Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WP:FUR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Shortcuts:
WP:NFR
WP:NFCR

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

Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

[edit] How to nominate

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

[edit] How to close

When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any editor may close a discussion.

[edit] Closing the discussion

  • Put a {{discussion top}} template above the media's header.
  • After the last comment, add four dashes (----) on a new line.
  • Enter closing comments and/or action taken under the dashes. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~.
  • Put a {{discussion bottom}} template under your comments.

See this diff for an example closure.

[edit] Media action

Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media page with {{Non-free reviewed}}.

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

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

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ To nominate multiple media files in one section, title the section "Multiple files" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all files are linked in your comments.

edit guidelines



Archives
  1. March 2006–July 2007
  2. August 2007–December 2007
  3. January 2008–September 2008
  4. October 2008–August 2009
  5. September 2009–present

Contents


[edit] Sample of screenshots with Windows/OS X etc. non-free widgets

Hi,

I tried to start some discussion of this on Template_talk:Non-free_software_screenshot#Windows_UI_elements_etc. (possibly not the right place, so direct the discussion to another place if you feel so); anyway:

On commons:Commons:Screenshots, there's been some discussion on UI elements like the Windows close/minimize buttons etc. not being free. While they might qualify for fair use, they probably fail the Wikipedia non-free policy if they are replaceable, i.e. if a similar image could be made without them (possibly using a free system or something), or they could be cropped.

In my experience, while there are such policies on Wikipedia, they aren't systematically enforced, so I went through the first 100 hits when searching for "screenshot" in the File: space. Here are some images to consider (a mere sample); I'm not tagging them yet, as I'm not sure enough about the issue (I think mass tagging without discussing first would be rude anyway). Note that all these were among the first 100 hits, and I only considered those that were screenshots of software and not a full-screen game without any OS widgets (which often still are non-free). One of them actually contains album covers, and a couple contain Wikimedia logos which I understand render them non-free.

File:Old_project.net_screenshot.gif

File:Flcelloguy's_Tool_UI.PNG

File:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG

File:Musicportal.gif

File:WM_screwedupimage.PNG

File:2007-E-uncat.png

File:Commonist_screenshot.png

File:Inkscape_screenshot.png

File:Screenshot-big.gif

File:FeedDemon_screenshot.png

File:TUGZip_screenshot.png

File:VMware_screenshot.png

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg

File:Zultrax-3.39-screenshot.png

File:BBEdit_Screenshot.png

File:PowerArchiver_screenshot.png

File:GOLD_screenshot.gif

File:GayOne-screenshot.jpg

File:Screenshot-AlbumPic.png

File:Openmotif_screenshot.png

File:Commonplace-screenshot.jpg

File:Freehand-screenshot.jpg

File:Ichitaro_2006_screenshot.jpg

I explore Wikipedia systematically anyway (I do copyediting), so I might spend some time tagging images like this, if there's a consensus of what I should do to them. --SLi (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific blanket action to take for all the images. In my opinion, the Windows window design and minimize/maximize/close icons are too simple to attract copyright, so a screenshot of free software that just happens to be running in Windows is OK (provided it doesn't show taskbar or a copyrighted background, etc.
Some of those images don't have a sufficient rationale, though, and fall to be tagged {{subst:nrd}}.
Anything with the WMF logo is also non-free and needs to be tagged appropriately. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To expand on this, these images basically fall into one of the following categories:
  1. Images on Commons, which are outside our responsibility
  2. Screenshots of free software which only display freely-licensed material (I'm including a window with minimize/maximize/close icons in this)
  3. Screenshots of non-free software which have a proper rationale
  4. Screenshots of non-free software which do not have a proper rationale
  5. Screenshots of free software which include non-free content (including Wikimedia logo, other copyrighted programs, copyrighted text or images, Windows interface, etc.)
What action to be taken on the image depends on which category it's in. #1 is out of our hands, #2 and #3 are probably fine. #4 should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:dfu}}, or similar, and #5 should be tagged as {{PUI}}. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt modern UI elements would be considered simple enough to not merit copyright protection at least in the US. Of course I think this question is somewhat academic in the sense that whether to allow those images or not is only a Wikipedia policy question, since they quite certainly would be fair use. But the bar for copyright protection is usually quite low. Old black-and-white UI widgets with a cross as a close button would not be copyrightable, but I'm fairly certain if we're talking about more artistic wighets, and e.g. having the Windows logo in one of the widgets (as I think is often the case in Windows) and more stylish widgets, then the UI at least as a whole would get copyright protection. (And how about the Windows panel... bar... whatever the thing in the bottom part of the screen is called?) I also think showing a Windows logo wouldn't be any different from showing a Google logo (for example the small site icon in a browser), even if it's embedded in the standard UI of Windows.
In any case, the nice folks at Commons seem to have discussed this issue quite a bit. --SLi (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of graphic design

Yes check.svg Resolved.

This article is a glorified gallery/slide show. And it is peppered with non-free images. For some topics, there are 4 non-free images illustrating the exact same point. And it isn't even clear to me why we need so much non-free imagery. Many of the non-free images have little relation, if any, to the the text of the article. It seems like massive image abuse. I wanted to get other opinions on this, and perhaps solicit help cleaning up the article's images.-Andrew c [talk] 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a mess. I'm going to see if I can FFD some of the images. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of them are likely to be {{PD-old}} actually and are mistagged as non-free. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Months ago, I removed all the obvious non-free content. There are still some antique playing card images that are surely PD, but are currently tagged as non-free. I consider this matter resolved. -Andrew c [talk] 15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apple Computer Logo.svg

Does the use of this image on Rob Janoff and History of Apple comply with WP:NFCC#8? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Apple I would say certainly: the coloured logo was iconic of the height of Apple's first success in the 1970s and 1980s.
Rob Janoff I would say also yes: it is his most famous work, and currently the article on him is substantially devoted to discussing what may or may not be symbolism in the logo.
I question whether the logo needs to be as big, though. Smaller logo with more white space might be better. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it would be legitimate on Rob Janoff, if that content was a little better sourced, but it would be better in section rather than at the head of the article (where an image of Janoff himself would be best). The lack of discussion or even, as far as I can see, mention is not consistent with the claim that the logo is "iconic"- I cannot see why it is being used in that article. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before Stifle added the CSD notice, there was a caption which read "The Apple logo in 1976 created by Rob Janoff with the rainbow color theme used until 1998."
IMO showing the original form of the logo, naming the creator, describing when it was changed, taken together as a package does add significantly to the subject of the article, "History of Apple".
As for it being "iconic", that was just my automatic reaction having been around at the time. It's an assessment of significance being offered by me as an editor, and as such germane to the discussion. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
An image caption is not enough- it's fairly obvious that the caption describes the image. This reminds me a little of Russell's paradox- using the logic that the caption describes the image, you're basically saying that, if the image is there, it is needed- if it isn't, it isn't. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
An image caption can be entirely enough. There is no requirement at WP:NFCC for any text at all discussing an image. The requirement is for the image to significantly add to the understanding readers get from the image. This image does that. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
While a sourced discussion is not specifically mentioned as a requirement in WP:NFCC, the significance still needs to meet WP:V, which would require discussion sourced to a reliable source. Otherwise, simply claiming that an image is of importance to an article would be WP:OR or WP:POV. --Mosmof (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
POV and OR are content policies - it's just fine to make unsourced statements in a meta-discussion like this. We all know (anyone who was around at the time) that the rainbow apple logo was an icon of its era. If we want to improve the article with a sourced statement to that effect, surely it's out there somewhere. The general take on historic logos is that they're okay if used to illustrate a sourced discussion of the branding, logos, and identity of a company (where that is germane to an article), but not okay as a mere gallery of images. By comparison with other visual artists, it's okay in the bio of a graphic designer to include a few well-chosen examles or famous works, if accompanied by sourced discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me - I was talking about content in article space. My point is that:
  1. Non-free content needs to be subject of critical commentary
  2. Critical commentary, like all article space content, needs to be sourced to meet WP:V and WP:NOR
  3. Therefore, there is an implicit requirement for non-free content to be accompanied by sourced commentary.
And if we wanted to use the rainbow Apple logo as the designer's representative work, we would need a reliable source to verify that it is considered to be the defining work of the designer's, right? --Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Who I was just about to quote, from this discussion, and even more on-point the one immediately following it, in the archives at WT:NFC.
WP:NOR is about text in article space. It does not apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy space, etc. The question of significance is a judgment for the community to come to. It does not depend on citing sources. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. If the logo is as important as you claim, it will be worth discussing in the article. If there's discussion in the article, it may be worth including the image. You can't cut out the middle man and slam in a non-free image just because you consider it iconic. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is for the community to consider whether they find it iconic (or more precisely, significant). Per WP:BRD "slamming in a non-free image just because you consider it significant" (and expect the community to agree) is exactly what you can do. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(indent) Yeah, wow indeed. I think the comment is a pretty good illustration of exactly how not to approach non-free content use and the fair use principle, that I see with many editors. They think of images as an afterthought or an accessory that you add to an article. Rather, non-free content needs to be an integral part of the content, so much so that the discussion couldn't exist without it. It's not so much that non-free content requires accompanying commentary, but rather, the non-free content must be part of the commentary. --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
back to the game. Like many who were around at the time, the image is significant to me though for what it reminds me of rather than what it tells me. There should be sourced commentary in both places (not hard to do) as without it, particularly in History of Apple the logo adds precisely nothing to the uninformed. I just got someone here to read the section with the logos as an experiment (someone too young to remember the logo)...result was that the inclusion of the logos was meaningless. To those arguing that things are significant, without commentary in the article, this sort of experiment is most instructive. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The logo is an important part of the optimism of the era where it was created, it's historical significance is inseparable from the era where it was created, and its use is integral to discussion of Apple Computer, or its's designer. It is one of the most recognizable corporate logos in the world, and inspired the design of the later Apple logos. The IBM logo's significance would also be subject to similar justification. rhyre (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


The use of galleries to display former Apple logos in the Apple Inc. is disgusting, and without a doubt, does not meet the criteria for non-free content. Fair use images of any kind shouldn't be in galleries at the end of the section, they should be in the context of articles. Not only that, but the article only talks about the original Apple logo and the rainbow colored logo. And in the article is says:

In 1998, with the roll out of the new iMac, Apple discontinued the rainbow theme — supposedly at the insistence of recently returned Jobs — and began to use monochromatic themes, nearly identical in shape to its previous rainbow incarnation.

