Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is used in Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury. Fails WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. The article is essentially a stub, but uses two different fair use images. The event/video that this photo illustrates is not even mentioned in the article itself, and even if it were, this image is not even particularly illustrative (I am not reading any obvious emotion there, and even if I were, it could easily be conveyed in text). Pretty cut and dry case for removal of the image. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image does not meet point #1 (No free equivalent) of Non-free content policy. Free images are available on Wikimedia Commons: Kirby Puckett retired.jpg and Kirby Puckett 1993.jpg
- I'm the uploader of the non-free image. I couldn't find any free image at the time but now that we do have free equivalents, the image in question should be deleted. Mosmof (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
donot contain sufficient license info, clearly a case of copyright violation. Wiki-senator 08:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-senetor (talk • contribs)
- Previously had proper information, which had been removed from the file page by a vandal. Now re-tagged as a standard orphaned non-free case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFC on all articles except S.L. Benfica. TLSuda (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this meet the threshold of originality? A user asked on my talk page, and I'm not sure. Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- That specific version fails. I've seen versions with more gradiants/bevel looks, which wouldn't but this is fine as a PD-logo in US only. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFC on all articles except S.L. Benfica. TLSuda (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this meet the threshold of originality? A user asked on my talk page, and I'm not sure. Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- That specific version fails. I've seen versions with more gradiants/bevel looks, which wouldn't but this is fine as a PD-logo in US only. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As this is a single file with a single use, it should be discussed at WP:FFD since deletion is the likely outcome. The rational to remove is likely correct, however. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "Origins" section of the Pinewood derby article mentions the depicted Scouting patch and the circumstance wherein it was issued (from what one understands), but it is not clear as to whether the section would need commentary about the patch itself or about the significance (if any) of the patch in order to justify inclusion of the patch image as non-free media. --Elegie (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This should be taken to WP:FFD but the reasoning to delete is spot on; no need for a non-free image to show a otherwise unimpressive "event" of people sitting around a table. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does not meet WP:NFCI. Not covered under "Images with iconic status or historical importance", and not a core image to include in a biography. Person is not deceased either. —Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The file is from here which says "Some rights reserved ". Last time I had this, that meant it is not free (even though its labeled here as free).Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's free. For one, it's over at Commons, not here, and it was uploaded via the Flickr bot, which does check the license. On Flickr, to get the actual license you either have to interpret the icons or mouse-over them which will tell you the license, which in this case is CC-BY, which is ideal for us and commons. So this is fine. Just the text "Some rights reserved" is not against a free license, in fact that is how you would describe a CC one - that you are still reserving some rights such as (with CC-BY) requiring proper atttribution. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be a compelling non-free use rationale for its use on Ludwig Wittgenstein, but not on 1951. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#8 in 1951. The file was readded here after I had removed it from the article earlier. The inserting editor did not provide a rationale for the use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unnecessary in the year article. Plenty of free images to highlight events/people from that year. This does preclude other options for that image. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Single image with single use should be taken to WP:FFD. I will comment that we do allow official promo photos for reality TV shows as the season's identifying image at times eg Project Runway (season 4) however this is not a well-tested case; there is fair argument that with a group of people that large that NFCC#1 actually is met (we cannot expect the full group to be in one place at the same time for a public photo, the same we'd handle a disbanded rock group). However, this is just commentary, FFD will ferret it out. --MASEM (t) 07:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 Adabow (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Single use of single file should be taken to FFD. Not a clear cut case of NFCC#1 (there might be question on quality but I would agree its replaceable. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image does not meet point #1 (No free equivalent) of Non-free content policy. A free image is available on Wikimedia Commons, which includes deceased band member Jam Master Jay: Run_DMC_1989.jpg --Djrun (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wrong venue. Before Masem has to shut this down I'm going to move it to FFD. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This fails WP:NFCC #8. Contextual significance is missing because the image is not needed to understand the concept of Tolkien's fictional city Gondolin, nor is the painting as such discussed anywhere in the article. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is replaceable, since it's possible to create a similar example with free (or self-made) content and programs. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 09:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This file is to be removed from all articles except F.C. Porto. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automatically agreed. SLBedit (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free logos of perennial events shall not be used for articles of specific instances of these events. So this file may not be used in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While the file is not copyrightable in the US it may be borderline original in its country of origin, the UK. So it would be best to use {{PD-USonly}}. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
