Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 35

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

File:Radon.jpg

No consensus while a free image of a naturally occurring element may be possible, the nature of the element makes it difficult to contain and obtaining a free image nigh on impossible - I note that even sites like http://images-of-elements.com/radon.php have had to mock up what radon in a discharge tube would look like (Note their image is CC-3.0 if anyone wants to use that instead). NtheP (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm not convinced that this meets WP:NFCC#1. It certainly fails WP:NFCC#9 or WP:NFC#UUI §6 on some of the pages on which it is used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

srsly? Radon is a really radioactive element. Getting some is not just a matter of ordering it from your favourite chemical company. Text would not do the job as well. And the image has a clear description about how it was made and that enhances the article with an application. (About the usage: in some of the templates, it's been set up such that the template doesn't display the picture, but the article using it does, e.g. the boxes for radon and noble gas. I do agree that some of the uses are inappropriate.) Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Even many homes are affected by radon. Surely there's a chance for a free alternative here. There's also the point that those who are in charge of radon remediation could take such an image. Replaceable doesn't mean getting a free image would be easy, just that it would be possible. The requirement to do so is incentive to be creative about getting it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Arguably, to me, the threshold whether a free image is available or not is whether any member of the public can take that image legally (no trespassing or breaking laws on regulated materials) and without extraordinary means. If the chemical is only safely contained in highly restricted laboratories (not saying this is the case for radon or not), then while a free image is certainly possible, it is not reasonable to expect a wikipedia editor to be able to obtain one. If we can, great, but a non-free of the same thing would otherwise not violate NFCC#1 until it was available. On the other hand, something that may have limited distribution but otherwise unrestricted (say, something like mercury) we would fully expect NFCC#1 to be met. --MASEM (t) 07:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable to assume one of those labs will be a US government one and produce a free image. LGA talkedits 08:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The national lab system in the US is not part of the US Gov't - save for a small number of administrators at those, they are run by third-parties and thus PD-USGov does not apply, unlike, say, NASA or JPL which are part of the US Gov't Administration. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Masem, to reply to the above, that's why I didn't put any statement yet in the polonium section. I need to check into what the restrictions and rarity on polonium are. If it would be illegal and/or extremely hazardous for editors to access the material, it's not necessarily replaceable. However, we would also need to make sure we had sought, and been denied, a free image release from the copyright holder of any nonfree image of the material before deciding it is not replaceable.
But here in Colorado, at least, both new and existing homes are recommended to be routinely checked for radon. I had that done as a matter of course when I bought my own home. If radon is so common as to be frequently found in one's basement, it's hard for me to swallow that it's impossible to get a free image. It is, of course, colorless, but that's where I said that a remediator could help—they could get a photo to show it's completely invisible. The "glowing tube" is not even reflective of what radon actually looks like, except under highly specialized circumstances.
That aside, both images are used in a template, outside article space. That clearly violates NFCC#9, and so even if the image itself were appropriate, that particular use needs to be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of an empty image of a colourless gas? It is not informative at all. Colourless is one of the very few things that an image cannot really convey better than words... Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I do agree there's a strong likelihood that a pure sample of radon can be obtained without classified clearance or the like, and that the type of imaging equipment (as I understand how that pic was taken) to see the effects are common at most research universities, and thus the likelihood for an equivalent free picture for radon is high. However, I will point out "However, we would also need to make sure we had sought, and been denied, a free image release from the copyright holder of any nonfree image of the material before deciding it is not replaceable." is not a requirement of NFCC. It would be one thing if the image came from a source that has routinely provided WP with works with a free license and thus a high probability of getting them to take a non-free to free. But for any other image, we do not require editors to try to get the copyright owner to release under a free license before determining there is no free alternative. It is a highly recommended step for certain, but we have no part of the NFCC check process that requires it and we can't rest that process on convincing people with no involvement with WP to follow our desire for free content. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that might be worth reconsidering, then. In probably >50% of cases where I can't take a photo for something personally, I've had success with contacting someone who did have an image and explaining to them I would like to use their image for a Wikipedia article, and would need to relicense it freely. Some people, of course, don't wish to do so, but others are often flattered that someone would consider their photo for such a use, and are glad to license it accordingly. That's especially successful where the photographer never intended commercial/for-profit use of the image anyway. Until we've asked those who took existing images if they'd consider a free license, we don't know if the image is replaceable by a free one—we haven't tried! Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't something that shouldn't be attempted, but there's a reason NFCC#1 is written as "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". It does not consider the possibility of converted non-free to free, though if that can be done, that meets the first clause. I agree that if we're talking things like ameteur photographs or the like, that a request to make something free will likely succeed, but that's only for those types of images, we also have non-free images from major publishers, photograph archives, and the like where the chances of success of getting a free license is near zero and would be a waste of time to actually attempt for every image that comes along. Making it a requirement to try to get a free license would drastically extend the NFCC progress (how is proof provided that an attempt was made, etc?) without little change in actual practice. Hence why it is not a requirement though a high-recommended step particularly when dealing from works not produced by large corporations. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd be amenable to excluding already commercial reusers from the requirement (I've a better chance of winning the lottery than Getty Images giving us a free-license release, for example.) But where there are images held by private individuals, nonprofit organizations, or even for-profit organizations who don't primarily sell images, the chances are pretty good. "Try everyone, even those with no chance" might not be a great idea, but I don't think no requirement to try at all is right either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