Bearing that in mind, why do we have to have 4 apple logos that nearly look the same in gallaries when the current logo is in the infobox? — ℳℴℯ ε 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the 4 logos you are referring to are the rainbow, the monochromatic and the current "glassy" logo, then you are mistaken, they do not look "nearly the same" but are significantly different as noted in copy. They should be kept for both Apple and history of Apple.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lumberjack Song.jpg

Only has a fair-use rationale for Michael Palin, but is included on four articles. Plus, the rationale for use on the Palin article claims the image is discussed in the text, but it is not (the sketch is mentioned, very briefly, but not this specific image). In my opinion, a valid FUR could be written for "The Lumberjack Song" and maybe Monty Python, but not for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Powers T 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a fair-use rationale for The Lumberjack Song. I agree there doesn't seem to be one for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image from articles that failed NFCC #10c. It was once restored at Monty Python, where I noticed other NFCC abuses. We may need eyes on there. As for the specifics, if someone can write an adequate fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, then good. Uses that fail the most basic of criteria need to be removed from those articles. We could argue back and forth regarding how much that image significantly increases our understanding of Michael Palin/Connie Booth, but until rationales have been written, that point is moot. -Andrew c [talk] 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A FUR has been written for Michael Palin, so I would like to discuss whether it's valid. Powers T 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I reiterate that the point Andrew mentions regarding the how much the image increases our understanding of Michael Palin is not moot as he indicated it was, but rather very relevant here, and in fact is the very FUR I was disputing when I introduced this discussion. Thoughts? Powers T 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed from all articles other than UCLA Bruins, UCLA Bruins football, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, and UCLA Bruins women's volleyball as failing WP:NFCC#8. Using the team logo to decorate the many articles about various seasons' versions of the teams isn't a viable fair use under our criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. As I did with Arkansas and LSU previously, I've created File:UCLA athletics text logo.svg, which should be an adequate text-only (i.e. PD-logo) image with which we should replace the non-free instances.-Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem there is that it is frequently the case that such logos are not the actual logos of the university in question. In this case, and this case only, it can be considered to be so. See page 14 of this document, where it says "The UCLA script, with or without a tail..." and this is the UCLA script without a tail. People should avoid making logos that are not actually the logos of universities. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I would never create a logo that was not the universities (at least not on purpose). I agree 100% with your sentiment, but resent that some of it may be aimed at me personally. -Andrew c [talk] 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • None of it was aimed at you personally. I've seen people create logos for universities before that were not in fact the university's logo. That's fine if it's a userbox. Not fine when it's article space (and yes, I've seen this done). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
100% agreed. Even if there isn't a PD-text replacement, the non-free image needs to leave those individual season articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
100% agreed too. But, 100% agreement doesn't exist. It's time to take this to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the sports logo dispute never got resolved, but isn't this a pretty clear-cut case that we have a free logo that can serve the same purpose (identify the school) as the non-free one? howcheng {chat} 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think ArbCom will accept this, I can hear "decline, content issue" immediately. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I already felt them out about this, and I think it would be accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

  1. I don't believe this logo is eligible for copyright protection (argument made on image's talk page, so I'm not going to rehash it here), so NFCC#8 doesn't apply
  2. If it did, I would have no problem replacing it with Andrew c's logo as it is one of the UCLA logos and sold on UCLA merchandise, but the problems remain as to how to define things like this so we don't have these arguments (or at least minimize them to images that are complicated).
  3. 100% agreement (or even 70% agreement) doesn't easily exist on how they should be treated. I would like to take another shot at Mediation. Hammersoft and others didn't like the way I phrased some of the last request. I recommend at least trying to do another mediation before going to ArbCom; feel free to phrase it how you so desire. — BQZip01 — talk 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with BQZip on this. I don't see how any of the letters, including the tail on the "a" are anything more than typographical ornamentation, which is not eligible for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Andrew C, what font did you use to create that new image? Stifle (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    No font, auto-traced a logo. -Andrew c [talk] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a fine image you've created, Andrew c, and it illustrates another protection of copyright, described here in Derivative work. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying my image is still a derivative work and therefore not PD? Derivative work of non-copyrightable elements (i.e. text-only) is still not any more eligible for copyright than the original constituent parts.-Andrew c [talk] 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, with all that above, it's got me second guessing myself. What I did was take the largest logo file I could find on google images, which was a helmet drawing from here, that has the tail. I then cut the tail from the trace, took a smaller non-tail logo, and hand traced the terminal of the "a". I finally added the outline, but no drop shadow (similar to this). But now I noticed that the helmet logo, which isn't outlined, seems to be thinner than the basic text used in the outlined versions. So I believe I may have done what I was talking against above, creating a logo not used by the university (A thin, outlined logo.). While they do officially accept versions of the script logo without a tail, I have not been able to locate any from an official source, and a google image search apparently comes up with not-so-official logos. I'd be totally fine with scrapping my version altogether because of this, or re-doing it or making modifications if others can offer suggestions or better source logos to use. Maybe if I simply removed the outline it would be better, but then again, are there any uses of the thinner script without a tail? Sorry about all that. -Andrew c [talk] 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've created another file, from scratch, using a different source. I still had to draw on the terminal of the "a" by hand after removing the tail. Not sure what others think about this new one, or if the previous one was even problematic. -Andrew c [talk] 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the PD claim: the Copyright Act requires that a typeface must have an "intrinsic utilitarian function ... for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". While the "UCLA" or "Bruins" elements would certainly meet that requirement separately, the work must be evaluated as a whole and it seems incorrect to conclude that this is a mere "compos[ition of] text" or "cognizable combination of characters" (the latter in terms of the spirit of the definition). Admittedly this is a grey area on which reasonable people may disagree. It is important, however, to err on the side of caution as, among other reasons, not to misinform our readers. Although a much more clear-cut example, ASCII images demonstrate that the whole, at times, can be more than the sum of its parts (i.e. in certain instances, collections of elements themselves ineligible for copyright may become eligible by virtue of sufficient creative arrangement, etc.) Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    Elcobbola, your opinions are certainly important here. I concur that reasonable people may disagree, but the question remains as to how we should proceed. I have to say that I based most of my opinion on your page, so clarification about your points is certainly important. I agree that ASCII art such as this is a clear-cut example to the contrary. You agree that the "UCLA" and "Bruins" components each are PD, correct? It seems to me that adding two PD images result in another PD image. The "U" is being used as a "U" and has no other function than a "U". The same goes with each of the letters. Writing letters on a circle doesn't suddenly make it copyrightable. Why would writing it on another letter? Where am I wrong on this?
    As a further example, what would you think about the PD-ness of this image? Should it be PD? I am unaware of a key that combines a K, Y, and another Y. — BQZip01 — talk 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with that is someone can take PD work, change it a bit and give it a new copyright (at least on the new work). Copyright is automatic now; I do agree that some elements alone are public domain, but from looking at the total package, I believe the image is copyrighted. As for the season articles...hmm... User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]" I view the elongated tail of the "a" as a variation of typographic ornamentation, hence it is not eligible. The same goes for the "Bruins". — BQZip01 — talk 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    I see where you are coming from, but I just don't see the tail design as simple ornamentation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't mention "simple" ornamentation, but ornamentation in general, much as in the Coca Cola logo (another example of a PD image)...and while we're on the subject, it is extremely similar to the ornamentation on that logo, only that it goes in the opposite direction.
    On a related topic, you unilaterally deleted the UT&T logo. Why? Even having the wrong license is correctable. — BQZip01 — talk 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    Texas Tech or something else? The Coca Cola image is PD due to age, which is a different reason all together. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    The Coca-Cola one may be old enough to pass that magic 1923 mark, but it has been a PD-trademark for some time. — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, the Texas with the U and T overlayed; it is restored as of now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    There are also several others:
    File:ASUinterlock.gif
    File:AzSt.gif
    File:Colorado.gif
    File:Tulane shield web.png
    File:Akron.gif
    — BQZip01 — talk 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    File:Tulane shield web.png was not me; it was also not claimed in any sort of PD license. The others, I will look at it later. It's almost 2 am, I need sleep. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "PD-Trademark"? Yes, it's PD, and yes, it's a trademark, but please try to understand that the Coca-Cola logo is not subject to copyright because of its age, and not because it is too simple. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it is labeled as such (and only recently so), but as numerous people have pointed out, labeling somethign doesn't make it so. This is logo is made from a specific font, by any definition a typeface, and is therefore completely ineligible for copyright. Its date of creation is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — talk 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