University of Sydney logos
Partial closure. Either of these two logos can only be used in the main article about the University of Sydney. Related articles about colleges, faculties, etc. which may even have there own non-free logos cannot use the main logo/arms per WP:NFC#UUI §17. Now, as I don't want to roll a dice which logo to keep, I'm leaving a section open here to decide upon which logotype to use for the main U Sydney article. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has already trimmed the excessive use of non-free images in this article. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Only the common series logo is appropriate here. The individual covers are not. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
WEWS-TV on-air broadcast screenshots
There is consensus that these two images fail the non-free content criteria. Contextual has not been demonstrated, so the files need to go. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely unneeded. Unless the screen format/title cards are the subject of discussion, that's just extraneous non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Japanese invasion money
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Obverse.jpg
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Reverse.jpg
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Obverse.jpg
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse.jpg
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse Old.jpg
- File:Japanese Invasion Money, 50 centavos reverse.jpg
Are these correctly indicated as unfree? Japanese works by organisations (such as the Japanese government) are protected for 50 years from publication per {{PD-Japan-organization}}. However, these were likely first published in the Philippines, meaning that Japan isn't the source country. If the Philippines is the source country, then the term in the source country might be 50 years p.m.a. or something similar. Works by the Philippine government are {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. However, these were made by the Japanese government, so maybe the tag isn't applicable. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that any valid copyright has ever existed on these bills, except in the minds of the Imperial Japanese occupying forces. They are not valid circulating currency, and have not been since 1945. I'd say that by even the most stringent of standards, they have fallen into the public domain by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- What you are writing is nonsense. Copyright is created automatically upon creation of a work. These banknotes have obviously been created at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not in the 1950s. Remember, at one point in US copyright law, if you didn't put the (C) notice on the work, it was assumed PD. That said, just because we're talking about money printed during the occupation of one country by another that has long since been ended doesn't mean the copyright that might have been there has disappeared: eg much of the Nazi publications do have a current copyright holder today despite the Nazi organization long since vanished. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- However, the stupid copyright notice stuff is only relevant to U.S. works (unless the copyright expired in the source country before 1996) and only affects the copyright status in the United States. The question here is partially what the source country is. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was not only in the States that copyright was NOT automatic when a work was created. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- According to Godot13 this file is in the Japanese domain/copyright which covers 50 years. These images are in the public domain. The source country would be the occupied country as all legal issues would transfer to the established government.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not in the 1950s. Remember, at one point in US copyright law, if you didn't put the (C) notice on the work, it was assumed PD. That said, just because we're talking about money printed during the occupation of one country by another that has long since been ended doesn't mean the copyright that might have been there has disappeared: eg much of the Nazi publications do have a current copyright holder today despite the Nazi organization long since vanished. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- What you are writing is nonsense. Copyright is created automatically upon creation of a work. These banknotes have obviously been created at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-500_Pesos_(1944).jpg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this copyrightable? Violates WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I would say the logo is too simple to be copyrightable, but I don't know if thats a decision we make here or not. Where is the image being used? It may be fair use even if copyrighted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unless that is a copyrighted font...then no. Simple geometric shapes can't be copyrighted and the only issue I can see is whether the font is copyrighted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The font itself is not copyrightable in the United States unless it is used as a digital font, which is probably not the case here (see Intellectual property protection of typefaces). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unless that is a copyrighted font...then no. Simple geometric shapes can't be copyrighted and the only issue I can see is whether the font is copyrighted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Michael klein for wiki"
All files metioned in this section have been deleted. There are currently no images in the mentioned article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
file:"Michael klein for wiki" has been rescinded by its original photographer and does not wish the image to be kept on Wikimedia's database any longer. However, the black and white photograph of Michael Klein (writer) is fair use. 173.230.98.209 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- This File:Michael klein for wiki.jpg is being kept at Wikimedia Commons so we cannot do anything about copyright issues here. I have, however, marked both File:Michael klein for wiki.jpg and File:Michael Klein (writer).jpg for copyright issues because these files lack permission from the original photographers. Please note that uploading any files on behalf someone else does not transfer any copyrights and only the original photographer are entitled to release their work under any type of licence. Michaeal Klein is also not the copyright holder of these images even if he happens to own physical prints or digital copies.
