screenshots should be removed under your criteria as nothing about the GUI is mentioned in some sections.-Andrew c [talk] 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The text could probably stand to be punched up a bit. If it's not addressing specifics about the look and feel, it's not a very good description of Windows' history. =) Powers T 15:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed screenshots from those sections which contained no discussion whatsoever of the GUI. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
A couple of months back, I nominated the above two images for deletion, as they seemed like pretty clear-cut cases of failing WP:NFCC#8 (not to mention the missing copyright information for the latter), as the use for both images were decorative/of specious encyclopedic value, and even the uploader agreed on both cases, but they were both kept as "no consensus". I found the result mystifying; although the deletes only narrowly outnumbered the keeps (3-2 in both cases, I believe), in my mind, the deletes were based on accepted interpretation of WP:NFCC, while the keeps were not. Again, the case for deletion seems pretty clear in both cases, so I thought they deserved a second look. --Mosmof (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It surprises me that both of these images were in the Trevor Linden article when it was promoted to featured article back in 2008. I doubt they would stay if it was reviewed now. The draft photo does not seem to add anything to the article and the image is not actually discussed in the article either with the justification being: Linden immediately after being drafted in 1988, an event that happens once in an ice hockey player's career. It seems to be there for decoration and in my opinion clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not contextually significant what he looked like that day does and adds nothing to the reader's understanding. The 1994 image might be justified more easily but the rationale is currently lacking. The deletion discussion looked like a clear delete to me but that was up to the closing admin Fastily whom you could ask what his thought were at the time. ww2censor (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I too do no think either of these images meet WP:NFCC#8, they should be removed from the article and tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}}. I'm a little surprised at the the result of the FFD discussion, I'd have thought the arguments from those arguing for deletion was persuasive, the arguments for keeping these images were pretty weak. —RP88 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even though both image were nominated for deletion on February 15, 2010 and closed as no consensus I agree they don't pass WP:NFCC#8 and should be nominated again. It is rather surprising there was no specific image review done during the featured article nomination which should have questioned both images, especially any non-free images. There was in fact only one comment about any image and that was complaint about the dark image quality of File:Trevor Linden draft photo 1988.JPG. ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also agree and have nominated them here. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Both images deleted. —RP88 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This article seems to be a bit of a fair-use nightmare, with seven (!!) fair use images which I doubt can all be justified. Thoughts? 2 lines of K303 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. All but one or two of them should be deleted, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the images have been removed and so orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
A non-free photograph (File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg) depicts Soviet solders raising the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. This event symbolized both the end of the Battle of Berlin and a military defeat of Third Reich in World War II. No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created. The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection.
Can a non-free status of this photograph be a reason for its removal, and will its replacement with some free image have a detrimental effect on the World War II, Eastern Front (World War II) and Battle of Berlin articles?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also under consideration should be File:Reichstag flag original.jpg as well as File:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag with no Watch.jpg and File:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag with two Watchs.jpg, although the later two are only used in the article about the photo itself to show how it was retouched, and so are likely fine. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Problem resolved with the original photo, as it is now only used in the article about the photo and the photographer. File:Reichstag flag original.jpg, however, is used in the article on the photo (again also probably fine for retouching comparisons), Meliton Kantaria (who hoisted the flag), and it was also present in Nazi Germany, Battle of Berlin, and Nazism. I have boldly removed it from those three articles per lack of FUR and failure of WP:NFCC#8 so we'll see what happens. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The files in question have been removed from all articles where context is not established, context has been added to Battle of Berlin to support its inclusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} The painting Guernica is obviously one of the most significant in Picasso's oeuvre. But it is also copyrighted, and thus we are compelled by the non-free content criteria to limit its use in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, this painting seems to be an unusually popular choice for illustrating various concepts outside the context of critical commentary. It was recently removed from the posttraumatic stress disorder article, for instance. However, it remains present in several articles which may be problematic.
As of this writing, the article appears in the following articles:
- History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting
- The usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical. Guernica is displayed in a gallery, even though non-free galleries are strongly frowned upon, as I recall. On the bright side, the articles do each contain (the same) extensive discussion of the image. I think these uses are probably okay ultimately; even though it's used in a gallery, that seems to be merely a presentation issue in these cases.
- Pablo Picasso
- Fine, obviously.
- Biscay
- Highly questionable. First and most importantly, there is no fair-use rationale for this article on the description page. Second, the article in question does not even mention the painting in its text; the reference in the caption is brief and not particularly illuminating. It appears to be being used only for illustration here.
- Condor Legion
- Again, no fair-use rationale. The article mentions the painting only in passing and we need not display the image to convey necessary information.
- User:Cretanforever
- This was just added earlier today; I've removed it as non-free images aren't allowed in userspace.
- The Third of May 1808
- The article does say that Guernica was influenced by The Third of May 1808, but doesn't go into any detail and does not require the image to be close at hand for readers' understanding.
- Bella No. 2
- No fair-use rationale. The article contains unreferenced claim that Guernica may have been inspired by Bella No. 2. No support for this is included, referenced or otherwise, making the inclusion of the copyrighted work questionable at best.
- Guernica (painting)
- Although not listed under "File links" on the description page, obviously this image is used in the painting's article's infobox. Obviously the most permissible use of this image possible.
In short, I would recommend that this image be removed from all pages except History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting, Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso.
-- Powers T 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fair use rationales all appear to be the same, and none are unique or tailored to the specific use. It's like when I see someone using a FUR tempalte, and adding "educational use" for the purpose. If you believe fair use rationales can be written for all those uses, then please do so. But as it stands, I don't consider any of the FUR valid, as the purpose has not been adequately addressed. WP:FURG -Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to think that the rationale for the article about the painting might be sufficient, just inherently as the article about the painting. But otherwise I completely agree. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, by the barest minimum you could say that the FUR for the article about the painting is acceptable. The other clones are blatantly not. Andrew, you're right, the FUR is in desperately bad shape. Powers, I agree with all of your analysis except, to some degree, the one concerning The Third of May 1808. As a matter of art history, the relationship between it and Guernica is a very important one, the visual comparison of the paintings is of high educational value, and the images should be in the same article to maximize readers' understanding. That said, the article can and should go into more detail about the relationship between the pictures. As for Bella No. 2, the entire purported connection between it and Guernica appears to be OR. I see Guernica was added to the article by an IP a few months ago without explanation, discussion, etc. It should be expeditiously removed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am essentially a layman when it comes to art history and analysis, but I think that only highlights the insufficiency of the article as it stands. A layman ought to be able to tell from reading the text how important an image is to understanding. Or, more to the point, by reading the fair-use rationale. Powers T 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. My phrasing above was a little loose. I didn't disagree at all with your analysis of the current situation with The Third of May 1808. Rather I wanted to raise a point relating to the consequences of your analysis. I believe Guernica does merit a place, per our policy, in the article, but, indeed, both article and rationale must be stronger (in the case of the rationale, much stronger) for that place to be secured.—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the image of Guernica from Bella No. 2, which I have marked for speedy deletion as an obvious and complete hoax (though a clever, amusing one).—DCGeist (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. My phrasing above was a little loose. I didn't disagree at all with your analysis of the current situation with The Third of May 1808. Rather I wanted to raise a point relating to the consequences of your analysis. I believe Guernica does merit a place, per our policy, in the article, but, indeed, both article and rationale must be stronger (in the case of the rationale, much stronger) for that place to be secured.—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am essentially a layman when it comes to art history and analysis, but I think that only highlights the insufficiency of the article as it stands. A layman ought to be able to tell from reading the text how important an image is to understanding. Or, more to the point, by reading the fair-use rationale. Powers T 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, by the barest minimum you could say that the FUR for the article about the painting is acceptable. The other clones are blatantly not. Andrew, you're right, the FUR is in desperately bad shape. Powers, I agree with all of your analysis except, to some degree, the one concerning The Third of May 1808. As a matter of art history, the relationship between it and Guernica is a very important one, the visual comparison of the paintings is of high educational value, and the images should be in the same article to maximize readers' understanding. That said, the article can and should go into more detail about the relationship between the pictures. As for Bella No. 2, the entire purported connection between it and Guernica appears to be OR. I see Guernica was added to the article by an IP a few months ago without explanation, discussion, etc. It should be expeditiously removed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- At least for now I've removed the image from all articles except for those proposed by LtPowers. I am in agreement that it could fit into The Third of May 1808, with the current explanation of the relationship amounting to a single sentence I believe more article work is required before that use passes WP:NFCC#8. I will see what I can do about the FURs for the remaining article usage later. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, as the Legacy section of The Third of May 1808 now has two relevant images—one of which is free, the other of which has both a good FUR and solid treatment in the article—there's no need to restore Guernica to it, which would clutter the section.—DCGeist (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_4#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your input! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've made an attempt to provide legitimate fair use rationales for the pages on which it now appears. I make no pretense to being familiar with the history of art or the significance of this work, so I'd appreciate it if someone would review my changes. I'm largely happy with the rationale I wrote for Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso. The rationale I wrote for 20th century Western painting might be acceptable, but the rationales for Western painting and History of painting are essentially clones of the rationale for 20th century Western painting. However, since the usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical (as noted by Powers), perhaps largely identical fair use rationales for these three articles is also OK. —RP88 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. The only possible lingering issue I see is if someone remains of the opinion voiced by CBM in the previous discussion mentioned above that "The painting should not appear in more than one of these: Western painting, History_of_painting, Art. Using it in all three ignores the "minimal use" principle. Just because a painting is well known cannot justify using it in every overview article." (now applying to the three "cloned" FURs you just mentioned). I don't personally feel that WP:NFCC#3a limits the number of articles, however, just the number of images per article, so as I said, it looks good to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hrmm... I'm unsure about my opinion of NFCC#3a here, because I see WP:NFC#UUI #5 which states "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)", so maybe it does need removed from more articles? If there's anyone else who thinks it needs to be trimmed from more articles, speak up, otherwise I'll close this discussion soon as it's at least mostly resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And yet more information: at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Overused non-free images Masem points out that the wording for 3a used to be "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole" (emphasis added), but it was removed as being redundant. So I guess that changes my earlier opinion. Of the three articles with cloned rationales (20th century Western painting, Western painting and History of painting), does anyone have an opinion as to which use seems most pertinent? To make things even more fun, the text accompanying the image appears to be cloned in all three articles as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it's inarguable that Picasso is one of the most important painters in world history. (A plausible argument could be made that he is the most important, though I'd probably argue for Giotto first and Michelangelo second.) After Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Guernica is his single most important painting. Given the nature of the History of painting article, it seems absolutely appropriate that both Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon appear in it. I would say the same of Western painting, though the text cloning is unfortunate. For more comprehensive educational value, by the time we get down to 20th century Western painting, a different choice of paintings might best serve our readers. Of course, that would call for an adjustment to the text.—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd argue the other way around: History of painting is a massive article that would benefit greatly from the application of WP:Summary style and pruning, and should probably only contain a small, carefully-selected set of free images. Non-free images should be moved down into the more specific articles: Guernica, for example, would go nicely in 20th century Western painting. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it's inarguable that Picasso is one of the most important painters in world history. (A plausible argument could be made that he is the most important, though I'd probably argue for Giotto first and Michelangelo second.) After Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Guernica is his single most important painting. Given the nature of the History of painting article, it seems absolutely appropriate that both Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon appear in it. I would say the same of Western painting, though the text cloning is unfortunate. For more comprehensive educational value, by the time we get down to 20th century Western painting, a different choice of paintings might best serve our readers. Of course, that would call for an adjustment to the text.—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- And yet more information: at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Overused non-free images Masem points out that the wording for 3a used to be "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole" (emphasis added), but it was removed as being redundant. So I guess that changes my earlier opinion. Of the three articles with cloned rationales (20th century Western painting, Western painting and History of painting), does anyone have an opinion as to which use seems most pertinent? To make things even more fun, the text accompanying the image appears to be cloned in all three articles as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hrmm... I'm unsure about my opinion of NFCC#3a here, because I see WP:NFC#UUI #5 which states "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)", so maybe it does need removed from more articles? If there's anyone else who thinks it needs to be trimmed from more articles, speak up, otherwise I'll close this discussion soon as it's at least mostly resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. The only possible lingering issue I see is if someone remains of the opinion voiced by CBM in the previous discussion mentioned above that "The painting should not appear in more than one of these: Western painting, History_of_painting, Art. Using it in all three ignores the "minimal use" principle. Just because a painting is well known cannot justify using it in every overview article." (now applying to the three "cloned" FURs you just mentioned). I don't personally feel that WP:NFCC#3a limits the number of articles, however, just the number of images per article, so as I said, it looks good to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Wikiproject Visual arts is discussing these issues about the overview articles mentioned. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images. See also Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. In the latter article the number of non-free images is just over half what it was. I suggest it is better to continue a detailed discussion at the Project and/or the specific article talk pages, as this one image should not be seen in isolation, but as part of an integrated coverage. Ty 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Picasso is a giant of 20th century art, and Guernica along with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and a few other of his works are among his most important masterpieces. The historical context and political impact of Guernica make it arguably Picasso's greatest achievement as a painter. It is essential to any survey or historical overview of painting which is why it appears in those three survey articles. In my opinion it is both crucial and relevant to all of those articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Usage of the image has been drastically reduced. Appropriate FURs have been added to remaining instances. Detailed discussion about images in larger context of all non-free images in the remaining overview articles to continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images and Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
- @Scarface (1983 film)#Cast — Jack
Nonfree image previously used only as general illustration for film castlist section. The article includes no text relating to the image, the scene it is take from, or the visual appearance of Pacino in the film, indicating not only failure to meet WP's NFCC criteria, but making the "fair use" status of the image uncertain. Several different nonfree images are used to illustrate the relevant character article, but not this one. Removal of image from article has been disputed with no explanation other than "reasonable FU". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- A reasonable fair use; iconic image is of the eponymous character and does significantly add to the reader's understanding. Jack Merridew 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Jack is right that it is not just an iconic image of the film but it goes down as one of the iconic images of cinema of all time. Using the image for plot may not meet wikipedias' somewhat warped fair use guidelines but using it for critical commentary, discussion of drugs below will.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Image moved from "Cast" to "Reviews" where Pacino's performance is actually discussed. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Burning Flipside photos
{{discussion top}}
Image is marked with CC-SA-BY-3.0 license, but image comes from non-free event with restrictions on commericial reuse. See <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> on page 13. "Burning Flipside is a private event. The commercial use of photographs, video, film or any other medium taken at Burning Flipside is prohibited without written permission of Austin Artistic Reconstruction, LLC." Spectre9 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- the photograph is of a sculpture, produced with funding from Austin Artistic Reconstruction. Do your research on D.A.F.T. As the artwork is a commissioned work with funding from the admission price to the event. Sculpture even burning sculpture is protected by copyright and you need permission of artist or non-free-use rationale. 70.123.121.92 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds like a valid argument since there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculpture. Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- the photograph is of a sculpture, produced with funding from Austin Artistic Reconstruction. Do your research on D.A.F.T. As the artwork is a commissioned work with funding from the admission price to the event. Sculpture even burning sculpture is protected by copyright and you need permission of artist or non-free-use rationale. 70.123.121.92 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- This argument incorrectly applies the published policies regarding photography at Flipside. The policy in effect at the time the photo was made is the first citation, the other cites are for policies that were created 'after' this photo was made. Looking at the first policy, note that it speaks to photos of people and images on individuals, none of which are visible in this photo. SteveHopson (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures, this image may in fact retain copyright by Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