←There's a suggestion above that a combination of PD works remains PD. This isn't true, because the composition and arrangement of the PD works, and any modifications made thereto, attracts a copyright. Reminds me of the proof by induction that all men are bald. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, but there are certain things that cannot be copyrighted. A square is not copyrightable. The letter "A" when used as an "A" is not copyrightable. Putting an A in a square is merely an arrangement of things that are not copyrightable. Take a collection of letters and make them into art and you have ASCII art which goes beyond its use as an "A", beyond its utilitarian purpose. Take a collection of squares in various colors and you get the basic construct of a bitmap image. The question is, was, and remains, where do we draw the line? There is reasonable disagreement on where we should do so. — BQZip01 — talk 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a deeply disturbing, shocking, and unnerving thought; has anyone thought to contact UCLA for their opinion on the copyright status of their logos? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the sarcasm.
We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image. Like I've said ad nauseum, spend the same amount of effort on a mediation request and we can take this whole issue there and either resolve it or go on to ArbCom and be done with it much sooner. — BQZip01 — talk 03:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to go to ArbCom to settle the issue, as long as no one is going to have editing restrictions or any punishment of sorts. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
BQZip, there's no reason to conflate this issue with the issue regarding copyrighted logos on season articles. Further, asking the holder of a work about the nature and extent of copyrights they hold on that work is hardly out of line. If you don't want to do the work, fine. But, don't extend that to mean we shouldn't, can't, and that it is against our principles. There's nothing about asking a source holder questions about the source that is against our principles. Zscout, arbitration is probably premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't apply to just this logo. Six others are mentioned above as well and they apply to all of them. It also applies across Wikipedia and it isn't simple.
ZScout, you and I do not agree on this, but I think we could work together and present an accurate discussion to start the ArbCom process. Are you interested? — BQZip01 — talk 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom won't take it, BQZ. I talked to a few last night and they told me they will not legislate copyright law. Plus, I took image issues before the ArbCom and it was rejected. I am dealing with some IRL issues at this moment, so even if they would take the case, I am not sure what I can physically do in the next few weeks. But I stopped any of the edits to images and began asking a few questions off wiki. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We aren't talking about legislating copyright law, but to define what we use within Wikipedia as free and non-free images. I personally don't care one way or another, but we need to have something concrete to make appropriate edits. Current discussion is about 60-40, not a clear consensus, but we will continue to have these problems until a solution can be worked out (either directive from ArbCom or throught agreement by a sizable percentage). — BQZip01 — talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That is how they see it, but I will try again soon. If I had my way, I would not use college logos in userboxes or anything like that, and I frankly not concerned about trademark whatsoever. Trademark law makes my head spin. But as an admin, and one who deals with images, I need a clear boundary to say what is good and what is no go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We're not going to get a concrete line in the sand that says "This is free and this is not free" on these logos. Why? Because there's no concrete line in law. It's a case by case basis. In this case, we can't agree if it's free or not, so it needs to be marked as non-free. The only way around that is to contact the rights holder (UCLA) and find out their stance as to its copyright or lack thereof. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    That is how I was told to operate; assume non-free unless otherwise proven. Is this written somewhere in Wikipedia policy? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    I went looking for it recently and couldn't find it coded per se. But, it's implied in things like {{nld}} and {{nsd}} and CSD F11. It is how we operate here though. If we can't prove something is free, we delete it unless we're using it under a fair use claim. I think we can make reasonable assumptions of something being free. But, when the community can't agree something is free (and we don't here), we have to either use it under fair use or be done with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    "If we can't prove something is free, we delete it..."
    1. You have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy to make such a statement
    2. The problem is that even if we accept this is that there is no standard for "proof". Making such a demand isn't appropriate as this isn't policy. I have no problem with creating such a policy, but let's set up some basic structure by which to come up with this proof or give guidance to other Wikipedians. — BQZip01 — talk 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. That was how it was explained to me in the past, but I cannot seem to pull the quote given to me. But if I can make it simple, if it cannot go on the Commons without certainty, we should assume unfree until we get evidence. However, a lot of our license changes came from people above me. It took a Jimbo order in May of 2005 to get rid of images used under a license of non-commercial. It took the Foundation itself to talk about the EDP policy or your upload will be disabled (thus forcing it to the Commons by default). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone who believes we are a free until proven non-free project fails to understand what our basic ethos is. It's blatantly obvious. BQZ, you've been shown this multiple times. It's like everyone is telling you the sky is blue, and you're insisting it's a neat shade of green. It's pointless to debate this further with you. Baring consensus, this image will remain tagged as unfree. I fail to understand why the proponents of this image being free refuse to contact UCLA. What harm could it possibly cause to ask, you know, the people who actually OWN the thing? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I contacted Texas Tech about their logo to solve the issue. If anyone else decides to contact a school about a logo, do say that we KNOW it is TRADEMARKED, but what about copyright? As I pointed out constantly, copyright is automatic under US law and we need to show proof that it is indeed non-eligible for protection in the first place. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing; I was pointed to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others tonight. I wish for all to read this quote: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." This is a statement that we must treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the quote. My point is that they fall into the public domain. We don't treat all works as copyrighted unless otherwise stated. We make the call on many of them where copyright status isn't explicitly stated, such as statues created prior to 1923.
Hammer, I do not believe we are a free until proven non-free, period, but you (and no one else in this discussion) has provided an avenue to prove whether this image is free. If I contact UCLA and tell you that is what they said, then I would expect that you would then demand an e-mail and subsequent OTRS verification stating this. It simply isn't how things are done. These are your personal standards, not Wikipedia's. Demanding that everyone acquiesce to you and cave to your demands for proof (which you haven't even stated what would prove it to be so) isn't appropriate, IMNSHO. Barring consensus, it doesn't mean we default to what you want and nothing in Wikipedia states so (feel free to prove me wrong). I'm not saying it means it should be PD, but a lack of consensus doesn't mean we default to non-free. — BQZip01 — talk 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about OTRS because I'm part of it. So if UCLA tells you it only has trademark protection, then I will believe you. As you mentioned, a lot of the problems with fair use is because A agrees but B disagrees, like in this one. I don't think this specific UCLA logo is in the public domain (the sports one with the tail; the new UCLA logomark is in the public domain due to the font issue you mentioned). I just think with the design of the tail and the way the letters are arranged, it is does have some copyright protection. For some of the images, such as the publication before 1923, we generally go by a checklist mentioned by Cornell University. If you have not seen the checklist, I will send it to you on your talk page or any other method. But this checklist will allow myself and other users to just be able to see if it really does fall under PD-US-1923 rules (such as known author and publication date). If the author is unknown, there are more requirements. If the publication date is unknown, we have more hoops to jump through. I think my own personal problem is one, I used to be very crappy at copyright and everything is a learning experience to me, two, a lot of fair use issues were discussed when I was away from WP (which I need to study up on, including the RFC in June) and three, I come with a mindset as a Commons admin (which we are very harsh to images). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent myself, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to forward correspondences in, and we can reference that ticket # on the image page. It may help quell any future issues that may come up, unforeseen, years down the road. -Andrew c [talk] 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Echo that. I personally would rather have the correspondence passed through OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly, this isn't a simple way to use such images. Are you seriously proposing we cannot use PD logos unless each and every legal department from every Univeristy/sports team/corporation/etc respond via e-mail? That isn't workable and provides significant problems. While you "prefer it", it is your own preference, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines.
I'd love to see the checklist Zscout. Pls e-mail. — BQZip01 — talk 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet we're in disagreement over this logo. So you would have us presume it's free and make no attempt to contact UCLA to ascertain its status? If we're all in agreement something is free, there's no debate. We treat it as free. That's not the case here now is it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So someone has to make a phone call on every logo for which someone disagrees that it is non-free? That's thousands of unnecessary calls. Follow the guidelines that have been established by consensus: text and/or simple geometric shapes=PD (no matter color, arrangement, or ornamentation). It really is that simple. If you don't like that, that is fine. Please start a mediation on the subject. You didn't like the "format" of my request. Fine. You are welcome to submit your own, but it's been almost 6 months and no proposals. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "you would have us presume it's free" No, I wouldn't have you "presume" it is free (that is twisting my words), I would have you listen to my rationale and agree that everything in this logo is text. The fundamental purpose of this logo's components is to provide letters, no matter how ornate. Those letters do not form other images and they are not used in other such capacities. As such, the letter's "intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text" (this is verbatim from the 1976 U.S. copyright law) and is ineligible for copyright. — BQZip01 — talk 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The tail of the "a" forms an image of a banner/flag, a very common motif in design, which isn't simply a geometric shape. Take for instance an image like this. It seems like you are saying that if the banner in that image was attached to the tail of a letter, it somehow stops being a decorative element, and becomes entirely utilitarian? Regardless, this seems very similar to the topic below Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Four_images, where comments like "Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template" and "It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go." seems apt in this discussion.-Andrew c [talk] 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's talk about the banner image mentioned above: it is a ribbon of some kind. As such it certainly is an object and not part of any letter. Ergo, it is part of a drawing, not a geometric shape.
As for the tail of the "a", it is part of the letter and is ornamentation of that letter. One could argue that it is simple a variation of underlining and, in any case, is part of the text. "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]". I don't believe it to be a "shape", but rather ornamentation as it is clearly connected to the letter. I am not arguing that another image, if changed, would be part of another letter. I would handle it on a case-by-case basis. At some point, an artistic drawing connected to a letter would certainly meet the criteria for copyright status, but in the case of the UCLA logo, this isn't it. Other logos are also in the same category and have the same type of flourish: Cal logo Idaho logo. If they were copyrighted, there certainly would be a copyright lawsuit over the matter. — BQZip01 — talk 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is an essay (not guideline) on deletion discussions, not copyright status. Moreover, citing examples of other free images is the only way to make a comparison to illustrate certain points of view. — BQZip01 — talk 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I sometimes think using other free images with the confusion we have right now over what is simple or not is, in my opinion, not the smartest move in the world. If we were comparing images based on a standard that is clearly defined, such as location and time, I can see that approach working. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • BQZ, I'll simply state this; this is yet another permutation of our lather-rinse-repeat arguments on this project. You insist you're right. I insist I'm right. There's no in between. This is why discussion with you is futile from my perspective. It never gets anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been talking about this now for more than a week. Not one person but BQZ believes this image qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. BQZ, I know you disagree, and feel you have strong reasons for your disagreement. But, after more than a week of you being the most prolific poster in this discussion, not one of us have been convinced you are correct. I think this discussion has run its useful course. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it is PD: [1][2].
As for me convincing anyone, ZScout and I have come to an agreement on several other restored logos.
Why would anything I say sway you in any way after a week? This discussion has been ongoing for nearly a year, but you seem to dismiss any form of dispute resolution. Let me ask you point blank: Will you submit a proposal to mediation or ArbCom? I prefer the former than the latter.
I have asked dozens of questions above with no answers other than "You're wrong" as a response (I'm paraphrasing here). I've quoted policy, law, precedent, examples, legal opinions, etc, but all have been ignored. Why? — BQZip01 — talk 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And once again you attempt to conflate this issue with that of fair use logos usage. They're not the same issue, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BQ asked me elsewhere a few days ago to take a look at this. I'm not able to support his position as regards use on English Wikipedia (sorry BQ! :) In my very humble and massively confused opinion after the last twenty browser windows, I feel that the "tail" comprises a sufficiently artistic element that copyright devolves. Someone appears to have done more than just arrange simple text, they've put some thought into how to unify the text using a novel arrangement of graphic elements (well, putting text into a tail isn't exactly novel, but neither is it a slavish copy of extant work). The text shadowing is much more iffy, but the "tail" seems clearly designed to connote an actual animal tail (though it's more of a beaver-tail than a bear-tail). More broadly, I don't feel that our role here is to conduct "shadow litigation" to determine these points, when we already have fairly well-defined procedures on how to act.

I'll remain open to persuasion if specific outside legal opinions or even better, precedent-setting case law on this can be presented. In the absence of specifics, I feel we're better off to follow SOP. Also, I'm not good enough with the UCLA site and the TESS system to find which actual RTM's of UCLA incorporate the various elements.

Even more broadly, I'm not clear on exactly what the distinction is between copyrighted and trademarked images as far as non-free content criteria goes. We explicitly license our content for commercial re-use, but I read in Section F [3] here "All commercial use of Campus Names and Trademarks... is permitted only by license or authorization...". So the use at this site seems to me clearly NOT FREE, unless we have license or authorization - so why aren't we using strict application of NFCC? I'm even more alarmed by Andrew C's adaptation which preserves the sacred circle-R in what appears a non-trademark-registered copy. If I was an IP officer at UCLA I would go nuts when I saw that - but I'll address that elsewhere.

I understand all of BQ's points and agree with most of them. BQZip01, I do disagree with you on your "literally thousands of phone calls" comment - since that's something we can actually do, it's what we should be doing first. And in that same post, where you say "We don't need a lawyer's input on every image" - well, yes we do, but we'll never get it. :( What we have to do instead is establish broad guidelines, then show due diligence in enforcing them, then we will never get sued over some stupid and arcane point of law that takes every single donor's cash to defend for two years. It would be great if it was all different, but it just plain ain't...