- That said, fair use will also not work here per Wikipedia rules because anyone can take a photo of Mr. Klein and publish it under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stripped/removed. Please note that this is a objective enforcement and you should automatically remove NFCC#9-offending images without question. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is claimed that this image, represents the central character in the book. It is felt that discussion of that character does not need to be supported by an image from a different (albiet derative work.). The article in which it appears does not contain a section on adpatations of the work,, where it would be more appropriate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- From the article it doesn't seem any of the films produced from the book are notable themselves, so there's likely no other target that image could work. Even if this was about the specific film, the image adds nothing to the article (it's one representation of a character, and otherwise appears non-descript in terms of appearance), so the image is unnecessary and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Masem:But I am not sure how you can say that the serial is not notable. Produced and directed by Gulzar, the winner of Dadasaheb Phalke Award,a prestigious one in India and aired in Doordarshan, the serial is indeed notable and is verified using my citations.. The herald 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Notable in terms of a standalone article. But assuming that it makes sense to keep the discussion of the adaption to the book article (which is completely legit to do), the image itself does not add anything about the character, since there's no discussion about her appearance or the like, making the image unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Masem:But I am not sure how you can say that the serial is not notable. Produced and directed by Gulzar, the winner of Dadasaheb Phalke Award,a prestigious one in India and aired in Doordarshan, the serial is indeed notable and is verified using my citations.. The herald 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rational for removal is likely 100% correct, but as single image with single use, deletion is the likely result, should be at WP:FFD. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just because a commercial release did not happen that does not justify an image of a living person when free image is easily available for this person. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As stated at WP:NFC#UUI, unacceptable Fair Use for an image on Wikipedia includes "A publicity image of a commercial product released by its manufacturer, if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken." The New Nintendo 3DS has been released in Japan, and has also been shown in public in Japan and overseas on a number of occasions, so a free photograph could be taken of the product. I don't consider this a big deal, but nonetheless it clearly doesn't fit Wikipedia's policy on non-free content, and should be replaced. DarkToonLink 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This should not be used twice in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Second use is absolutely unnecessary (Suspect like many FC articles, there's sections on the crest history, which is bad enough per NFCC to start). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this file in the public domain? I'm not sure and an IP keeps changing the license to PD. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: No, your edition is correct; is too complex for PD. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 00:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source of this logo is rather dubious and not reliable or official: imgur.com is a file sharing site. This appears to be a homemade, self-published image that was photoshopped by using an outline of the "2" in File:KTVU FOX 2 Logo.png with the generic Fox TV station template logo (as seen on File:WNYW.svg, File:KTTV Fox 11 logo.png and others). Without a reliable source, this should be removed and deleted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Lina Medina.jpg (naked child)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a WP:BLPN dispute over use of this NFCC image but I have an NFCC review question. The page mentions it appeared in a 1939 medical journal but it does not say where this copy was taken from (and also mentions many 'copies on the internet'). Does that satisfy NFCC, say where you got it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The details of the source should be good enough that if it was a prose fact, one ccould find it reasonably. So just saying "a 1939 medical journal" is not sufficient - it should be the name, ideally the issue and pages, or a link to that that another can confirm. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The copyright term for anonymous unpublished works in the US is 120 years from creation which would also be the relevant term if this had only recently been published as a corporate work. We can also be sure that 95 years have now passed since the death of the photographer which makes it public domain in the US even if it had only recently been published, and in Ireland too, in case the photo was taken during one of Byrne's travels. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is a photograph of someone who died in 1862 listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By the strict letter of WP:NFCC, this fails criterion #2, since it's a recent work of a photo agency (and managed by Getty Images), and as an actor, it shouldn't be unreasonably hard to find a non-free (or even free!) image that's not sold by a commercial agency. Mosmof (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Contrary to the fair-use rationale there is no critical discussion of this image in the article. Replaceable photograph of a living person. De728631 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The file is on Commons, so any discussion about the copyright status should be held there, not here. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite the current tag, the painting has a substantial level of complexity, and though lacking in visual contrast, is sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. While it may be considered as fair use, there is no reason to think it's in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbeiser (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Image is now correctly tagged as PD-USGov-Military-Air Force. --Diannaa (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claimed to be non-free, but EXIF suggests that this is {{PD-USGov}}. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. Why are you so utterly opposed to doing anything useful, but persist in getting your jollies from finding stuff to delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article does not have any critical commentary on this image itself or what it depicts, nor does this image appear to be an iconic represenatation of the film (already have a non-free in the infobox) DMacks (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is being used as an infographic, not as the tag says, "For visual identification of the object of the article". In addition, if it were being used reasonably, as an infographic it seems to be pretty clearly replaceable. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's clearly replaceable. Tagging as such.