license is wrong, as non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures, this image may in fact retain copyright by Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, after some research, I think I have a coherent opinion on these. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States where Burning Flipside is held, and so the photographs are derivative works of the sculptures. The contract between attendees and Austin Artistic Deconstruction (AAD) seems fairly irrelevant to the considerations here, since the existence of these photos demonstrates that people are willing and able to violate that rule. As far as I have been able to tell, while the effigies are funded by AAD (asserted above by the IP) and constructed by DaFT, the actual designs (proposals) are submitted by what appear to be independent artists [1] [2]. Even if the artwork is commisioned (as also asserted by the IP), that is no guarantee that the copyright is transferred, so it seems to me that it would be possible for the designer of the sculptures (i.e., copyright holder) to take a picture and release it here freely, making these arguably fail WP:NFCC#1. At the very least these should be retagged as non-free since we can't assume that the photographers are the copyright holders. Anybody want to point out where/if I've gone wrong? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per lack of response all have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 11. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
All files listed at WP:PUF. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This image is a mugshot of the officer currently on trial for the killing of Oscar Grant at BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. It will be speedily deleted on the 26th since an editor removed it from the article with the edit summary: "removing mugshot - BLP issues and fails WP:NFCC#1". The image does kind of show the guy in a negative light but it doesn't appear to be grossly inappropriate. It depicts an individual who is obviously important to the event and in a context that is relevant. The FUR also seems OK. I'm not 100% positive thought thought I would bring it up here. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- So I'm the one that removed it. Starting with my WP:NFCC#1 reasoning, since he's currently out on bail[3][4], there's no indication that a free picture of him couldn't be taken now, let alone in the future. Given our standards for images of living persons, as far as I can tell it's generally only those who are imprisoned for life (or some lengthy period of time which could conceivably be effectively a life sentence) where we can then say that a free image cannot reasonably be produced. On reflection there are also situations such as witness protection or fugitive status, but none appear to be the case here. As far as the BLP issues go, I feel that using a mugshot to represent someone who hasn't been convicted qualifies as using the image "out of context to present a person in a ... disparaging light" as proscribed by WP:MUG. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No other opinions were presented and the image has been deleted. No further action required at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Gaza flotilla raid images
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Non-free images inquiry
There is ongoing discussion about the fair-use and neutrality aspects of using images in the Gaza flotilla raid article, specifically over some of the following images:
- File:Activistboatclash.jpg
- File:Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board.jpg
- File:An_activist_saying_'eithe_Martyrdom_or_reaching_Gaza'.jpg
According to the law of copyright in Israel and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the IDF and the Ministry of Defense. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. Pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party.
User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner.
When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it is the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material.
The copyright for the final image is not as clear. It is posted on an Israeli government site, but then appears to come from a third-party organization.
Would these images be usable?--Nosfartu (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean for you to cross post. And I wasn't trying to scold you with bureaucratic red tape by saying you posted to the wrong board. Because I don't think you did. I only directed you here if you felt the images needed review in light of NFCC. Anyway, what you wrote above doesn't to me seem like an inquiry. There is no reason to quote the copyright stipulations from the source. We are tagging the image as non-free, so.... what is your questions? Are you asking whether the images are actually non-free? Or are you asking if the members of this board think that NFCC is being applied properly or what? What is the issue? What do you think? Do you think any of WP:NFCC aren't met by any of those images? -Andrew c [talk] 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the lack of clarity. The copyright policy was given in case it would be informative to when and how the images could be used, but as you can probably tell I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am trying to understand whether copyright and NFCC policies are being applied properly, i.e. can the images be used as fair-use in article namespace (e.g. Gaza flotilla raid? From my own (limited) reading, it seems that at a minimum the resolutions might be too large (similar to the original work), that proper attributions may be required to be given (due to the copyright policy of one of the organizations), that the third image might be copyrighted by a separate organization with a different policy, etc. But I was hoping to get informed opinion. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed the images or their use in the article in detail yet, so I can't address whether all of the NFCC requirements are being met, but as far as copyright attribution goes it's generally acceptable practice to list all of the information you have regarding the copyright holders (such as mentioning that book cover art copyright is believed to belong to either the publisher or cover artist) but it's not required to absolutely confirm the ownership. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the lack of clarity. The copyright policy was given in case it would be informative to when and how the images could be used, but as you can probably tell I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am trying to understand whether copyright and NFCC policies are being applied properly, i.e. can the images be used as fair-use in article namespace (e.g. Gaza flotilla raid? From my own (limited) reading, it seems that at a minimum the resolutions might be too large (similar to the original work), that proper attributions may be required to be given (due to the copyright policy of one of the organizations), that the third image might be copyrighted by a separate organization with a different policy, etc. But I was hoping to get informed opinion. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me first note that all three files are currently licensed as "historic images", as well as File:Weapons on Marmaris.jpg, which is incorrect as there are no comments on the photos (unless I'm missing something), just on the contents of the photos, the appropriate license escapes me at the moment though, unless it's just the generic one. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- This image has been released to the public by IDF Spokesperson's Unit. It is an image of unique historic significance and is not replaceable. Per the IDF Spokesperson's Unit terms of use, user is specifically allowed to make "fair use" of the protected material. Marokwitz (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anything published has been released to the public, and we're always specifically allowed to make "fair use" of images and other copyrighted material, regardless of what is said by the copyright holder. I'm not sure which image you're referring to, but historic event != historic image. That doesn't mean it's not usable, just that it should use a different copyright license if there are only comments about the contents of the photo instead of the photo itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The article discusses this image itself. "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident.[97] One video shows how the first commandos to abseil down to the deck were attacked by a mob" Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's just describing events. To use press agency photos , the photo must have historical significance beyond just documenting an event. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is one example. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The article discusses this image itself. "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident.[97] One video shows how the first commandos to abseil down to the deck were attacked by a mob" Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, that describes the video, not the event. The article has a full paragraph about the videos released by the IDF. This photo is a frame from the IDF video, the video itself is discussed in detail both in the article and dissected in depth by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The paragraph that I assume you're referring to says "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident. One video shows ... Other videos show ... Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, is described by the IDF as showing ... Another video allegedly shows ..." Everything else is about the content of the videos, not the video themselves. Like I said, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used, just needs a different copyright tag. Does {{Non-free video screenshot}} work for news video? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, that describes the video, not the event. The article has a full paragraph about the videos released by the IDF. This photo is a frame from the IDF video, the video itself is discussed in detail both in the article and dissected in depth by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that "describing the contents of the video" is the same as "describing the video", the contents are described as well as information on who took it, I really don't understand the distinction you are making. The subject of the paragraph is the videos, and not the events. In any case I added also the tag that you suggested, it is indeed both a historic image (as evidenced by the wide public discussion regarding the images which made them iconic to the conflict in many eyes), and a video screenshot . Marokwitz (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone else take a look at whether File:Activistboatclash.jpg is allowable in the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article? I removed it this morning and feel that its use in that article fails WP:NFCC#8 but User:Epeefleche disagrees so additional opinions are welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at it and the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article. First off, let me say that I haven't really been following the evolving discussion surrounding the Gaza flotilla raid, so please forgive me if I display my ignorance -- I'm certainly not going to attempt to examine subjects best discussed on the article's talk page, such as whether the presence or absence of this image puts undue weight on one side of the other of the legality of Israel's actions. I'll start off by saying that I think the use of this image could meet WP:NFCC if Epeefleche or someone else can track down a reliable source that points to features visible in this specific image in order to inform the source's legal arguments supporting Israel's use of force. With such a source, it probably wouldn't be hard to edit this section of the article to mention that source, its analysis of the image, its conclusions, and place the image next to the commentary. That being said, we don't generally insist an article have a reliable source that justifies why a particular non-free image is used so long as the section of the article in which the image appears contains critical commentary about the image itself (this is required by the non-free copyright tag and the fair-use rationale). As it currently stands I don't see that commentary in that section of the article (and given how much interest and controversy surround these events an attempt to shoehorn in some commentary without citing a reliable source probably wouldn't survive long). —RP88 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
For me, the big problem is WP:NFCC#8, which I'll quote: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Now let's look at the images:
- File:Activistboatclash.jpg purports to show an activist beating an Israeli soldier with an iron bar. The israeli soldier is invisible in the image, as he is hidden behind the side of the deck. Nor is it clear from the image that the person is wielding an iron bar, or is even an activist.