Anyway, long and rambling, but there's my opinion on this. The interpretation of wiki-policy is purely my own, but I'll stand to be corrected if I've misunderstood the relevant US law and rulings of precedent. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my version alarmed you. Would it be better if I hadn't copied the logo 100%, and left the ® out of the image? It is really simple to delete elements from SVG files. Please forgive me for failing to find out how a completely text element found in the source image, when copied, somehow discredits our claim of PD-text. Could you explain that one to me? Do you feel like the image would never qualify for PD-text, or that by adding the circle R, then made it ineligible for PD-text? I'm sorry that I don't get it, but I really want to learn more. I'm just familiar with other logos that we either copy directly from the source, or convert to SVG, and claim PD-text: i.e. File:Copernic-Inc-logo.png, File:Auburn-logo-Transparent.png, File:Blackstone Group logo.png, File:CHTV1.svg, File:Converse logo.png and not the R, but TM File:Cuse_logo_ubx.jpg, File:Colorado.gif, etc. So I'd really like to know if there is anything I could do to the image to improve it in your eyes (like remove the circle R), and what is the basis of that view. I think if I where a company, I'd be more appalled to see my image being used on a site with the registered or trade mark notifiers removed. But I may be missing something. Thanks for the feedback. -Andrew c [talk] 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that unless UCLA has registered the exact graphic you present (in which case it must always be represented with the R), then yeah, you should remove the R from your clipped and modified version. and explain on the image description page that it is a modified and clipped version of a registered mark of UCLA. It's quite possible that UCLA has in fact registered a mark with just the "ucla" script, but then that's the one you should be copying. I wasn't able to find such a registration in the USPTO database, but like I say, I don't understand it that well. I also couldn't find anything on UCLA's site. Basically, the R applies to the entirety of the registered mark, not individual parts of it.
You're absolutely right that mark-holders want to see the notifier preserved, in the case of the R, integrated into the graphic image, for the TM, preferably on first or most prominent usage but at least in footnotes. My concern is whether or not what you've uploaded is indeed a registered mark of UCLA. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I get what you are saying. The official design guidelines PDF linked to above only has a picture of a "with tail" logo, but specifies that version without the tail are approved. That said, I've found versions of the tailless logo online with the registered mark, but they do not necessarily come from an official source. I'd gladly remove it if you think it is best, but I wanted to note it is present in some sources (i.e. [4] and [5] and [6] and [7]). -Andrew c [talk] 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Following up on those examples, I did a little more digging and found this, where I can find "UCLA® by itself requires a ®", and the script logo is included under the definition of "UCLA", so I'll withdraw my objections. I also found some other stuff about appropriate use of Pantone colours, not altering graphics &c and I'm still a little concerned about you having [possibly, and in good faith] synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo, but it's far enough down the scale to not matter. Maybe you could just include a link to that FAQ on the image description page so that others would have a convenient link to read. Other than that, I'm fine with it. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Added [bracketed cmt] in response to cmt below. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The PDF guide provided colors, in pantone, RGB, and CMYK, and I chose my colors 100% based on their specifications. I really do take "synthesized a sort of "imaginary" logo" very seriously, and I myself have been highly critical of users doing this and even deleted files in the past based on cheap knock offs. I'd gladly make any changes to my file that you or anyone else seems fit based on those lines of arguments. I really did try my hardest to be true to the brand. But all this talk is probably off topic. So sorry for derailing conversation and thanks for your constructive criticism. -Andrew c [talk] 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Following up on the semi-diversion above, I did discover this link. It contains the text "Bruins by itself or separated from UCLA® by distance or a design element does NOT have a ®". Since the Ucla script and the BRUINS text don't appear to be separated by any distance and the ® appears next to Ucla, it seems clear that UCLA itself thinks that this logo contains a "design element", otherwise the ® would be near the "BRUINS" part of the logo. Whether or not this "design element" constitutes a creative work to which copyright would accrue is an open question. I'll reiterate that IMO we should not be litigating these questions here. There are two easy ways out: treat the logo as NFC; or contact UCLA directly for their opinion on whether or not they feel copyright holds. It's not like UCLA hasn't faced this question before, and it's not like an unsatisfactory answer from their IP office would prevent anyone from finding someone in UCLA tenured faculty who would be willing to stand up for the truth. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • BQZ's response to that is "We don't need to contact every organization with a logo ineligible for copyright (literally thousands of phone calls) and then make sure they use OTRS to verify that correspondence just to satisfy your curiosity and prove every single instance. This isn't the way things are done on Wikipedia. We don't need a lawyer's input on every image." I suggested interested people contact UCLA before, and that was his response. I doubt his opinion has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and replaced the 20 or so non-free uses in the by-season articles with the free SVG. I know there isn't 100% agreement on the non-free or PD status of this image. But it is still tagged as non-free, and there is no evidence it is PD, so for the time being, we need to err on the side of caution. Hopefully, this solution is acceptable to all parties, and we can move on and consider this resolved. If not, then I don't know what further steps need to be taken. More input may be needed, and clear evidence of PD status would be great. -Andrew c [talk] 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Ok, I've created File:Maryland_Terps_logo.png, and I'll see what I can find for the Longhorns. I'll update again once I have something for them, and then we can proceed replacing the non-free overuse with free alternatives.-Andrew c [talk] 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I've been looking through this, and nothing has jumped out at me as a good text-only logo for athletics. Maybe the "T" by itself or the "UT" could work[8], but the design guidelines say it is for internal purposes only. Maybe we could use the "Texas" by itself which appears above the longhorn logo, but again I haven't found a decent sized image to work with. We still shouldn't be using the longhorn logo so much, because it is still replaceable by a text-only equivalent. Just because we don't have one uploaded yet doesn't change the replaceability.-Andrew c [talk] 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You may want to use some of these images...User:BQZip01/FBS_Trademarked_logos. — BQZip01 — talk 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Flight Simulator

Do we need 10 cover images in the infobox? Se also talk. Rettetast (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Hell no. The latest cover is sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Campbell videos

This list article includes 11s non-free image. Most are covers of Videos and DVDs. My removal of all the covers was reverted. Is it necessary to show the covers in this list. Is it comparable to discographies where we don't allow images of each item. Rettetast (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed and watchlisted. Clearly abuse. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I (author of the Glen Campbell videos article) have been in debate with J Milburn and Hammersoft for more than a week now. We thoroughly disagree whether the use of non-free images on this page is violating the non-free content policy and guidelines or not (see User_talk:J_Milburn#Glen_Campbell_videos and User_talk:J_Milburn#Continuous_restoring.2Fdeleting_of_links_to_images_for_Glen_Campbell_videos if you have a lot of time). To make a shortcut to the current status of the discussion: Hammersoft told me he had a similar discussion about the same subject which resulted in the removal of the images, based on the principle: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I remarked that this cannot be found in any current policy or guideline. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT). The reply of J Milburn and Hammersoft was that non-free content policy can never cover every type of article. My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on... This does not answer my question why the images have to be removed. Who can shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I thought (and expressed at J Milburn's talk page), you want your article to be in a special class of articles, all on its own. Yet, it isn't. It's a videography. Pure and simple. If these videos are so insignificant that they are not notable for an article of their own, there's little argument to be made that they deserve to have the covers on a summation article, such as this. This isn't how we work. Even if we did allow this use because it's supposedly not a summation article or videography, there'd still be what, 11 fair use images on this one article? Serious overuse. We target articles with over ten on a regular basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was trying to paraphrase you, Hammersoft, when i said "My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on..." (see Milburn's talk page), but that apparantly wasn't clear due to my limited knowledge of the english language. My fault. You actually talk of zillions of types of articles that are not covered by policy... Just my luck my article apparantly happens to be one of them! Next, I already replied on 1) your claim this article is the same as any other videography (it isn't because besides a mere listing of the releases it also contains sections with detail information on those releases) and 2) the guideline which says that notability determines the use of non-free images (there isn't such a guideline). What's new to me is the fact that you target articles with over 10 non-free images. You almost make it sound like no matter what the policy and guidelines allow or don't allow, 11 fair use images is just too much. However, policy only speaks of over-use if one item can convey equivalent significant information, which isn't the case here. Or would 1 picture showing let's say 3 front covers be better than 3 separate pictures of those front covers in your view? Lumdeloo (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is blatantly obvious to me that you are an extreme literalist vis-a-vis policy here. Unless the policy explicitly states "in the Glen Campbell videos article, no fair use images of covers are allowed" you will presume that policy does not apply to your special little article. Myself and two other editors have tried exceptionally hard to educate you on this matter. You absolutely refuse to be educated and insist that we're all wrong, every last one of us, and you are right. I'm fed up with you. Over and over and over again we keep showing you how you are wrong, and you absolutely fail to get it. NOBODY can show you how you are wrong; because in your mind it is absolutely impossible for you to be wrong. So I'll state what was said on J Milburn's page; restore the images to the article at your own peril. It's vandalism, and you know it. Your move sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I appreciate you trying hard to educate me on this subject. However, if you would actually address the points I bring forward, we probably could have ended this discussion a lot sooner. The discussion goes something like this:
  • You: the article is a discography and therefore fails WP:NFC#Images 2
  • Me: I have asked for examples what a discography article is in your opinion. Without exception, your examples only list the releases but don't describe them in detail. An significant difference in my opinion. What does the guideline say? Two relevant points: WP:NFCI#Images point 1 and WP:NFCI#Images_2 point 1. Front cover art is allowed only the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Not allowed is an album cover as part of a discography, as per the above. To me it's obvious that this means that you can use front covers when you provide critical commentary on the album/video/DVD, but you cannot use front covers in discographies because there you don't provide critical commentary on the listed albums/videos/DVDs.
  • You: your article fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, all the images have to be removed.
  • Me: I cannot use one item (image) to identify 11 separate objects so the article doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3. If one front cover is considered to significantly increase readers' understanding of an article describing one album/DVD/video, why is this suddenly not the case when one merges several of these articles into 1 new article? (I have also given additional reasons why images in this case significantly increase readers' understanding, but I didn't get a reply on that either.)
  • You: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article."
  • Me: there is no such guideline.
  • You: I repeat, you will not succeed. That's just how it works around here. You're an extreme literalist. Restore the images at your own peril. Your move, sport etc. etc.
  • Hammersoft, is it any wonder I keep believing I'm right? You never give any real answers at all! Lumdeloo (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This use of cover art fails WP:NFCC#8: “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.” Although there is a consensus the use of a non-free image in an infobox to identify the subject of the article does increase reader understanding, this consensus applies only to that restricted case: It does not apply to non-free content within an article to identify a subtopic. Unfortunately many people are confused by the acceptance of non-free content with the seemingly weak rationale of identifying the subject of an article. But any other use requires a very strong rationale: the article almost certainly would have to have critical commentary on the cover art such that showing the cover was necessary to understanding the article. (The guideline does not explicitly mention videography, but a videography is essentially the same thing as a discography; and WP:NFC#Images 2 says explicitly that an album cover as part of a discography is not an acceptable use.)
    Having said all that, a content dispute is never vandalism. If Lumdeloo uploaded the covers again, the remedy would be to nominate them at WP:FFD. Having seem many similar cases there, I am confident that they would be deleted. And having failed FFD, future uploads would be subject to speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • teb728, thanks for your answer. You start off saying that the article fails to meet non-free content policy. However, then you immediately switch to consensus (not policy or guidelines) to prove your point. What's the official status of consensus when it has not ended up in policy or guidelines? Secondly, I already addressed the question whether this article is a discography or not (see above). What is wrong with my line of thought there? Thirdly, I agree that what goes for a discography, also should go for a videography. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When someone willfully violates policy, in full knowledge that s/he is doing so, it is vandalism. Lumdeloo knows full well what the policy is. He's been directed to the policy, the guideline, categories hosting similar articles and prior discussions. Not one of those resources has supported his conclusion. Just because someone is in disagreement with a policy does not mean that when they violate it, it is somehow not vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • <Sigh> I am not in disagreement with policy. I am in disagreement with you. I have argued why I think policy and guideline allow this kind of use. I have argued why those "similar" articles are not so similar at all. And we both agreed that prior discussions are not the same as guidelines or policy. Are you ever going to address these points, or are you going to call me "sport" again? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I have repeatedly said, I'm not going to keep debating this with you. I will, teb's objections not withstanding, treat the reinclusion of these images as vandalism. You know full well what the policy is. Violate it at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you don't know what the policy is. It seems you're confusing prior discussions with actual policy. I'm still hoping there are people around here who can distinguish between the two. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So far, not one soul has come to your defense. Odd, that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't expect anyone here to come to my defense. If only someone would give me a substantial reply... I can hope, can't I? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • <de-indent> You've been given multiple substantial replies. You just don't agree with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • True, at a certain point you did provide some useful background information. But when it became clear you were relying on your own made-up guideline ("if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article") instead of actual policy, you started chickening out. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arb Break

I know I've proposed the idea of allowing, in such list articles, the non-free cover image for identification of subtopics which would otherwise have complete full articles, albeit short, about them if the subtopics were written about individually, but for editorial decisions on comprehensiveness, have been keep as a single article. I don't propose the Glen Campbell videos above quality, but I recently encountered Music of the Katamari Damacy series which I do consider as falling under the exception for multiple covers in a "discography", as reasonably, each of those albums would stand by themselves in an article, but makes a better comprehensive article put together.