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was removed from the article Pakistan Idol on the basis of this discussion. User:Ronhjones deleted the image under speedy criterion F5. --RJaguar3 | u | t 00:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is a promotion picture from the Pakistan Idol web site showing the judges. All of the judges are living celebrities for which replaceable fair use images can be found. There is no critical commentary about the image, nor is it a necessary element for the reader in understanding the article. On a side note, the uploader has reversed the image (the background logo lettering is clearly reversed). Whpq (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Can be replaced by four photos of the judges and host. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was removed from Autobiography of a Yogi as a result of this discussion. User:Ronhjones deleted the image under speedy criterion F5. --RJaguar3 | u | t 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is replaceable by the PD image of the book cover of the first edition of the book File:Autobiography-of-a-Yogi.jpg. There are several editions of the book (Autobiography_of_a_Yogi#Editions). The book cover of every version is not needed. The first edition PD book cover is enough for illustration. Redtigerxyz Talk 07:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
About a year ago we had a VERY long discussion about this page and the two book covers. The senior editor who over saw this discussion Yworo at the time and now called Skyerise [1] Also there are a few others publishing the first edition only because JUST the 1st edition went into public domain but not the edition after the first edition of which this cover represents. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you point to where exactly this discussion took place? I am skeptical that there is non-free use rationale for this image, given that (a) we already have a PD image of the first edition, and (b) the new cover is pretty unremarkable, and is not discussed in the article (or, likely in to be discussed in any secondary sources). Pinging @Skyerise: to joing the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for contacting Skyerise for this discussion. He will be able to answer your questions better than I.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just located a few sources from the internet that could help the discussion - This book orange book cover in discussion:
- Harper Collins - 100 Best Spiritual Books of the Century [2]
- Steve Jobs - he read this book every year - [3]
- Amazon best seller list religious - It placed as #1, #12, #63 & #64 [4]
I can provide more sources, but I work, so give me some time. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- A WP:Local consensus on the article talk, can not override a community consensus. The guideline for image on Wikipedia:WikiProject Books suggests that "If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition."--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The orange cover is simply a slightly different version of the original. The principal reason for including a fair use image in an article is because it is essential for the reader to understand the content. I don't see how that can apply here. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The orange cover book is very different from the first edition. Yogananda added a final chapter and MANY editorial changes after the 1946 blue cover version and asked that it be kept up to date with the times in regards to footnotes and pictures. On top of that this book has been in print for an unprecedented 68 years and still a top seller as you can see from the links above! It is important to present on Wikipedia the full reality of its longevity and how the book cover looks now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The text might well be very different but you don't need to see the current cover to understand that. You explain that in the article, and the current cover is almost the same as the old one. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Visuals as well as words are important on Wikipedia especially in this case with a book in print for 68 years and currently a best seller on Amazon religious section in four positions - #1, #12, #63 & #64. I am not sure if you have seen the two covers but they are dramatically different. Very few books have been in print 68 years straight.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The text might well be very different but you don't need to see the current cover to understand that. You explain that in the article, and the current cover is almost the same as the old one. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I think there is some confusion about whether the article should discuss the various editions of the book (it should!), and whether it should include images of those editions. Given that the covers are unremarkable, there is no commentary (on or off-wiki) for any of them, and we already have a PD image of the first edition book-cover the nominated image fails to meet the WP:NFCCP criterion (spec. requirements #1,#3 and #8). Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. My recollection is that the previous discussion was only about which image should be used as the main image in the infobox. It was decided that the 1st edition should be used. I don't remember any discussion about whether or not the other image should be used or whether or not it was free. However, there is no need for a non-free cover when there is a free one. Wikipedia is not here to promote the current edition of the book. Skyerise (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have given this some thought and think it would fall under the Wikipedia guidelines to place this cover on the publishers Wikipedia page only. The original book cover/book were published by The Philosophical Library(TPL) back in 1946. In 1952 TPL stopped publishing the book and Self-Realization Fellowship began publishing the book in 1954 to the present 2014. I have read through the ten criteria and from my level of knowledge I think this book cover satisfies the criteria. Please let me know what you think. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The ten wikipedia criteria .