- File:Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board.jpg purports to show activists throwing an Israeli soldier off the top deck. The black splodge which is circled could be an Israeli soldier, or it could be an activist or even a particularly large sack of potatoes. The people gathered by the side of the upper deck could be throwing the black splodge off, or could be helping the black splodge back up.
Now most of the basic facts of the flotilla raid are not in dispute, and it is credible that the images do actually show what they purport to show. But here we are using other information that we know about the topic to increase our understanding of the images, which is exactly the reverse of what NFCC#8 demands for an allowed use of non-free media! We cannot say that the omission of these images would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic: we can always put the Israeli allegations in text and link to the videos from which these images were extracted, a solution which would be better in terms of reader understanding than simply displaying two freeze-frames. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but I think it would be a hard sell to remove them from the main Gaza flotilla raid article. I think the best we can hope for while tempers are still high is keeping the images out of tangential and spin-off articles which don't cover the videos at all. I have correspondingly just removed File:Activistboatclash.jpg from Amos Horev for being completely gratuitous. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why should it be a hard sell? Images from videos which purport to display unjustified IDF violence have been removed unde WP:NFCC#8, these IDF images as well, but the IDF images were put back, not the contrasting images. The question of NPOV in image usage is for Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, obviously. But, if you feel that these images do not meet NFCC#8, they should be removed and deleted from Wikipedia (I can't believe that they serve any allowed purpose in other articles apart from Gaza flotilla raid). Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- They don't fail NFCC#8, and this was already confirmed after we called an uninvolved administrator to check the images in the article as you very well know. The failed images were removed. Marokwitz (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this qualifies as fair use. Specifically, the license which is applied to this image states that the image should be "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". This is not what it is being used for. It is being used for a depiction of the events at Gaza flotilla raid. Sadly, I agree with the fair use rationale that it is likely irreplaceable, at least for right now, but that's not the only criterion. I really think NFCC #2 is being violated here, as this content is copyrighted by Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program. Our use of it can easily detract from its market value. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't realize there was already an open discussion. But at least this confirms some of my suspicions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- If "Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program, " then it is not the case that " Our use of it can easily detract from its market value", but just the opposite: Drawing users to their site adds to the market value of their services. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
AP or Hürriyet image?
I just removed File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg from the article per WP:NFC#UUI #6 as it was sourced to the AP on the description page. It has alternatively been sourced to http://www.internethaber.com/israili-sevindiren-fotograflar-foto-galerisi-7818-p16.htm and Hürriyet. Does anyone here disagree with my rationale and/or know if Hürriyet is also a press agency which would disallow all of their photos? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- The main problem with that photo is that we don't know who the author is: the original distributor seems to be the IHH, certainly not AP or Hürriyet (neither of whom had photographers on board). Physchim62 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so would the AP be hosting an image they didn't now hold the copyright to? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, its not unheard of for AP to distribute unlicensed photos where the ultimate source is unknown or otherwise unlikely to sue. As a news agency they're given a great deal of latitude under US law to make fair use of newsworthy images (in the U.S. fair use can extend to commercial uses). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so would the AP be hosting an image they didn't now hold the copyright to? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to your question about if Hürriyet is a press agency -- Hürriyet is an interesting case. They're a really major newspaper in Turkey and photos taken by Hürriyet's staff are distributed to many other media outlets in Turkey. However, their photos are almost exclusively distributed to a group of closely affiliated media outlets that are all owned by the same organization as owns Hürriyet. They're not really a press agency in same sense as AP or Agence France-Presse/Getty Images -- these organizations exist to sell photos to all interested parties; as far as I am aware Hürriyet doesn't have a similar mechanism for arbitrary 3rd parties to buy their images. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:NFC#UUI #6 in part exists due to AP's notoriously litigious nature -- AP once threatened to sue Google over conduct by Google that most disinterested parties considered to be fair use, but despite Google's deep pockets Google backed down and agreed to pay AP. So while it's not really fair, it's been my observation that for practical reasons Wikipedia tends to give a bit more deference to big organizations with legal muscle in the US (since WIkipedia's servers are located in the US). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No discussion in over a week and images have remained stable in Gaza flotilla raid and related articles for longer than that. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
Another problem image on Anish Kapoor, an editor Johnbod wants to start an edit war to keep it in the article. I told him on the talk page my rationale for why it shouldn't be included on that page, specifically WP:NFC#UUI#6, yet he keeps adding it back. This image was once used on the Cloud Gate image and Millennium Park (where it actually sets), but another image has replaced it on those two pages (File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg). I think showing an image of this well known 3d artwork outside of Cloud Gate is probably against policy, you could argue that since its a major feature of Millennium Park it could belong there, but it gets more of a stretch to illustrate Anish Kapoor when we already have a free image of one of his works as evidenced by the review above for File:Anish_Kapoor_-_Svayambh_detail.jpg. So apparently outside opinions is going to be necessary to resolve this dispute. — raekyT 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
_from_east%27.jpg){kind=link}
- Would File:Sky Mirror, Nottingham.JPG be a suitable replacement? UK FOP would look to apply to this image, and it illustrates the same style of sculpture as cloudgate. —Jeremy (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- It definitely would, a free alternative for one of his works. — raekyT 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Images covered by freedom of panorama, such a modern US sculptures, are acceptable in articles about the sculpture itself but generally not elsewhere unless there is critical commentary about the sculpture itself, preferably sourced, justifying its inclusion by a well written fair-use rationale and it passes all 10 non-free content criteria. File:Sky Mirror, Nottingham.JPG would seem a good and justifiable alternative to the use of the non-free File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg which itself is now an orphaned fair-use image so should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This image was removed from List of vegetarians on the basis of it not having a fair use rationale. Here is the actual edit: [5]
It's a cap from the old Fleischer Superman serials which are in the public domain now: Superman (1940s cartoons).
Since it is in the public domain I was under the impression that it was perfectly legal to use caps from this series without defining a fair use argument.
This was a replacement image for the Superman entry on List of vegetarians after the original image became disputed on the talk page. Another editor expressed the concern that even though these cartoons were public domain, the "likeness" is probably owned by DC so using the caps from this series might still amount to copyright infringement.
Since the dispute over the original image is still ongoing, I don't want to conflate the debates, so I'm listing it here for examination. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The image in question is not hosted on the Commons. I'd say, if anyone disagrees with your assessment, they should file a deletion request at Commons. It is out of our hands here at least. If it's hosted on the Commons, and isn't up for speedy deletion or anything like that (image in good standing, tagged corrected, etc) I see no problem using the file here, but I'm not commenting on whether it's appropriate for Commons to be hosting the file in the first place. -Andrew c [talk] 13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We don't need 3 discussion on the same topic. Central discussion is here
{{discussion top}} This image was marked (in a roundabout way) as a copyright violation by 86.137.184.235. Now it's obviously non-free and I've already tagged it to be reduced in size, but since there was a concern I figured I should take it here for other opinions as to the appropriateness of its use at all (or any other concerns which may arise). The group has disbanded, but I don't really know what the standards are for images used solely for identification of defunct groups. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Image has been reduced, appears to be tagged correctly. I see no problems here. -Andrew c [talk] 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Andrew c. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Prime Ministerial Debate BBC.jpg File:The-Debate-Media-Centre-H-002.jpg File:Sky News Leaders Debate.jpg File:Ask the Chancellors 2010.jpg
{{discussion top}} These images are due for deletion as they have been orphaned, as the editor who removed them put it "The images are not important to the information off the article. You don't need them at all. This use is a gross misuse of WP:NFCC and especially criteria #3 ad 8. You could list the issue at WP:NFR, but you are not going to get anywhere."