I would like to know if others believe this is the case, as this would further help define the dividing line when discographies/etc. can become exceptional to have those. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't agree. We had a debate about this recently regarding Music of the Command & Conquer series. That ended up with one image being retained. I think the line you're trying to describe is fuzzy at best. I think a much clearer line is whether a subsection of an article can stand on its own or not. If it can't, there's not much basis for an argument that we have to have a fair use image to describe it. We have processes in place regarding notability of subjects. There's AfD to cover articles. The case you describe has no supporting processes. We don't have Wikipedia:Article subsections for deletions, or any process for external review of the notability of a subsection of an article. I can see your point, but do not see anyway to reasonably enforce it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Of course, I would go further. When an album/dvd/videogame article describes more than one release, the use of an front cover for each of these releases is allowed, according to non-free policy and guidelines, for the same reason it is allowed for an article which describes just a single release. Whether the article is just a stub or of a very high quality doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter for an article about a single release. However, some editors (see above) claim that according to "consensus" or "longstanding practice" this is not allowed and drag in the concept of notability to avoid having front cover images in those articles. However, this is against notability policy and also not in accordance with non-free content policy. I don't believe this group of editors would ever agree with your idea (which in my view tries to restore the balance between quality and free content which got lost in current practice) but the truth is, we don't need them to agree. Consensus within a certain group does not overrule policy. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Four images

User:Sligocki is making a claim that the following four images qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}:

Comments welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an overly-liberal interpretation of PD-textlogo. It's a loophole to begin with, we really don't need to push it as far as it will go. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Maaaaybe the File:Spb metro logo.svg. The other three are obviously not textlogos, and I'm pretty sure that "a shape that is designed to look like an M" is not automatically given the status of typeface. Clearly not the intention of the PD-textlogo template. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say no to all of them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If any of them are close, I'd say File:MetroSP.png, because it is just Helvetica, some rectangles, and some lines. Graphic element on the left seems to be simple geometry, or composed of typographical elements (say a ^ and a | ). But it is pushing it a bit. I'd agree with the above.-Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the latter two would be fine without their logos; the former two are not ok in any part. Powers T 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg - this isn't a letter, or combination of letters, or any geometric shape. It has no grounds to be ineligible for copyright.
File:Spb metro logo.svg - This could be a letter. I'm not really up on my Cyrillic alphabet, but this easily could be a single letter with some artistic variation. If it is a letter (like the letter "M"), then it meets the criteria for {{PD-textlogo}} as its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." [1]
File:MetroSP.png - Arrows are not subject to copyright, neither are squares, rectangles or plain text. This one fits PD-text to a "T"
File:MTR Corporation.svg - Same as above, but even moreso as they are Chinese characters. — BQZip01 — talk 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Re File:Spb metro logo.svg, you said it yourself "with some artistic variation". So it's not straight text.
  • Re File:MetroSP.png a square or arrow might not be copyrightable, but if you arrange several of them it can be. Again, artistic variation. There's several at play here.
  • File:MTR Corporation.svg the icon on the left of the image is not a Chinese character. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You say discussions with me are "futile", yet you keep responding and twisting my words.
File:Spb metro logo.svg, "with some artistic variation" means it is still a letter "M" and therefore PD-text. "...copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation..." In short, if it is an "M", then it is text and its "...intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." and it cannot be copyrighted. It really is that simple.
File:MetroSP.png "[XYZ] might be copyrightable" You seem to have no desire to delve into actual copyright law and learn what is copyrightable and what isn't. You are content with saying "it might not be, so we have to assume it isn't." There is no counter to that specious argument. Just because you personally don't know doesn't mean you just do what you want anyway.
Arrows (in both of the last two images, though the last one is of such small resolution that it is marginally useful at best) are not copyrightable: ...it is not possible to copyright...a standard symbol such as an arrow..."
You cannot make something copyrightable by placing a box around it much as you can't simply outline it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lather-rinse-repeat. All over the project. It never ends. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hammer, it doesn't help to complain about bureaucracy, but it does help to show where I am wrong. I am quoting from the U.S. Copyright office which explicitly mentions the design feature here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that no matter how hard anyone tries, you don't ever shift your position. For the sake of happiness, I'll allow that from your perspective I'm sure you feel the same about me. You've reiterated the claim about the copyright office I don't know how many times. Honestly, we get it, we know you disagree, we know you quote the copyright office to substantiate your belief. In turn, we disagree with your position. The paradox and irony I find here is I think you'd prefer everything were free. That's exacly what I would like to see too, which is why I love this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
File:MetroSP.png – This is a simple combination of letters and geometric shapes. It is a textbook case PD-textlogo.
File:MTR Corporation.svg – The icon on the left is not a letter or a simple geometric shape. Unless this icon is a PD for some reason, the logo as a whole is not PD.
File:Shanghai Metro logo.svg – The S is distorted into a circle with a center bar and the M is superposed on the bar. Although it is composed entirely of letters, the artist has shown great originality. (The distortion and superposition are similar in kind to the Bruins logo we discussed above. Although this one has a bit less originality than the Bruins logo, it still crosses the threshold.)
File:Spb metro logo.svg – The side bars of the М are distorted into a circular shape. It is no more like a Cyrillic M than a Latin M (Indeed a upper case Cyrillic М is the same as a Latin M; lower case Cyrillic м is like a small cap Latin M, in cursive script with a hook-in on the left.) Although it has less originality than the Shanghai logo, it still crosses the threshold. —teb728 t c 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how the logo on MTR Corporation.svg is not a simple geometric shape, but the one on MetroSP.png is. Powers T 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chervona Ruta (film)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All the screenshot have been deleted except the one used in the infobox. —teb728 t c 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

I have removed most of the images. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Video cover art or a poster would be better suited for this function. Lacking that, this screenshot is marginally acceptable. But its rationale ("to illustrate the article") is inadequate; illustrating an article is never an adequate rationale for non-free image use.
The others (see use in this version) are clear violations of WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). The gallery of non-free images is particularly bad; non-free images are never acceptable in a gallery. —teb728 t c 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] File:Sofiarotarudushaposter1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

As the lead image, I'm inclined to say it's ok- I did remove the non-free gallery and the DVD cover, and I also cropped the other image so that it can now be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the fact that WP:FILMNFI and also WP:NFC#Images call for critical commentary, there is a consensus that a non-free image in the infobox fulfills WP:NFCC#8 by identifying the source of the article. The same applies posters used the same way in following sections.
With regard to this version of the article, however: In the presence of the poster, the video covers, File:SoulDVDsofiarotaru.jpg and File:Soulfilmsofiarotaru.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3. And the gallery images File:Rotaruboyarski.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskiperform.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskirehearsal.jpg, and File:Rotarusoul.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). —teb728 t c 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
These images do increase the significance of the article, as they clearly show the first Soviet music video filmed during the movie. I think an appropriate text caption should be inserted...--Rubikonchik (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dniestrmelotitle.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Looks OK to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sofiarotarusingwillalwaysbewithus.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Again, seems fine. A single poster in the infobox is generally going to be useful. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wherehaslovegonesofiarotaru.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sofiarotarukaravan1.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sofiarotarumonologue3.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sofiarotarumonologue4.jpg

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Port Militarization Resistance

Article about an anti war organization in the US that was started in 2006. The article uses 9 different non-free images, with the rationale that the images are historically important. However I can not see any critical commentary on the images themself. Any views on how to handle this articl. Rettetast (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them all as lacking rationales and adding little to the article. It's possible one or two of them are legitimate (though I doubt it), so I'm all ears if someone wants to defend them. This article is exactly the reason that stupid "non-free historical image" rationale was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Little People

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Gallery images have been deleted. —teb728 t c 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article about a toy. I removed some of the non-free images in this article and was reverted. Do we need nine different non-free images to show how the toy looks like? Rettetast (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd the gallery images, which IMO is the way to go instead of edit warring with people who insist on keeping unacceptable images. —teb728 t c 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The FFD has closed, and the article is down to 4 non-free images. Seems to be resolved, unless someone thinks some of the remaining images need review. -Andrew c [talk] 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Windows Live Essentials

A short article about a software product. The article uses six different screenshots, and a total of seven non-free images. I can not see that all these images are needed to understand this article. There is no commentary on the screenshots in themself, and one of them are in the words of the editor who reverted my image removal; off "a completely separate product". Rettetast (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Images such as the screenshot of the download website has a very weak FUR, and the website itself is only very briefly mentioned in the article; I think their use are incompatible with NFCC#3a and 8. decltype (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say take the whole article to AfD. It's not even about the Windows Live software, it's about the install wizard for Windows Live. How is this notable? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it as having too many non-free images- hopefully a regular editor there will be interested in cutting it down. If not, take an axe to it. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is resolved or not. Images in article have been cut down to 3, though they are all non-free. First is the logo/icon for the software, and that seems ok. Next is a screenshot of the software installer. As mentioned above, it still has a very poor FUR. But if this article is about the installer itself, I guess a screenshot of it may work. The last image is a screenshot of the Microsoft webpage for this program. I see no reason to include that image. I mean, don't we already link to the webpage itself? The article isn't about the webpage, nor does it appear to be discussed. At least there are no longer 7 non-free images.-Andrew c [talk] 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elektra Records#Company logos