- The ten wikipedia criteria
- 1.No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
- 2.Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
- Yes.
- 3.Minimal usage: -
a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
- Yes. Used in one article only
- 4.Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
- Yes.
- 5.Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
- Yes. – Encyclopedias include history. This book has been in print since 1946 and has not stopped being printed for 68 Years and is even now a best seller.
- 6.Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
- yes
- 7.One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
- Yes - I placed it in the Self-Realization Fellowship article and it was just removed because of this discussion.
- 8.Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
- Without this image there is confuSTATE YOUR REASONsion which the current edition is orange with designs added vs blue and simple.
- 9.Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
- Limited to one article
- 10.Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
a. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. b. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. c. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.[1] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.
- Yes it is all thereRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was removed from Jagjit Singh Aurora. The image was deleted under criterion F5 by User:Ronhjones. --RJaguar3 | u | t 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Jagjit Singh Aurora. Possibly also fails WP:NFCC#8 in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. It is totally relevant there. Also, your original reason for removal of the image was WP:NFCC#10, why have you changed it now? Are you an expert in Indo-Pakistan Conflicts that you are an authority as to the significance of this image? The onus is on you to provide more detailed reasons as to why it fails WP:NFCC#8. Right now you have just made a statement without backing it up with any sort of facts. This image is absolutely un-replaceable. It is a historical moment that is never going to occur again. Much like File:Sim Harris.jpg]. Frankly, your vendetta against images related to Indian articles is starting to become annoying. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is zero sourced critical discussion about the image in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- So that means you have to first start a debate and prove that the image has no relevance. You are taking unilateral action as if you are the king of wikipedia and declaring it irrelevant. Why didn't you use the talk page of any of the articles? -Myopia123 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- When listing an image on this page, the standard practice is to add {{non-free review}} to the image, which I did. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, again, YOU have to prove that it is not relevant. Just because no one else has disputed it before, does not mean that it is NOT relevant. The absence of evidense is not the evidence of absence. Make your case with valid reasons or stop wasting my time. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- So that means you have to first start a debate and prove that the image has no relevance. You are taking unilateral action as if you are the king of wikipedia and declaring it irrelevant. Why didn't you use the talk page of any of the articles? -Myopia123 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is zero sourced critical discussion about the image in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just to clarify since I don't think you are getting the point. THIS IMAGE IS IRREPLACEABLE. Those people are never going to sign another instrument of surrender again. Just like File:Sim Harris.jpg, very few cameras captured the image, a free alternative will never be found or created. The image is used for an understanding of the surrender and you have provided no proof otherwise except to state that it is "possibly failing NFCC#8". That is stating a possibility, with no basis in fact. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, according to [5] and [6], multiple actions have been taken, discussions have occurred and the image has been approved, even before some editor added it to the Jadjit singh Aurora article. Why are you suddenly and unilaterally deciding that these discussion need to occur again because it "possibly fails NFCC#8." - Myopia123 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A1971_Surrender_of_Pakistan.gif&diff=602632588&oldid=600065079){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1971_Surrender_of_Pakistan.gif&diff=next&oldid=610058422){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1971_Surrender_of_Pakistan.gif&diff=prev&oldid=600065079){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_49#File:1971_Surrender_of_Pakistan.gif){kind=link}
- Here is the link in the archive to the previous discussion for this. Your nomination is invalid. [9]. I suggest you take it up with MASEM and TLSuda -Myopia123 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The last thing that I have to say about this: Stefan2 is saying that this image fails NFCC#8 at Instrument of Surrender (1971), the very article about the event depicted in this picture...really? Does that even dignify a response? -Myopia123 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the article Instrument of Surrender (1971) is not an article about an event, but an article about a document. I am not aware of any other articles about documents which contain non-free pictures of someone signing the document. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak keepin Jagjit Singh Aurora. The image depicts the single most important occasion in the person's life (and an historical occassion in the history of three countries), and as such serves a more encyclopedic purpose than a generic PD headshot, were one even available, would serve. Worth noting that similar photographs of the same event accompanied the obituaries/tributes following his death, in The Times of India, Rediff, IndiaTVnews etc. I qualify my support as weak solely because one can find articles on the subject that don't use any photographs; so while whether its absence from the Jagjit Singh Aurora article would be "detrimental" is arguable, IMO its inclusion is advisable. The case for inclusion in the Instrument of Surrender (1971) and Bangladesh Liberation War on the other hand are air-tight. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (Changing !vote: see comment below) Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's always a pleasure to hear from someone who has reasonable arguments to put forth. I accept your conclusions Abecedare. -Myopia123 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and replace It turns out that the photograph of Niazi signing the surrender documents is pretty iconic. See for example, the note I added to the Jagjit Singh Aurora article citing The Hindu (
one of the defining images of the 1971 war
) and The Guardian (The picture that flashed around the world...