My view is that they are important historical images of the 3 prime ministerial debates and chancellors debate. I do not agree that criteria 3 is broken as the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 includes all these debates and would appear to be pointless having separate articles for each debate, when all the debates in the general election gives a clearer picture of the whole series of debates that were held (for the first time ever!!!). I believe this covers the "Minimal usage" and "Contextual significance" criteria...In an earlier discussion on the very same points, one editor wrote "I take the point that the individual elements of the images can be assembled in a more minimalist way, but in this case, I feel that the composition of each individual ident is of significant value to the readers of the article, in terms of identifying the programme. Specifically, Criterion 3a comes into play in those cases where "one item can convey equivalent significant information" – in this situation, though, it would not be one item, but a whole collection of items which the reader has to piece together in their head in order to identify the debate they're interested in: this is counterintuitive and pointless, and thus the images' use would appear to be essential"...this may help. SethWhales talk 09:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the image use satisfies NFCC 8 - a fact that is betrayed by the use of a boilerplate "Purpose of use" rationale. How the TV stations chose to brand their coverage has little importance to the subject of the article which is the event itself - if it were important, one would expect the branding to be discussed in the article. CIreland (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I concur, the only way these would pas WP:NFCC#8 is if the advertising for the debates was itself a subject of discussion in the articles. I won't address #3 at this time, but as the article stands, the use of these non-free images just isn't supported. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- These non-free images clearly adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic therefore failing WP:NFCC#8 especially as there is not even one word of prose about any of them. Removal of the images is the correct thing to do. ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
All images now deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} I'm having a bit of a dispute with another member over the file. He claims that my image is too large and violates the low resolution provision of the non-free use guidelines, while I maintain that the provision does not provide an explicit maximum resolution and that the way he reduces my image, to such a tiny resolution, makes it impossible to see the details in the image, which goes against the licensing, which states the image is used "to illustrate the sports team in question." My contention is that if the image is made too small, as he rather totalitarian-ly keeps reverting it to (and accuses me of vandalism when I try to revert it, even though he has yet to prove me wrong and is doing it unilaterally), then the details aren't legible and thus, the image stops being useful as a means to illustrate the sports team. Ultimately, the image and other images like it will be replaced by SVG versions, but I'm in the process of learning how to best convert rasters to vectors and it'll take time, during which I'd like my original work to remain unaltered, especially since I'm still of the belief that it doesn't violate the low resolution guideline. I mean, it's not like it's 50,000 pixels wide. It's only 1,459×413! Further input from other members, which I requested Eekster wait for before taking unilateral action but he refused, would be much appreciated. --Kevin W. 01:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no set size where images are "too large". We ask that the image be as low resolution as possible as necessary for the purpose of the article; in this case, as it is simply identifying uniform colors, your size of 1459x413 is probably too large, but his size is likely too small. But there is absolutely no hard set rule on image sizes.--MASEM (t) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've worked with this image converting to SVG, and it's relatively difficult to discern the logos properly below roughly 650px wide - this seems to me to make it less useful in the context of identifying the team - colours may be similar for different teams, whilst insignia will vary, serving as identification. It should be noted that the rationale agreed here would apply to a series of similar images for other teams. The user intends to put effort into creating new svg versions of these images, which will be more appropriate, given the line artwork nature and its suitability for vectorisation - but there will be a lead time whilst he becomes familiar with editing vector graphics. In the meantime it seems reasonable to me to permit the existing bitmap images to be used at a reasonable size of at least 650px wide.
- It is also worth noting that the image is in effect a composite of 9 uniform images side by side, so it might be more appropriate to consider whether a single image 70px wide would be permissible. In my opinion it obviously would - therefore use of this composite is in many ways equivalent to the 9 smaller images which would otherwise be necessary. - Begoon (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The best possible compromise I can think of would be to create multiple images; in this case it'd be the 6 home and 3 away uniforms. However, that runs into problems when you look at Oregon's uniforms. Since Oregon has hundreds of possible uniform combinations, it's not feasible to put together an image illustrating all possible combinations. Instead, I've done year-by-year images showing the uniform combinations they wore, which can be seen here for 2008 and here for 2009 and I'm not sure how those would be broken up. --Kevin W. 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, just my opinion, but if 8 or 9 images up to 100px wide would be ok, then I don't see a material difference between that, and a composite of those images 800 - 900 px wide. The visual content is identical - it's the same pixels being illuminated on the reader's monitor - be it 9 images or one. The single composite image is, however, easier to maintain in terms of wikicode in the article, and a single image page for description/fur/revision history. - Begoon (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- 8 to 9 non-free images on an article would raise flags (though not necessarily be problematic). If those 8 to 9 images were basically identical, with only slight color variations, then I think most people would agree it would be non-free image overuse. Therefore, I'd posit that 8 to 9 images at 100px wide would not be acceptable, so a composite images that is 800 to 900px wide would likewise be unacceptable. But really, it boils down to having a size adequate to convey the information properly, and maybe we don't need to see every single possible color combination?-Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Those are fair points. My real point in referring to the single image elements was that the permitted resolution of the non-free image should be applied to the single uniform unit within the larger frame, since that is what needs to be visually identifiable. I'm not familiar enough with this form of football to know how many of these uniform variations are needed to illustrate the team's outfit - or when the different combinations apply, so I can't comment on that. As a British ex-pat I'm used to football teams having a "home" and "away" 'kit' :-) - Begoon (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some teams like USC have only two combinations, but other schools like Arizona have multiple home and away combinations, and at the far end of the scale, you have Oregon, who has several hundred possible combinations. Technically, any of the combinations are possible. --Kevin W. 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew c and Begoon that multiple images doesn't make a difference. I view this issue as similar to WP:UNDUE is for text; WP:NFCC requires both #3a minimal usage "if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and #8 contextual significance. In this case, with hundreds of possible combinations you have to ask which ones actually matter? Which ones are more important or more common than the others? I think the usage of your examples in Oregon Ducks football is a good example: previous years are less important (or at least each individual outfit is) and so they are displayed smaller. As to how many are enough for a particular article, like Begoon I'm just used to one home and one away and maybe a third, so it would depend on the particular article and how many total non-free uniform images there are, but I think the idea I posed on my talk page of 0.25 megapixels seems reasonable as a total size for all of the uniform combinations displayed in an article. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like a reasonable approach - and simple enough for the user to apply to various articles with differing needs in terms of required uniform variations. I agree that consideration should be given to which variations are most important to display in a given article, and this approach seems to be a practical way to apply that assessment of relevance, in an intelligent way, in order to comply with minimal usage requirements. - Begoon (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- If only it were possible to put Flash code on a page that would allow a viewer to switch between the possible combinations at will, like this. That'd be nice. --Kevin W. 04:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like a reasonable approach - and simple enough for the user to apply to various articles with differing needs in terms of required uniform variations. I agree that consideration should be given to which variations are most important to display in a given article, and this approach seems to be a practical way to apply that assessment of relevance, in an intelligent way, in order to comply with minimal usage requirements. - Begoon (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew c and Begoon that multiple images doesn't make a difference. I view this issue as similar to WP:UNDUE is for text; WP:NFCC requires both #3a minimal usage "if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and #8 contextual significance. In this case, with hundreds of possible combinations you have to ask which ones actually matter? Which ones are more important or more common than the others? I think the usage of your examples in Oregon Ducks football is a good example: previous years are less important (or at least each individual outfit is) and so they are displayed smaller. As to how many are enough for a particular article, like Begoon I'm just used to one home and one away and maybe a third, so it would depend on the particular article and how many total non-free uniform images there are, but I think the idea I posed on my talk page of 0.25 megapixels seems reasonable as a total size for all of the uniform combinations displayed in an article. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some teams like USC have only two combinations, but other schools like Arizona have multiple home and away combinations, and at the far end of the scale, you have Oregon, who has several hundred possible combinations. Technically, any of the combinations are possible. --Kevin W. 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Those are fair points. My real point in referring to the single image elements was that the permitted resolution of the non-free image should be applied to the single uniform unit within the larger frame, since that is what needs to be visually identifiable. I'm not familiar enough with this form of football to know how many of these uniform variations are needed to illustrate the team's outfit - or when the different combinations apply, so I can't comment on that. As a British ex-pat I'm used to football teams having a "home" and "away" 'kit' :-) - Begoon (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- 8 to 9 non-free images on an article would raise flags (though not necessarily be problematic). If those 8 to 9 images were basically identical, with only slight color variations, then I think most people would agree it would be non-free image overuse. Therefore, I'd posit that 8 to 9 images at 100px wide would not be acceptable, so a composite images that is 800 to 900px wide would likewise be unacceptable. But really, it boils down to having a size adequate to convey the information properly, and maybe we don't need to see every single possible color combination?-Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, just my opinion, but if 8 or 9 images up to 100px wide would be ok, then I don't see a material difference between that, and a composite of those images 800 - 900 px wide. The visual content is identical - it's the same pixels being illuminated on the reader's monitor - be it 9 images or one. The single composite image is, however, easier to maintain in terms of wikicode in the article, and a single image page for description/fur/revision history. - Begoon (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The best possible compromise I can think of would be to create multiple images; in this case it'd be the 6 home and 3 away uniforms. However, that runs into problems when you look at Oregon's uniforms. Since Oregon has hundreds of possible uniform combinations, it's not feasible to put together an image illustrating all possible combinations. Instead, I've done year-by-year images showing the uniform combinations they wore, which can be seen here for 2008 and here for 2009 and I'm not sure how those would be broken up. --Kevin W. 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If I were to split the image into a few smaller images, could I put the images in a gallery on the page? I'm not totally familiar with the rules as they pertain to non-free content and galleries, and the last time I had any issue with a gallery was on my user page, so I don't know if the issue was only because it was on my user page. Is gallery-izing the images an option? --Kevin W. 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- This: Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries seems to imply not: "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)."