Is it OK according to WP:NFCC to have a gallery of eight old non-free logos that this record company has used in the past? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think yes, it is. Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not. Ignore Jheald. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
So nice to see a reasoned response here... Jheald (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't need a new discussion every time another article abuses our non-free content criteria. When you're sitting here trying to defend this kind of usage after you've spent so long hanging around in places like this, it's clear "reasoned responses" are pretty much worthless. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you think you have a case, then take them to FFD. But one-sidedly trying to bulldoze your way is not convincing. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Erm, no. If you want to change policy, you go and do that. But one-sidedly preventing any change to an article is not convincing. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WP has appropriate venues to settle content disputes, rather then edit warring. In this case, it's FFD. So use it. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It takes two sides to make an edit war. —teb728 t c 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it is explicitly forbidden: WP:NFCC#6 says, “images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.” And Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries says, “Fair use images may never be included as part of a image gallery” [original empasis]. —teb728 t c 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Using a reference from WP:NFC to WP:IUP to walk round explicit more nuanced consideration of this in WP:NFC, and WT:NFC in the past, doesn't make a lot of sense. I've update WP:IUP to reflect the current (heavily discussed) wording at WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
NFCC and IUP are both official policies. I mentioned NFCC only because the OP asked with reference to NFCC. I think you are totally out of line in making a change with no prior discussion in something that has been uncontested policy since 5 November, 2005. BTW, the guideline NFC does not supersede the policy IUP. —teb728 t c 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More generally, if the article had sourced critical commentary on the old logos, and if it were necessary to see an old logo to understand the commentary on that logo, the logo might be shown in the margin of the paragraph discussing it. But there is a clear, longstanding policy that non-free images may not be used in galleries. —teb728 t c 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really. If you want to go legal about it, because of their close relation to the subject, we consider logos to enhance the overall "critical commentary" the article provides about the topic (ie the understanding it brings to the reader about the subject), even when there is no discussion of the logos themselves. Hence the different treatment of logos in the list at WP:NFCI, which specifically does not require critical commentary on the logos. Jheald (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe most users would agree that your rationale for logos may apply to one logo appearing at the top of the article, in say an infobox, and does not equally translate to historical logos or galleries (especially when we have prohibition of non-free images in galleries). We do not (nor should not) allow a hypothetically infinite amount of non-free content. You only need one logo to identify the subject of an article, any more would fail WP:NFCC #3a and arguably WP:NFCC #8, without further justification or rationale (cited sources/critical commentary would help). The rule of thumb you cited about the general understanding we have of logos with or without discussion of the logos themselves only applies to one image (similarly, this applies to one album or book cover, one movie poster, one TV show title screen, etc), not multiple non-free items. -Andrew c [talk] 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that doesn't fully understand the position. The rationale for including logos is essentially twofold:
  • reader recognition, confirming to the reader that they have reached the right article (or part of an article)
  • (perhaps more importantly) to show to the reader the image that the company has chosen itself for identification, to encapsulate its identity
These motivations may apply as powerfully to past logos, as to present ones; particularly, as in the case of Electra, if the label is most significantly known for its "glory days" in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, rather than a present attempt to get a bit more cash out of an old name. In such a case it may be the old logos which are more valuable for reader recognition, and the sequence of identifications for the company at its height which is more valuable to document.
  • It's also not true that there is a "ration" of one per article, come what may. NFC policy doesn't work like that. Rather, the important thing is that each logo must add something useful to the understanding the reader can get from the article, so that it passes NFCC #8; to be balanced (as the rising scale at WP:NFCI indicates) against the quality of copyright taking the image represents. Since logos are deliberately designed to be as widely publicised and used as possible, and there is no commercial damage in using them, the quality of the copyright taking is minimal. That is why they come right at the bottom of the list, and they are the type of images we can be most permissive of. So, for example, in a long discussion of the history of a company, there's little disagreement that it is acceptable to include a particularly representative logo to reflect each main "era" -- even if there is no specific discussion of the logo, and nor is the visual design of the company the headline topic of the article.
(As regards album covers, there is also broad consensus that additional cover art can be shown if it is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" (Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion)) [10].
  • As for NFCC #3, it is useful to note that the language of #3 is primarily legal in origin. The word "minimal" is taken straight from jurisprudence on the third U.S. Fair Use factor, where courts have defined it to mean "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified". It is perhaps useful to remember that Wikipedia's lawyer has essentially said that appropriate use of old logos is legally okay [11].
Of course, even if legal, we don't want Wikipedia to feel dominated by other people's content. So it's very important that we agree that such content is serving a good purpose, if we are to agree to use it. But this brings me back to my opening post above: in this case this content is serving a good purpose. It is valuable, and validly encyclopedic, to trace the branding history; it is valuable, for the "identification" reasons above, because these were the glory days of the label; and it is valuable because it gives people a way to immediately date records they may own to distinctie eras of the label's history. So for the key test, NFCC#8, this material does indeed significantly improve the reader's knowledge and understanding of the topic. And that is why it should substantially be kept. Jheald (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's implied that the presence of such logos enhances the reader's understanding, but as there is no discussion of how the branding of the company affected it through the years, the rationales for the logo changes, or anything else, it leaves the question to the reader to figure out why they are important, thus failing NFCC#8. If the historical logos were a critical component of the company's direction, then I could see that (for example, why add a butterfly? what did that do?). Now, there is one case here that I valid, and that is based including the old stencil E that, according to the caption for the new logo in the gallery, was the basis for that new logo. Presuming that can be sourced, then there's a valid reason to keep the stencil E one (which based on the timeline, is also the logo with the longest use span, and thus the second most significant after the current logo). But for all the other logos, there's no impact on the reader and provide no new comprehension on the article. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not needed, fails to meet our image use requirements. --John (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to 1966, Elektra Records was known as a folk music label as can be noted by the "guitar player" logo used prior to that year. In 1966, when Elektra broadened itself by adding rock music to its offerings, the original "stencil E" logo was added as can be seen at [12]. In 1983, it switched to a new logo shown at [13]. In 1989, the label changed its name to Elektra Entertainment at which point the "double E" logo was used until the label went dormant after it was absorbed by Atlantic Records. The full story can be found in the official Elektra web site at [14] which looks as if they borrowed some of the logos from Wikipedia so there is a reason to keep the logos because the subject of the article uses the material. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but it doesn't suddenly mean we need a gallery of non-free logos. Discuss the history of the label with references to reliable sources. If, after the discussion has been written, it becomes clear that an image of a logo or two would be beneficial (don't just force discussion of logos in with dubious sources, that doesn't help anyone) then the logos can be added. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I add some context to this discussion. To declare my interest, I am a long-standing 'student' of the label, friend of Jac Holzman and I produce the so-called 'Master' discography that documents the label up to Holzman's departure in 1973. Several of the logos that used to be on the page were sourced (without permission) from my web site ... and I have a licence from Elektra to use them. I refrained from correcting and completing the images because it would have broken my licence terms. Masem raises a very important point. Elektra was one of the first (if not the first) labels to actively use its design to enhance promote and add a cohesiveness to its output. The labels and logos do document that although, to be pedantic, it is the labels more than the logos: they are connected but not entirely. The corporate design strategy of Elektra (through William S Harvey and Jac Holzman) included full-colour album sleeves (front and back), band logos, high-quality sleeve design and innovative advertising. If they were indeed first to do such things strategically then a separate section (or even article) on the design would be appropriate. In that context the evolution of logos would fit since the article would be reviewing the design and therefore fair use would be for the purposes of review and/or criticism. I am inclined to agree with Masem's suggestion that a single logo to 'identify' the brand fits best with a purely historic piece and the stencil 'E' is the one I would choose also. Delverie (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CheDelToro3.jpg

Image of a living person. The image is being used solely as decoration on the Benicio Del Toro article, as there is nothing in the article which discusses his appearance, nor even addresses the image. Fair use rationale is not correct. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As the uploader I dispute the diagnosis of "decoration". I uploaded the image to display his role for which he won a Cannes and Goya award for. Part of the consideration for his awards, was his personal transformation to play the character ... that is best seen through an image. Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, there is now a mention of the image in question in the article's text. Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This is borderline, I'd say. It's not "just decoration", as the article does seem to discuss how that particular role was iconic for him; likewise, the FUR isn't totally convincing either, as the article doesn't seem to say much specifically (caveat: I only skimmed briefly) about how visual appearance was important to that role. Nevertheless, I think I'm leaning towards keep... if this were a FAC I'd definitely say it needs some work, but for a regular article I think it at least meets the bare minimum threshold for inclusion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stars my destination vintage.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the third cover of the book in question used in the article The Stars My Destination. While the use of the first edition cover is standard, and a case could be made for the SF Masterworks edition, the use of this image strikes me as decorative and excessive. Specifically, this fails to meet the requirements for cover art specified in WP:NFCI criterion one: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Skomorokh, barbarian 09:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] File:Bathurst_van_accident.png

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted as orphaned. —teb728 t c 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fair use rationale for this image doesn't make sense to me, and I think it makes more sense in the long run to request a free copy of the image from Transport Canada. Kirk (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, unless permission can be obtained. It's just decoration, the image doesn't appear to be the subject of any critical commentary in the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: According to Transport Canada on non-commercial reproduction: "Information on this site, other than government symbols, has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the (Applied Title of the Institution). We ask only that:
  • Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • The (Applied Title of the Institution) be identified as the source department; and
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the (Applied Title of the Institution).[15]

This very well may be an image we can use it just doesn't have the right licensing. Further discussion is needed as I'm not the most up on copyright law. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Hi - Wikipedia does not fall under non-commercial use, so this photo would fall under commercial use (see WP:NFC for more info). If you read a little further on the transport canada site, they have the information on how to request permission to use the content, and you can use WP:BRP as a template for the request.
Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_content and the template Template:Non-free with NC, thinking those might help but I can't really find any of the existing fair use templates which apply here. It doesn't help the article does not discuss the photo at all.Kirk (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den