); also A talent for war (the most famous photograph of India's post-independence military history
). But the specific photograph that is so notable is not the one being discussed; it is this one, which is probably non-PD too, although I'll have to check to be sure. So, unless there are any objections, I propose to upload the latter photograph and use it to replace the one being discussed here (which can then be deleted) in the three articles. User:Stefan2, if you wish you can nominate the photograph I'll be uploading for NFCC review, although I'd argue that given the sources, its use in the three articles is justified. Does that make sense to all? Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the important thing to me personally is that this is a very important moment that was captured on camera. If it's a different angle, lower resolution helps with NFCC then that is fine with me. -Myopia123 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can't we just upload the more acceptable version as the new version of the image within the same file? -Myopia123 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, is that from an indian navy website? If it is then we can use it freely with the OTRS tag in this picture: File:Mikoyan MiG-29K of the Indian Navy.jpg
- Can't we just upload the more acceptable version as the new version of the image within the same file? -Myopia123 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Update: The file has been replaced in the articles by File:1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg and is no longer in use. So it can be safely deleted as an {{Orfud}} and this discussion closed. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was removed from the Gender advertisement article by User:Ahecht on non-NFCC grounds. The image was deleted by User:Ronhjones under speedy criterion F5. --RJaguar3 | u | t 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neither of these copyrighted advertisements are discussed specifically in the text of Gender advertisement. Since this is designed to be representative of ads in general, and not illustrating a discussion of specific ads, it could be replaced with a free equivalent. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free files should not be used twice in the same article. Also, per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, the image should probably not be in the article at all. Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article does not have any critical commentary on this image itself or what it depicts, nor does this image appear to be an iconic represenatation of the film (already have a non-free in the infobox) DMacks (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claimed for use under NFCC, replaced in the article with a PD version of the same image from commons. The commons version (and possibly this version as well, needs discussion) is PD per Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#South_Carolina, and was published by MSNBC without copyright notice. Reventtalk 10:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even when unknown, a photo of a living person is not acceptable per NFCC. This is now tagged as free-replaceable. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even though this subject was unknown a year ago, he's known now and a public figure, so shouldn't free images now be available? —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image on Commons is deleted. Further discussion seems to of no practical benefit. –Codename Lisa (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry if this is not the right place to discuss this, but we have commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg which we can use to replace this file, we can also transfer this file if needed. - TheChampionMan1234 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't trust Commons. The nominated file was originally on Commons. It survived two deletion discussions, I think. Then, a couple of month after the second discussion, it was deleted out-of-process. I asked the deleting admin to decide the Commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg's fate as well, pending his previous announcement to delete all derivative works of Commons:File:Windows logo - 2002.svg. Basically, the file is as eligible for Commons as Schrödinger's cat is alive.