- If you mean a scrolling gallery, I don't think they work anyway: Template:Scroll_gallery "This template is currently not functioning, as the required JavaScript code to use it is not integrated into the English Wikipedia. This template would allow placement of a set of images as a single image in a frame that can be scrolled one image at a time." So, a gallery would still display all of the images.
- The above suggestion of 0.25 megapixels allows a reasonably sized composite, or series of smaller images, anyway - if you do the calculations. I don't think most of the requirements (where there are 4 or 5 variations) would get near running into that limit, so it doesn't seem overly restrictive. 250px x 1000 px for example is pretty generous overall, even when you have a lot of alternatives. If there are more combinations than that suggestion accomodates, then smaller sizes for the less common ones may help. Beyond that, it may be necessary just to accept that the article doesn't really need dozens of almost identical images. You need to bear in mind that not everyone will even now have a monitor resolution capable of displaying an image that wide - to put it in some sort of context. - Begoon (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Damn, back to the drawing board. --Kevin W. 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Now Eekster is saying that two of my images, both of which are smaller than 500x500 pixels, are too large. Someone needs to tell him to stop. --Kevin W. 07:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The biggest issue seems to be that the images as uploaded are much bigger than you are using them in the article. That's one of the reasons I suggested SVGs as a solution to scaling/quality issues. Have you told the editor tagging about this discussion and asked if he can hold on until consensus is reached here? He doesn't have to do so, but if he's aware of the attempt to form consensus, he might be more inclined to. - Begoon (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did ask him to wait and hold off on messing with my images until I got some second/third/fourth opinions and the issue was resolved. His response? "There's nothing to resolve." However, I have gone ahead and informed him of this discussion, and I feel like an idiot for not informing him of it in the first place. --Kevin W. 08:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Begoon. I don't believe that the images were too large when taken individually and out of context, but context is king. If the images are never going to be used at their old sizes (and at a glance I don't see why they would be), then they should have been reduced. Part of the policy requires that low-resolution be used wherever possible, even in the file namespace. I know it's a pain to try and guess before you upload a file what the smallest size is that it will be useful at, but that's pretty much what policy requires. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- ... and that's why SVGs are better for this type of use - simple vector graphic shapes with blocks of colour, tailor made for the format - and takes away the need to pre-guess final article image sizes because if they are properly created they should scale up or down with close to no quality implication. Also it's the easiest format to manage templates for this kind of usage moving forwards. - Begoon (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Begoon. I don't believe that the images were too large when taken individually and out of context, but context is king. If the images are never going to be used at their old sizes (and at a glance I don't see why they would be), then they should have been reduced. Part of the policy requires that low-resolution be used wherever possible, even in the file namespace. I know it's a pain to try and guess before you upload a file what the smallest size is that it will be useful at, but that's pretty much what policy requires. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did ask him to wait and hold off on messing with my images until I got some second/third/fourth opinions and the issue was resolved. His response? "There's nothing to resolve." However, I have gone ahead and informed him of this discussion, and I feel like an idiot for not informing him of it in the first place. --Kevin W. 08:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The biggest issue seems to be that the images as uploaded are much bigger than you are using them in the article. That's one of the reasons I suggested SVGs as a solution to scaling/quality issues. Have you told the editor tagging about this discussion and asked if he can hold on until consensus is reached here? He doesn't have to do so, but if he's aware of the attempt to form consensus, he might be more inclined to. - Begoon (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Generally agreed that the size was too large as it wasn't needed to be that large as displayed in the article, but context needs to be established on a per case basis. Particular image deleted and everyone agrees SVGs are better so as to avoid resolution issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} The given fair use rationale is inappropriate; while the image may indeed have been sourced as a screenshot, the screenshot does not identify the TV station or program. Since the original drawing was created by Andreas Grassl, the individual who is the subject of the article that shows the image, there may be some other possible fair use rationale; whether having copied it second-hand from a TV feed (as opposed e.g. to scanning the original image) requires an extra layer of justification I can't say. jnestorius(talk) 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This non-free content only has a fair-use rationale for the article Game over. The usage violates guideline 1, because a screenshot from an open-source game's "Game over" screen would serve just as much encyclopedic purpose: the specific image in question is not discussed in the lead (where it appears) nor anywhere in the article. Removing the image from Game over would also cause the image to violate guideline 7, the one-article minimum. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Image removed from article. General image of a game over screen replaced by freely-licensed on available on commons per WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 1#File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg. howcheng {chat} 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
FfD concluded, file deleted. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
{{discussion top}} Replaceable by a "game over" screen from a free game (like File:Torus Trooper - Game Over.jpg) serving the same encyclopedic purpose (since the article doesn't elaborate on the specific screen from Metroid Prime 3), so the image fails criterion 1 of WP:NFCC. Uploader deleted disputed fair use rationale tag without giving a reason or amending the FUR to address this. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- This one's a clear cut failure of WP:NFCC#1 (since there's the free game over image) which is why I removed it from Game over. The fair use rationale can't trump that when it comes to this article and it should be deleted as orphaned non-free in a week regardless. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the uploader of the image undid the removal of the image without explanation and then deleted the orphan tag, resulting in the seven-day countdown period resetting. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that. I've watchlisted both the article and the image for now, and if they insist on replacing it in the article then they start getting warned for their actions and the image can just be reverted to its present status to keep the countdown from resetting. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the uploader of the image undid the removal of the image without explanation and then deleted the orphan tag, resulting in the seven-day countdown period resetting. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted and free image still in the Game over article (for now at least). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
{{discussion top}} This image seems to be used in a significant number of articles. For some of them it has a rationale, one I do not personally consider to be valid for any article other than Fatah. A second, and possibly third, opinion would be appreciated. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't realize this was here. I recently removed it from all articles but Fatah (where an article specific FUR is appropriate)Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Image has not been restored to inappropriate articles. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This image seems to be used in a significant number of articles. For some of them it has a rationale, one I do not personally consider to be valid for any article other than Popular Resistance Committees. A second, and possibly third, opinion would be appreciated. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed this image, the image above and a couple of others from a number of articles in which they shouldn't be. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Image has not been restored to inappropriate articles. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This file's license says it is in the US public domain. Is it valid? Us441 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks alright. To quote the FAQ-
Nearly all information collected by the Federal Government is in the public domain and use of raw data produced under this project is not restricted in any way. Both "National Atlas of the United States®" and "The National Atlas of the United States of America®" are registered trademarks of the United States Department of the Interior. The USGS has been publishing National Atlas products since 1970 and has simply taken action to trademark this term to incorporate all new graphic and electronic products of The National Atlas of the United States of America®.