Author died 1982, no reason to assume that this poem is free. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This poem is reproduced all over the place, and I don't believe Chao was ever restrictive about its use even when it was alive (he allowed it to be used in many articles). It's similar to a linguistic example sentence. Plus, since the article is about the poem, it makes sense to quote it. Also note that the current PRC copyright law was not established until 2001 (I believe the previous version was 1990, still long after the poem was written). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You can even download current movies all over the place. Should I put them here on WP?
Why do you assume that PRC law would be important in this case? Isn't WP in the USA? --91.55.204.55 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No source for authorship, no reason to assume that this poem is non-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, not some poem where the authorship is in doubt. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reference in the article. If there is no doubt, please state by whom, where and when it was published, so that it's possible to assess this allegation of copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, read it then. It's right there. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Checked again, don't see it. Please link the citation here.
Not really. Just read the article and you will find the author's name. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's non-free, and no, the full text should not be there. If I'm wrong, prove it. Someone familiar with the article remove it. If not, I'll go at it with a hatchet. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the burden of proof lie on the one laying the charges? You're claiming it's non-free. Don't demand negative proof. Using your logic I can remove every article on WP by claiming it's copyvio.
Are you suggesting that this is not Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den by Yuen Ren Chao? It's very obviously non-free, as it is written by a guy who died in 1982. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You wanna do that, I'll happily block you. Now, be reasonable. Author died in the 1980s- that would mean the poem is still under copyright. If you disagree with this assumption, explain why... J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And the source for Yuen Ren Chao being the author is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
EatMine, it is well-known that YR Chao is the author. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, remove it from the article for being unsourced... Look, seriously, shut up, do something useful. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(out) J Milburn, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on your first point. Even if it's non-free, entire copies of non-free content are allowable in articles that are about that work (see, for example, Entropa), and this is a rather short poem so it's not like we're copying the entirety of a novel. Furthermore, since the whole thing was meant as a linguistic example, it should be fine to reproduce (see, for example, List of linguistic example sentences—I don't think we're violating Noam Chomsky's rights by reprinting "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", or Tom Bever's rights by reprinting "The horse raced past the barn fell", as these are practically common knowledge and are widely used). There is no plagiarism concern, as the article states quite prominently that it's YR Chao's work. Finally, the use of this text doesn't infringe on anyone's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2) as no one is really going around trying to make a profit on this 40-year-old piece of work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Even for shorter songs and poems, the entire thing should not be reproduced (quotes are a different matter- we reproduce the quotes, not whole speechs- so, by comparison, quote this poem) unless it is free, in which case it belongs on Wikisource. Even if it may be "as good as free", it technically isn't, so doesn't belong on Wikisource- therefore it must be treated as any other non-free text. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC #3b. There is absolutely no reason to have 15 versions/translations/transcriptions of the exact same non-free work. I also see no reason to include the entire poem when an exert or quote can suffice. Do you know who the current copyright holder is? If not, then how can you claim it isn't infringing on anyone's commercial opportunities? If someone either inherited or bought the rights to this poem, and the copyright hasn't expired, then there are still commercial opportunities. You can't will those away based on your own speculation. Furthermore, I think it needs to be clearly stated that all works are assumed to be copyrighted unless clearly demonstrated otherwise (either by showing the item has been release under a free license, or demonstrating the copyright has lapsed or expired). Let us not forget that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, and what that means. -Andrew c [talk] 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If your claim of non-free is as so, then one should ask why the same article has not been deleted from the Chinese Wikipedia, to which the servers are also located in Florida, and thus must comply with US copyright laws. If one can contact the Chinese Wikipedia and get them to delete the poem, then I by no means see why you cannot here; however if you cannot, I must argue likewise. As with Rjanag's argument that this very short literary piece is linguistically significant and is thus distributed everywhere, I do not believe that this comes under non-free. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there also appears to be little or no controversy on the Yue Chinese Wikipedia, the Korean Wikipedia, the Russian Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, the Minnan Chinese Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, and the Spanish Wikipedia. Start convincing them to delete theirs, before you can convince me. QUOTE: "There is absolutely no reason to have 15 versions/translations/transcriptions of the exact same non-free work." That is the exact purpose of the article - to demonstrate how, when Classical Chinese, today a solely written language, is spoken using Vernacular Chinese variants, spoken languages, one can make very little sense of it. Also note that no one owns the copyrights to the Vernacular translations. The original text was written in Classical Chinese, and a part of the article holds the poem in Vernacular Chinese; such a thing would be like grabbing "Oh Romeo, where art thee? Methinks I hath lost thou" and "translating" it into "Romeo, where the hell are you? You fell in a hole or something?" - clearly not original enough to be considered of copyright by YR Chao. So technically there aren't "15 translations of the same poem" - 2 International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciations of the Original Classical Chinese text, as it would be said by someone 500 or 1000 years ago (how are pronunication guides copyright? We have such things at the start of almost every article about something foreign) so that no living, sane man, woman or dog could possibly make any sense of the IPA just by itself (as said, it is a pronunciation guide, it does not convey meaning. This is the same with all the romanizations; without logograms, Chinese is meaningless; it is definitionless. Logograms convey meaning through ideas, not sounds, which is a concept very important, as demonstrated in the article. There would be no information; it would be parallel to writing "bah bah bah woof woof woof" for 36,000 loops), versions in various Chinese dialects... I feel that it would be fair and reasonable to use these "15", as there is no reason to state that thay are all commercial. QUOTE: "I also see no reason to include the entire poem when an exert or quote can suffice." The entire poem is made of "shi shi shi..." do you think that anyone would be able to make any sense or meaning from a portion of the poem? Surely that would be very confusing for the reader. What people want when reading an article is to make an understanding of something they don't understand - otherwise, why would we all be here? I browse Wikipedia to find the molar mass of Calcium carbonate; to find the date that Alfred Nobel died; to find out how many fatalities there were during the Yom Kippur War. If we were to include no poem or a partial poem, we utterly fail at properly explaining what needs to be explained. One needs the entire poem to be able to make sense of the "shi shi shi" which would otherwise be gibberish even to the most learned of Chinese linguists. If it is not complete, it makes no sense at all, and so the article becomes pointless. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The big question I have is this; when was this written? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that is immaterial to Chinese copyright law. According to this translation, it is 50 years after his death. In the US, the publication date is key. However, it would be 95 years after publication. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As Carl Sandburg wrote in the old lawyers' nostrum, The People, Yes (1936), "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts." Right now, I don't have the law on my hands, as I can't really argue law very well, so I am arguing the facts, facts being that having no poem or a partial poem would make no sense for the reader, and is therefore a poor idea of resolving a "non-free text" issue, in rebuttal of User:Andrew c. We can only find an alternate solution; the current ones proposed do not help the improvement of the article nor our current situation in any way. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed: The entirety of Lenin's Hanging Order is used in Lenin's Hanging Order without any issues. 95 years after publication in 1918 (by secrecy) would be 2013; 95 years after first release to the public from Soviet archives would be 2086. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You're babbling about absolutely nothing. The poem is non-free. We do not host non-free poems. Please remove it. This should be an article about the poem- regardless of whether it is free (which it isn't) it shouldn't be included. If it is not removed, I am just going to delete the majority of the article as a copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How can one explain the poem if one cannot see the poem? An article about the poem needs specific content from the poem itself in order to make any sense. And I am babbling that there are many other examples of non-free texts being on Wikipedia, without any controversy. What makes this one any different? Under your argument, you should go and delete Lenin's Hanging Order first. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't care. Secondly, you're wrong. We manage to have featured articles on novels without transcribing the entire work, and even when the poem is PD, we hide most of the actual text. Just remove it, it's against policy. If you have problems with other pages, we can discuss them once this one has been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it myself, probably rather clumsily. I gave you plenty of chance to fix the issue yourself... J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You cannot compare this with The Raven as the poem we're dealing with is much smaller, so that a synopsis would be out of the picture. Again, you have ignored the argument that no one can claim copyright to the vernacular translation (I am actually wondering as to whether any of my points have been read), nor the pronunciation guides. The most that can ever be claimed would be the original, and the original only. And sorry for seeming like I'm complaining and nagging about WP:OTHERCRAP, but I do feel that you seem to be agitated or in a rush or something; I'm not advocating that other pages be deleted nor am I arguing that they be kept. I am just wondering why you are making an inferrence based on false dilemma, where we have similar examples on pages such as Samantha Smith#Life (PD-US impossible, born 1972), just a simple inquiry. I don't see the need for either of us to be blunt, and I do think that you should try to be a bit more empathetic when reasoning with others. Lots of kindness, and hopes for better cooperation in the future, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, Lenin's Hanging Order is in the PD under the claims of life of author plus 70 years, and published before 1923 (so discussion of that in this forum is off topic, though the question on whether it is encyclopedic to including full text of primary sources may be valid, it's still off topic here). While I would like to remove every instance of copyright violations on Wikipedia, the task is enormous, and you can't hold one or two individuals accountable for that. However, when someone brings a concern or issue to such a public venue as this, it would be nonsensical not to act based on claims that other copyvios exist. Hey, please tell me every instance of a copyvio/NFC abuse that you know of, and I'd gladly address them as well. We are only biased in that we'll only address issues brought to the attention of this page.-Andrew c [talk] 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is just simply not enough numerical variation in the romanizations. Being alphabetized, they no longer share the meaning offered by logograms, and merely serve as loops of "shi shi shi...", and unlike alphabetized words in English, they cannot be distinguishable enough to form meaningful words, let alone sentences. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An author can certainly claim copyright on translations. Do you really think it would be legitimate of me to translate Harry Potter into some minor language (Manx? I doubt it's been translated into Manx...) and then sell it, without Rowling's permission? No. J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a translation, it is a transliteration. A translation is a transfer of a text from one intelligible language to another, a language intelligible to humans. This is a transliteration to a different writing system, namely the Latin alphabet and IPA, to the degree that it is not intelligible to any human being. Give any Chinese a sheet of "Shi shi shi..." to read, and they will not understand a bit of it, not only due to tones, but also due to homophones, lack of ideographs, the scarcity of Classical Chinese in the modern age, and randomness to the point where it would be almost impossible for any human being to understand the text in that form. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was... not a little taken aback to find the text of the poem vanished from the article. As some have said above, this poem is clearly linguistically significant, and should be treated similarly to "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", etc. Please restore the text to the article as you see fit. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use.

The full text of the poem is required:

  • To illustrate the subject in question
  • No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
  • The intention of including the text is to educate, not for any sort of profit or gain, nor to "supersede" the original work.
    • The original text was not intended for profit or gain either.

Seriously, I am shocked that this has even an issue. This is completely ridiculous - the author of the poem never meant to restrict its copying in any way, but to educate people about Classical Chinese. The people who brought this issue up should be ashamed of themselves. 131.111.248.85 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the author of the poem never meant to restrict its copying in any way That is awesome! Now then. Where is this documented? How can we determine the copyright status? Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, we simply cannot take your word for it.-Andrew c [talk] 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who knows chinese and has a bit of common sense can see that by the content of the poem. But actually that is irrelevant to "fair use", which the article satisfies. I was just adding it as a side point. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is irrelevant, but whatever. As for this being about "fair use", it simply is not. Wikipedia has stricter standards than simple "fair use". See WP:NFCC. We clearly have a bias for free content. Something that may be legal and "fair use" may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia due to our stricter policy. -Andrew c [talk] 12:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


[edit] arbitrary break

It's clear that the discussion here is not really getting anywhere. I would suggest we open this up to an RfC at the article's talk page. Specifically, I think we need editors who can more clearly determine the copyright status of the poem, because to be honest it's still not clear, and it will help if someone can track down where it was first published and what copyright law that would fall under. (For example, I don't know if it falls under Chinese or US copyright law, as Chao was in California for most of his life and most of his books are published through U of California Press. Another issue is whether it was intended as a linguistic example--for example, like the stimuli used in linguistic experiments--or as a creative work.) Since there's not a clear agreement anywhere, I think RfC is the best way to go. I have limited internet access right now, but if everyone agrees an RfC is warranted then I can start it on Sunday night. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

copyright is irrelevant; if it is still under copyright then it qualifies for fair use, for the reasons I stated above. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Which edit was that? The only edit above from 193.60.95.68 does not present reasons for fair use. If you created an account and logged in, people would be better able to follow your reasons. In any case Wikipedia's policy on not free content is more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 08:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Re teb728: Both 131.111.248.85 and 193.60.95.68 are from UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UNITED KINGDOM. That's why I always check Geolocate, the first thing I do, everytime I see an IP editor. :P -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No free equivalent. Respect for commercial opportunities. Usage of a very small amount of text. Previous publication. Encyclopedic content. Media-specific policy. One-article minimum. (and most important of all...) Contextual significance. What more could you want? As far as I can see, the article as it was a week ago adheres to these points. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright comrades, here is what I interpret so far regarding the concept of "free use" and the article in question:

  • No free equivalent. There is no free alternative of the poem.
  • Respect for commercial opportunities. Highly doubtful that this poem, very brief in detail and length, and in almost every single language-education textbook in the People's Republic of China, would become commercial. YR Chao's only living offspring are academians, and not profiteers. Even if it is so, Wikipedia's fair use does not come into conflict with it becoming commercial; it would be more logical to go for the thousands of PRC-government-owned and private-owned educational textbook manufacturers first than to go for Wikipedia, in the case that they suddenly think that they should do so. Same goes for websites, published papers, etc. However, once this has been announced, one can easily remove the text. As of now, YR Chao's offspring have done nothing to the thousands of book publishers in China and abroad; how is Wikipedia any different?
  • Minimal usage. The text doesn't even surpass 300 bytes. The message that I am posting write now will soon surpass 2,000 bytes.
  • Previous publication. It's everywhere, you just have to look. And don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.
  • Content. Meaningful and encyclopedic, as required.
  • Media-specific policy. Does Wikipedia have specific policy on text quotations?
  • Contextual significance. How is it not?
  • Restrictions on location. Unlikely for the poem to crop up anywhere else on Wikipedia.
  • Image description page. Not applicable.