- The deleting admin is User:Fastily. You might want to contact him.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would also not think this can be on commons; the effects on the 4-color "wave" are too novel to be simple effects , pushing that part of the image over TOO. Should be treated as non-free --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The gradient and shadding effects put this logo above the threshold of originality, IMO. I don't trust in some criteria applied to keep images at Commons, either. Fma12 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is probably an issue with this image per NFC, but as it is only one file used in one place, it should be handled at FFD. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure if this image complies with WP:NFCC. It is used in Dolphin (emulator) article, but alone, it shows nothing Dolphin-related. And the resolution is simply huge. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image had been uploaded for use on Jim Harbaugh. But there are too many free images of him to use for this picture to qualify for use here per WP:NFCCP. -- Calidum 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in articles about sub-entities to International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Commented out the use in one draft article, so the NFCC#9 issue is resolved. Looking at this, International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe is the parent federation, thus use here is appropriate. The child articles are Association des Guides et Scouts d'Europe, Catholic Scouts of Europe and European Scout Federation (British Association). It appears the federation members here use the same logo as the federation; I think the use is proper. -- Gadget850 talk 19:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- According to WP:NFC#UUI §17, the articles about the child entities should not contain the logo if they use the same logo as the parent entity. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image moved to Commons as public domain on January 2, 2015. --RJaguar3 | u | t 06:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#1 in Art. There are other paintings of the same style which are in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Important work by an important artist - one of his best known works, a product of his De Stijl period. Given the fact that Mondrian died 70 years ago - this probably should be in the Public Domain. Modernist (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: I am curious as to why you are not suggesting an alternative illustration. I think editorial discretion should play a role in this instance. We are seeking an illustration for an article section subheading called The arrival of Modernism. Please offer an alternative so that others can weigh in on the two alternatives. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is zero reason why a near-equivalent work from the same artist like File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg which is free cannot be used on Art to demonstrate the introduction of modern art. Mind you, in three months, this work will appear to fall into the PD (75 yrs from death) so this would only be a temporary situation, but in terms of the practical matter, this is a case where there is a clear free replacement that should be used over the non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg is dated 1930 and File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg is dated 1937-1942. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the key date here is his death in 1944 - so all his works (assuming published during his life) are non-free until next year. I have taked the CompRYB for PUF. As such, as Mondrian's works are key modern works and that there can't be free images (unless one of his lesser known works made it to the PD due to other issues) until we get to 2015, then the image is fine for now. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- 70 years have passed since Mondrian died in February 1944. The painting is Public Domain...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- 70 years have not passed since the end of the year during which Mondrian died. The painting is therefore still copyrighted. It is irrelevant at which point during the year the painter died. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why would we prefer File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg or File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg as both copyrights expire at the same time? Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- As explained, all non-free files violate WP:NFCC#1 in that section, so only free images can be used there. I have no opinion on which free image you use. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: why is File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg acceptable at Piet Mondrian but unacceptable at Art, specifically in the subsection The arrival of Modernism, which is found in the section on Theory? Are we not discussing a specific usage of an image? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have not made any statements about the use in the article Piet Mondrian. That article is also out of scope for this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion certainly does concern WP:NFCC#1, which reads: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Therefore I ask you which image could serve the same "encyclopedic purpose" as File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg in the specific place in which it is being used? Obviously other editors feel this image serves an "encyclopedic purpose" in that specific usage. Why do you disagree? Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have not made any statements about the use in the article Piet Mondrian. That article is also out of scope for this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: why is File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg acceptable at Piet Mondrian but unacceptable at Art, specifically in the subsection The arrival of Modernism, which is found in the section on Theory? Are we not discussing a specific usage of an image? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- As explained, all non-free files violate WP:NFCC#1 in that section, so only free images can be used there. I have no opinion on which free image you use. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why would we prefer File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg or File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg as both copyrights expire at the same time? Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- 70 years have not passed since the end of the year during which Mondrian died. The painting is therefore still copyrighted. It is irrelevant at which point during the year the painter died. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- 70 years have passed since Mondrian died in February 1944. The painting is Public Domain...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the key date here is his death in 1944 - so all his works (assuming published during his life) are non-free until next year. I have taked the CompRYB for PUF. As such, as Mondrian's works are key modern works and that there can't be free images (unless one of his lesser known works made it to the PD due to other issues) until we get to 2015, then the image is fine for now. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- File:Mondrian Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow.jpg is dated 1930 and File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg is dated 1937-1942. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that, in under three months, this won't matter (they become free images), it doesn't make sense to get too worked up about one possibly excessive non-free use that makes sense to be in place when the image becomes free. Yeah, we can be technically harsh here, but it's just under 3 months, and this would be a case where IAR applies, and it is not an outright objective failure of NFCC either. (That said, if someone turned around and plastered this image on dozens of articles just because we cleared it for one, that's a problem) --MASEM (t) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.