Although the content of most National Atlas Web pages is in the public domain, some pages may contain material that is copyrighted by others and used by the National Atlas with permission. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner for other uses. Furthermore, some non-National Atlas data, products, and information linked, or referred to, from this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner to acquire, use, reproduce, or distribute these materials.
- We're good :) J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
PD Image. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This file's license says Some Rights Reserved. It says one is free to share or remix, then it says "Under certain Conditions"...
Attribution:Only in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Share Alike:If you alter, transform, or build upon, you must distribute the new product with the same or similar license.
Is this valid?Us441 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is the standard Creative Commons license used on Wikipedia. So long as you believe that the person who uploaded it to Flickr is the copyright holder (and I see no reason to think otherwise) there are no problems with using this image. —Jeremy (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA image. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} I am the uploader of the image and I am nominating this for review just to be safe. Image obtained from Amazon.com to accompany article Double Sextet/2x5 and ONLY that article. I put in a reasonable fair use rationale. Opinions appreciated. — Andy W. (talk • contrb.) 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Non-free cover art is generally accepted for identification of albums/books/etc. and is specifically mentioned as an acceptable example of the Non-free content guideline at WP:NFCI #1 so I see no problems with it's inclusion in that article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Acceptable use. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} I'm requesting review of this file on Quaker Oats per NFCC 1, 3, and 8. For 1, there is a public domain ad from earlier, conveying its' advertising. 3a, per the above, as the earlier ad conveys enough for critical commentary. As for eight, it is used primarily to show, not to discuss, ads by Quaker. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8; it adds absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic and is quite well described in the prose. If there were a section about their advertising and some critical commentary about this specific add it might be possible to write a "Purpose for use" that would be acceptable while the current justification: To identify an sample Quaker Oats ad. is insufficient. The burden of proof is on the uploader to provide a well format justification for any non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a paragraph describing this ad in the History section of the article. It is the very last section. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if there is some commentary about the image that is part of the point where it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the prose makes it unnecessary to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that this use fails WP:NFCC#8 without some sort of sourced section which establishes why this advertising is important. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Image removed from all articles and now deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} It looks to me that the "critical discussion" of this image is very non-existent as it functions as a mere generic example of a screenshot from a particular computer game genre at Video game genres. There could be so many other screenshots that would serve the purpose equally well, and just as we do not accept non-free images of living people this use should also not be tolerated. Surely there must be some freeware games out there that can serve as mere illustrations? __meco (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. If there isn't a hack-and-slash game, the free software community can make one. From such a game, we can then take a free screenshot. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed all the non-free images from that article. In this context images from copyrighted games can be replaced with images from free ones. Since they can be replaced they fail WP:NFCC#1. Rettetast (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Image has been deleted and all non-free images have stayed removed from Video game genres. No further action required at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} Copyrighted promotional image, not the alleged author's work.
- This board is for reviewing the use of non-free images on Wikipedia, that image is on Wikimedia Commons, and needs to be addressed there. Just follow the steps listed at commons:Commons:Deletion policy and they can resolve the situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for deletion on the commons but if you have a source proving it is actually a copyright promotional image, then please add your comments to the deletion page. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} No way to know if it is a booking photo and if it is really Seymour Magoon. It was uploaded by someone to find-a-grave with no verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh boy my danny boy (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't really a non-free content issue; it's a question of verifiability. It can certainly be challenged/removed based on the issues you raised, but I'm not seeing any issues with it regarding our non-free content policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted, and not a non-free content regardless. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} I've put this image into Ontario Highway 401 to illustrate the dramatic reconstruction of the highway in the 1960s from four lanes to fourteen, with four lanes open at all times. Some editors have questioned its usefulness in the article and thus its NFCC compliance. I wanted to get an outside opinion or, if this is a borderline case, where I could improve it. The widening of the highway is discussed in the article, though nothing specific towards this particular photograph of the widening. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since the photograph isn't discussed in the article, I don't see how it can meet the non-free content criteria. In particular, I don't see any information that the photograph provides that can't be provided by text. --Carnildo (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because the image is not contextually significant it fails WP:NFCC#8 but it also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there is already another non-free image in the article. ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is contextually significant, the photo itself just isn't discussed. The construction was a massive project spanning 30+km, so no one photo could represent that. The other non-free image covers a completely different facet of the subject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- While the construction was certainly contextually significant to the topic that particular photo is not "contextually significant" in terms of WP:NFCC#8 because the reader's understanding of the topic will be entirely possible with the current prose without the necessity of including a non-free image. You are of course correct to point out that the other non-free image applies to a different facet of the topic but minimal use still applies, hence the need well reasoned fair-use rationales in all non-free images. If the photo itself were discussed, with reliable sources and a good fair-use rationale, you may have a good chance to keep the image, but right now, no. ww2censor (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Minimal use doesn't mean "one fair use photo per article", it means using them only when they significantly add to the subject. With the Carnage Alley photograph, there are no free photographs showing a pile up of this magnitude. It was a significant event that is well discussed in the article that the picture shows. Sure "87 vehicles piled into each other, one following the other" describes this photo, but I compare it to using peacock terms, since the size of the accident based on the text is subjective. Seeing the photograph puts it into perspective.
- While the construction was certainly contextually significant to the topic that particular photo is not "contextually significant" in terms of WP:NFCC#8 because the reader's understanding of the topic will be entirely possible with the current prose without the necessity of including a non-free image. You are of course correct to point out that the other non-free image applies to a different facet of the topic but minimal use still applies, hence the need well reasoned fair-use rationales in all non-free images. If the photo itself were discussed, with reliable sources and a good fair-use rationale, you may have a good chance to keep the image, but right now, no. ww2censor (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This is why I think that both image pass 3a. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hold on: we have no requirement that the photo itself be discussed in the article to be included except in the case of press agency photos. Any other non-free image, as long as meets all other NFCC criteria, can still be included. I cannot tell if this is a press photo, but on the working assumption that it isn't, then the only two major issues are NFCC#3a and #8 with a dash of #1. There appears to only be one other non-free image in the article, and thus the addition of one more doesn't seem pushing #3a. For #8/#1, I would edge in favor of keeping it, only because it is showing something that is not intuitively obvious how they were doing the expansion even in text. But I need to stress that the image is not nullified from being used because the photo itself is not talked about nor because there's other NFC in the article. It is basically how consensus sees #8 being met. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- That makes a lot more sense. Why would we be required to discuss the photo itself unless the photo in of itself is notable. The photo provides supplementary information to the text, showing a complex project in action which cannot be described in words. This would be like saying we can't show a picture of a dam under construction in the history section of the St. Lawrence Seaway article, because the article already explains that they were under construction. This isn't an overpass of the freeway, it's a massive public works project that took a decade to complete.