Any comments? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b: “An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.” The title and its transliteration (together with free text description of how the title is typical of the poem) suffices. WP:NFCC#1: A free equivalent does not have to be a free poem: The replacement can be prose text. The free text summary description remaining after the removal of the poem serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the poem. WP:NFCC#5: The article is significantly more encyclopedic with the removal of the poem. (WP:NFCC#Enforcement: “Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created”) —teb728 t c 10:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) So no one is interested in opening an RfC as I suggested? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested, but I may not be able to participate in the next few weeks... I'll see how things go. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment to decide whether it's ok to publish the entirity of a non-free poem several times over? I don't think we need that... J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The poem still is copyrighted in China. China has one of the most liberal copyright laws in the world, so it would be safe to assume that it's copyrighted in every other country. Now, as for copyright, if not released under a free license, it's either fully copyrighted or it's in the public domain. Nothing in between. We also know that the U.S. has one of the most liberal fair use laws in the world, and on top of that the English Wikipedia has one of the most liberal fair use policies in Wikimedia. I'm not trying to say, it must be OK here because it's OK there; I'm saying, it's either OK everywhere, or prohibited everywhere, or if there were one Wikipedia where it would be OK, that would be the English Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to check with the other Wikipedias first. If they can defend the inclusion successfully, they must know something about copyright law we don't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the several reasons above, there are several reasons why things are unclear about this poem. (And I'm not sure if China's copyright law is the one that applies, as I'm pretty sure Chao wrote and published this in the US, like he did A Grammar of Spoken Chinese and his other works.) Things need to be discussed in more detail, and in a more organized fashion, and it would be nice to start the discussion fresh and with some new people...that's why I suggested moving this to an RfC in another location. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. J Milburn: The mere presence of many people of an different opinion, while not necessarily making that opinion right, at least makes the matter a subject of debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who believe in the absolute scientific truth of intelligent design- that doesn't mean a "debate" is needed. A debate is required when there are two potentially valid opposing views. Once again, King of Hearts, you really need to stop pandering to mass opinion and just deal with the problems as they arise. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) I wrote up a draft of an RfC intro at User:Rjanag/Lion RFC. People involved, you are welcome to review it and let me know if you think this fairly reflects the opinions of all the editors involved. If there are no objections, I can post that message to the article's talk page and file an RfC there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be one pointless RFC. Just prove the poem is not copyrighted and it can be included. If not, include a section of the poem, not the complete poem, in the article and make sure it passes WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg

Is the fair use rationale provided for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario,[16] even though a grammatical nightmare due to the title of the article, valid for its use on the article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. It fails WP:NFCC#8, “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.” The article would be perfectly understandable without use of the image. The article needs no “visual accompaniment to a description of the sign” for user understanding. —teb728 t c 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images in History of Blackpool F.C. (1887–1962) and History of Blackpool F.C. (1962–present)

Most, if not all, non-free images used in these articles, including a lot of portraits, appear to be decorative and serving no encyclopedic purpose. Images in question are:

These images are generally used elsewhere as well, with proper non-free use rational, so they shouldn't be deleted altogether, but they should be removed from the above articles. --Mosmof (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few images from a few articles. Bloomfield Road needs a serious looking at, and it would appear a lot of the images on that article are used with questionable legitimacy elsewhere... J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on images used in articles about Blackpool F.C., I noticed that several season articles use non-free squad photos:

Now, I understand the fair use rationale that would be made in these cases, that they provide visual identification. But the article subject is the season, not an object that can be visually identified, and there's less value in these squad photos as visual descriptors than portraits in articles about individuals. Are these acceptable uses? --Mosmof (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:IWASWorldWheelchairandAmputeeGames-Men's200m-T42.pdf

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The pdf has been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-free file which isn't an image (it's a PDF) and this isn't being used in any article, per se. This is why I have tagged it for 7 day speedy deletion as being orphaned. However, there is another side to this story. The uploader has told me the file IS being used, as a reference in a footnote in an article. It was my understanding that we do not upload sources to Wikipedia (freely licensed sources can go to Wikisource). I figured we could just cite the document in question, without necessarily uploading or even linking to it. However, the situation is complex as it isn't clear how published this information was in the first place. I'm a little wary of WP:NOR, but that is besides the point. What I want to know is, does WP:NFCC cover instances such as this? Can use upload non-free content that is being used for sources? See our user talk discussion for more background. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Er, no. Either it's used or it isn't. Footnoting a link to it doesn't make it used. Furthermore, if it's questionable as to whether it's been published before, we shouldn't be publishing it ourselves (that runs afoul of fair use law on prior publication). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it is just a text table, it is also replaceable. Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source (nor I think is Wikisource). So let's see; it fails NFCC 1, 4, 7, and 8. —teb728 t c 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hi, I'm the uploader. I don't quite understand the replaceability point – in what way is it replaceable because it is a text table? I know that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but the point is that this information was provided by a reliable source (the Chinese Taipei Paralympic Committee) which agreed for the document to be uploaded to Wikipedia and used on it. I am not sure why the OTRS reviewer felt that the document was not properly released under a free licence – I had asked the Committee if they had any objections to the document being released under the CC-BY and GFDL licences and they said no. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply It is replaceable because the table below (for example) is a free copy of the first table in the pdf, and the rest of the pdf could be replaced in the same way. The OTRS reviewer determined that it did not have a free license because (as you said) the committee “agreed for the document to be uploaded to Wikipedia and used on it.” A free license is permission that allows reuse by anyone for anything. But even if the committee had licensed it under a free license, it would not be useful for verification because being hosted on Wikipedia nobody can tell that it actually came from the committee.
Final Round
RankAthlete(s)LanePoints
1Mcfall, JohnGBR326.2
2Popow, HeinrichGER428.51
3Gnanendra SinghIND528.99
—teb728 t c 08:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Should be deleted. PDFs aren't really supposed to be uploaded, and it's not necessary here--if the only purpose is for citing a source, it's perfectly fine to cite an off-wiki source without linking to it. (Look at Chinese classifier#Bibliography, that's a featured article and almost none of the sources are available online.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Dance Premier League

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All the images but the one used for identification have been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This fairly new and fairly short article contains thirteen images, all of which claim fair use.

It seems excessive to me—what do y'all think? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the logo gallery. The main logo should be ok. Rettetast (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for my accidental reversion. This was due to the watchlist not being very iPhone-friendly; using the touchscreen to enlarge the text results in pressing buttons you don't want to be pressed. Thank God the 'block' function has an extra step before activating. The JPStalk to me 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] File:Enchanted Forest 01.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this fails NFC #1 for the article Enchanted Forest Water Safari. Why use a copyrighted postcard when someone could walk up and take a free picture at any time? (Note: even if the statue of Paul Bunyan is copyrighted, a free picture of the copyrighted statue is still preferable to a copyrighted picture of the copyrighted statue.) Powers T 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the photo quality gained through 40 years of technological advancement. Where's the family station wagon? This photo would be acceptable if the postcard was notable enough to merit its own article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion as replaceable, which it clearly is. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] File:Milla Jovovich Resident Evil 2002.jpg

Non-free image of a living actress, used in the biography article for nothing other than to show what she looks like in one role. I left a note about this image at Talk:Milla Jovovich#Non-free image and no one responded in a month and a half, but when I removed it today an editor immediately objected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • That she designs fashion is known. That the fashion she designed for Resident Evil is notable is weak at best. Nothing in the sources for the article indicate this. Further, the prose in the section where the image is is not connected to the image in regards to fashion. No reason to use a fair use image to depict what is so unimportant to the article. Fails NFCC #1 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article passed its GAN with a picture of Jovovich from Resident Evil (...this is not that relevant, I know). The sixth GA criterium says "Illustrated", which is a reason for this picture. It was not added to make the article look nicer or whatsoever. In the article there are lots of refereces to Jovovich's role in action movies; and as I mentioned the article also comments the costume. Btw. she played in three resident evil films, not "one". In my opinion, the infobox image does not explain how she looks like in action-horror movies, for which she is known - why she was referred as the "reigning queen of kick-butt". So I don't see a point in removing content that is a part of the reason why the article is listed as a good article. That is basically only decreasing the quality of the article. Cheers..-- LYKANTROP ✉ 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:GACR says a good article is illustrated if possible. But the use of this non-free image is not possible in this article because its presence does not significantly increase readers’ understanding, as required by Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. The loss to the article from following this policy is very slight because the image contributes very little to the article. —teb728 t c 08:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand the non-free content policy. I just think that the image contributes very much to the article, not very little. But if the majority thinks something else, I am probably out of luck..-- LYKANTROP ✉ 12:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:GACR is not even a guideline. It most certainly does not trump WP:NFCC. We must first abide by WP:NFCC, and THEN we can consider WP:GACR. The costume is not notable in secondary sources. Why should an image of a costume so non-notable as to not engender any comments from secondary sources be present in this article? That's a pretty simple answer; it shouldn't. See WP:NFCC #8. Also, since the image has already been replaced in functionality by text in the fashion section noting that she designed her own costumes, the image fails WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Can I take this to mean there's consensus to remove the image? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Robert Enke Hannover 96 Death.jpg

This image is currently used in the article about Robert Enke, a footballer who committed suicide on 10 November. It is my belief that the image's use in that article is in contravention of non-free content usage criterion 8, since the image does not serve to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and its omission would not detract from understanding. In my opinion, this image should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, far better would be to find a good free image from outside the stadium similar these (but I think these are not usable unless the owner releases them) chandler 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The image fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not contextually significant enough to add anything to the article that the prose can not convey. ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this screenshot is not copyrightable and thus PD, for it is just some text plus a textlogo. The reason the screenshot should be removed from the article is not lack of license but a total lack of encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
100% agreed with teb728. What exactly is the point of this image and how does it improve the article in any way whatsoever? howcheng {chat} 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ronald McDonald.jpg

I believe this image is replaceable by taking a picture of Ronald McDonald when he makes a public appearance. Powers T 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought there would be something suitable at Commons:Category:Ronald McDonald, but they are all plastic and have distracting backgrounds. —teb728 t c 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are even worse, since they're pictures of works of art. A picture of an actor in costume, though, could be freely licensed. Powers T 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
N.B.: I stand corrected; the pictures of statues are okay because they were taken in the Netherlands or Thailand, where photographers have "freedom of panorama". I agree, though, that a picture of a costumed actor would be preferable. My original point stands, of course. Powers T 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Insidethe Rev.jpg

The reason for this review request is that I do not feel that the given rationale is accurate.

The article for which this image is being used is Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela.

The notes on the file say: Author: Pablo Navarrete Source: The author himself URL: N/A Fair Use Rationale: Permission to reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) at the site of the original publication. The rationale on initial upload read (Author: Pablo Navarrete Source: The author himself URL: N/A Fair Use Rationale: He told me I could use it )

It is also shown as being PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

From the initial comment at upload, the uploader (User:Hi0u91e9) is obviously not the copyright owner.

I'm not sure if this would qualify as a fair-use image - hence why I am bringing it to review rather than flagging it as a copyvio.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:HCastListingNew.jpg

An image showing the extended cast, and their interrelationships, for the Malaysian drama Hero (MBC).

At the moment the use rationale is a low-quality cut-and-pasted bit of boilerplate, which has led to it being tagged {{dfu}}. But it seems to me that, as an official presentation of the ensemble cast, it is the kind of image that we actually encourage under WP:NFLISTS, as adding to reader understanding of the topic.

I therefore think, with an appropriately re-written rationale, an NFCC #8 call could go either way.

But that is not really the issue I wanted to bring up here. What I wanted views on is that this appears to be a translation of a studio publicity image. If that were the case, how would that affect its standing here?

The two images can be seen here, with what appears to be the original above. As can be seen, the lower image is a faithful copy, but with the information rendered so that it can be understood in English (thus communicating to an English audience the style and meaning of the original).

Now I am aware that there are some people who will just argue to get anything they can deleted. But if we try to take a step beyond that, would there be a case for keeping an image like this because the photographic elements are essentially directly those in the montage shot created by the studio, with just the text elements translated. What are the issues here? Jheald (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a very good point. This would be pretty much the perfect image to illustrate a character list. I don't think it's as appropriate in the main article on the show, but for a character list, yes. I don't think there is any problem in us translating the text- what's your concern in that regard? J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the cast photos are too small to be of much value (and not really needed anyway). But without the photos the chart could be replaced with free substitute. —teb728 t c 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If you click the image you can see the cast more clearly, but I can see them on the lain page as well. The photos can't be replaced with a free substitute because there aren't any free images for this drama available. All work was produced by MBC. I think these charts are a great/easier example of showing the connection between each character. Then if the viewer can go in and read the details of the character in the character description. InkHeart♥ 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the photos are not replaceable and that the chart is useful. But the chart doesn’t need the photos to be useful. The names are sufficient to identify the characters, and the chart shows their relationships. So a free chart could be created with no photos that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. BTW, when I said the cast photos were too small to be of value, I meant on the full 581 × 656 pixel resolution chart. —teb728 t c 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review"