- I suppose that expanding on it in-article would better my chances? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The description regarding the image contents have been expanded to improve the meeting of WP:NFCC#8. While the consensus is relatively weak, it does appear that there is consensus for retaining the image in the article at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This image is being used in three locations (Blackface, Stereotypes of African Americans, and Bamboozled (for which it is a promotional poster)) under the rationale of "non-free film cover", but WP:NFCI states that cover art can be included "only in the context of critical commentary of that item" (emphasis in original). It is a great example of Blackface and of Stereotypes of African Americans, but neither of those pages include critical commentary of the film Bamboozled and as such the rationale is inappropriate. I'm not an expert on fair use, but it seems that the image either needs new rationale for these uses, or needs to be removed from these uses altogether. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. For Stereotypes of African Americans it seems to me the image is clearly replaceable, so any rationale for that article is going to fail.
- For Blackface the issue may be more balanced. Under the paragraph "21st century", the article does specifically identify Bamboozled; furthermore, it seems to me, the poster does add to the article, a serious study of blackface over time, by showing how it can be represented in a wide-distribution poster for a mass-market media property at essentially the present time. That seems to me to be adding something real to the article, something which is not so easily replaceable by a substitute.
- WP:NFCI #1 limits when a poster can be used for identification; but it seems to me that in this article the poster is being used for more than just identification, so it might well be possible to construct a valid rationale for it on those grounds. But I'm interested to see what other input you get. Jheald (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good point about use in Blackface. I added your paragraph to the existing rationale; can you improve on it? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Image replaced with a free image in Stereotypes of African Americans; retained in the other two articles with the expanded rationale as the movie is explicitly discussed in Blackface which presents a historical study of the phenomenon. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} Really needs review, we need it because otherwise we are in a ludicrous posititon of not having a picture of the subject of the Peter Sutcliffe article- and I for one do not want that to happen!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- (fixed link) - This was deleted as F9 (source = [6]) If you think that it's possible to determine the correct license and provide a Fair-use-rationale, I'd say you'd have a good chance at getting this restored. Skier Dude (talk 06:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Image has been deleted. Clearly non-free and likely usable but no further action to be taken unless the license will be corrected and a FUR provided. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} This was a {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} that was removed by the uploader. The image is not uniquely historical, there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7 (illustrates a war; comes from the press agency AFP. SwarmTalk 23:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted at FfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} I listed this here but the result was keep, but it still seems to fail on my reading of WP:NFC#UUI. It's an agency photo and the photo is used in Emperor of Exmoor but it's not the subject of the article, or discussed at all.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader (and hence the asserter of the fair use exemption) is currently blocked, so cannot participate in this review. Looking at the previous discussion, the conclusion seemed to be that the template {{Non-free newspaper image}} is likely inappropriate, but that {{non-free fair use in}} is likely appropriate, but only if the subject is actually dead. The death status of the subject seems to be an active issue, and hence may become clearer soon. Bovlb (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The Result of kept was based on the idea that this image was already tagged as "Unfree". The Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is for discussing images that are marked as available under a free license or public domain but shouldn't have been. Therefore that discussion was simple in the wrong place and it had nothing to do with the merits of this issue.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: I am a bit confused here, so forgive me if I totally miss the question at hand. I honestly don't see how the death status applies since one the deer is dead. I'm not sure why JohnBlackburne say that the image isn't the subject of the article, since the subject of the image is the deer named Emperor of Exmoor and that the subject of the artical. I think the image is tagged correctly and should be kept, unless JohnBlackburne better explain what he means.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I mean this, WP:NFC#UUI # 7:
- "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."
- and the photo itself is not commented on at all in the article, it is just used as was in the newspaper it is from, although missing the copyright for the images that appears in the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) See WP:NFC#UUI #7 "7.A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" (emphasis added). Since Rex Features is a press agency, this fails NFC, since there's nothing special about this particular phot, just about the deer. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The deer is reportedly dead, but there seems to be some uncertainty about that claim. My point was that, assuming the deer is dead, there is a fair use argument for using the image to illustrate an article about the subject of the image, even if the image itself is not discussed in the article. If the animal is dead, then no free replacement image could be created. WP:NFC#UUI #1 talks about "Pictures of people still alive", which I am extending to named animals. Bovlb (talk)
- Delete. NFC exemptions shouldn't be invoked based on dubious rumors, and even if this one were true, the assumption that no free replacement could be created is false, because of taxidermy - a possibility that obviously cannot be considered for people but is very likely here; the "unfree OK when dead" rule can't extended to animals. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- You make a good point. A photo of a stuffed animal head on a wall isn't quite the same thing as a live animal in its natural habitat, but I agree that possibility does weaken the argument. In any case, my argument was contingent on the death becoming verified. Bovlb (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The image passes all ten basic NFCC criteria. The UUI section of that guideline shouldn't really be evelated in importance over that basic fact - and infact, if you read 1 and 7 in that section together, it implies that even if a human subject was dead, you could not use a PA photo as the non-free infobox image - I don't think that is a correct reading of current practice at all. No, the claim for fair use rests squarely on the fact the animal is dead and the image is irreplaceable (and the whole article serves as critical commentary on the photo), and on point 7., the fact the resolution used is so low, protects from the real purpose behind the UUI PA clause - respect for commercial opportunities. The resolution used is smaller than what most agencies use on the free/watermarked thumbnail part of their site, infront of the paywall protected images which you pay for. As for whether it is actually dead, I would say the burden of proof lies with those claiming it is still alive. (And note that Lord Lucan has a non-free image) You can hardly expect people to prove it is dead by going out and finding the animal, because then quite obviously you could just photograph it and have a free image. And on replaceability, I think the taxidermy suggestion is far-fetched - if the circumnstances of the article are true, I cannot see the shooter wanting to make a publicly accessible display of the animal (and that shot of Barry is very likely to have broken the museum's photography rules anyway), even in the unlikely event he stuffed the whole (very large) animal (heads is normal for Stag trophies). It would take up half the trophy room in the average stately home. I would bet if it is dead, most of the body is packaged in cuts of meat and in various people's freezers by now). MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted under WP:CSD#F7, part 2: Non-free images or media from a commercial source where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary may be deleted immediately. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-free images used at Joseph Campbell
{{discussion top}} The following non-free images are currently, or have been up until recently, being used in the article Joseph Campbell:
- File:EFRicketts.jpg
- File:Hero 1000 faces book 2008.jpg
- File:The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell.jpg
- File:Jcflogo.jpg
At first none of them had rationales for that article, so I removed them from it, but now a user has added rationales for all of them except File:EFRicketts.jpg on what I consider very dubious grounds.
- File:EFRicketts.jpg is already being used at the article on Ed Ricketts, so it doesn't need to be used at Joseph Campbell as well. Readers' understanding of the Joseph Campbell article is not significantly increased by the inclusion of this image, so it violates WP:NFCC#8. I have already removed this image from the article today, but given the article's editors' propensity to revert any attempt to bring the article into line with policy, it may be back soon.
- File:Hero 1000 faces book 2008.jpg and File:The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell.jpg are covers of books by Campbell. There's already an article on The Hero with a Thousand Faces, where the book cover is appropriate, but it doesn't add significantly to the book on the author. The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell is just a redirect to Joseph Campbell, but here too the use of the book cover in the author's article is simply gratuitous.
- File:Jcflogo.jpg is the logo of the Joseph Campbell Foundation and is correctly used there, but it is not necessary for it to be used in the article Joseph Campbell.
I therefore suggest that images 1, 2, and 4 be removed (and stay removed) from Joseph Campbell but remain at Ed Ricketts, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, and Joseph Campbell Foundation respectively, and that image 3 be removed from Joseph Campbell and deleted (since it isn't being used anywhere else). —Angr (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Quite agreed. These are not appropriate uses of nonfree images, and do not add anything significant to the article. They're just decorative. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I concur and have removed all 4 images from the article accordingly. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Consensus seems clear and VernoWhitney's removal clinches it. Discussion closed. —Angr (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion top}} a free replacement CAN be made, this does not account for fair use --Ysangkok (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I concur and have tagged it for speedy deletion F7 as replaceable. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