But that still leaves the issue of how to you have an editor verified they tried and could not get permission ? Show the email chain? Assume good faith? It is impractical to make it a requirement without heavily modifying policy and carving out when it is expected, but certainly can be put on a short list of "things to do before adding non-free imagery to WP" on guideline pages. And of course when editors find cases of images that have a good chance of the copyright owner being in that class that are more likely to release it under a free license, that should be brought to someone's attention to make that effort. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: What is the point of giving a picture of a colourless gas simply as a colourless gas? Some people will no doubt take the radon to be something else in the background that they can see (after reading the article feedback for astatine, it's pretty clear to me that about 95% of people who go to the page don't actually read the article, but just look at the pictures). And also, it's not too informative. There are other forms and representations of radon available (e.g. solid radon; or the one you see here) that give a new perspective to the article and add content to it. It is the same reason why our images for the other elemental gases are either of its liquid form or the "glowing tube" picture you see here. (Solid radon would be a good idea to show too. It has a yellow (near melting point) to orangey-red (colder) radioluminescence! Far more interesting and helpful to the reader than gaseous colourless radon, no?) Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(Also, when you have Rn in your home, your main concern is probably how to get rid of it, and certainly not how to photograph it, because there it is NOT safely contained!!) Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have Rn in your home, then all you need is some scientific equipment to take a photo. Would it be impossible for a scientist to place such equipment in a contaminated house? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the actual amount of radon in one's home, even one with a "high level of radon", still reaaaaaally miniscule? To quote our article, "Typical domestic exposures average about 48 Bq/m3 indoors". If I'm doing the math at Becquerel correctly, using 222Rn, that's about 84x10–16 g/m3 or 22.7 million atoms/m3. I don't think "all you need is some scientific equipment to take a photo" is a realistic assessment for getting together an amount that can actually be seen and doing so safely (which would involve isolating/concentrating specifically the radioactive material). DMacks (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) fixed # of atoms/m^3 DMacks (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Should be removed. Replaceable in NFCC#1 does not mean it has to be easy. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • According to [1] radon seeds have not been made since the 1960s. The half-life of the element is ~4 days, so the radon remaining in a seed from that time, if someone could find one today, would be nil. Although the seeds were tiny, I doubt their walls were so thin as to be transparent (see photo at orau.org link). What then is the Life photo showing us? Perhaps a seed laid on a phosphor-coated surface, or radon in a glass tube? It seems replaceable with some text along the lines of "radon is a colorless gas formerly used in implantable 'seeds' which when concentrated has a faint green glow due to its radioactivity." —rybec 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yet it is not really as evocative as a picture (I'll grant that I'm the one who wasted time running around looking for one!) And such text does not tell you what a radon seed actually looks like. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Would a picture of an actual radon seed suffice here? I mean a new and free picture of a long-decayed seed alone, not one that's still radioactive and in a special setting to demonstrate some of the key properties of the element itself. If so, that's more reasonably obtainable (not saying "enough to disprove NFC replaceability) but certainly a different route to address than something containing a dangerous chemical. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
But in that case the Rn is long gone and it does not illustrate anything about Rn. Such a pic could go in the applications section of the radon page, but could not be used as an illustration of the pure element, as it doesn't contain any of the pure element. Whereas for the current one, it certainly shows a sample of the pure element, and though you can't see it directly, it shows a property of it (the glow). Hence, I would submit that that wouldn't suffice, at least not here (if you mean "in the article infobox"). Double sharp (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:VH1 85-94 logo.png

Image was deleted as F8 on 27 October, by Magog the Ogre. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Logo may not meet Threshold of originality, considered free at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. (And as a general note to help reduce reports, if you see an image that has a dup at commons and clearly not out of line, eg like this case, you can probably just tag these with the {{Di-replaceable fair use}} and replace the image with the one from commons. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Dad!#Details on main characters

Clear violation removed Werieth (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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


Section violates WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note, that when you close these, make sure to also remove the review tag too. (I've done that here and also helped to move a cast image to the character section, furthering the unnecessary use of these individual characters images). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Book cover of Necropolis by Boris Pahor.png

Non-Admin Closure: Commons file deleted: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boris Pahor - Nekropola (angleški prevod).jpg as the file is non-free. As a non-free file, the image fails WP:NFCCP#1 and was removed from the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

The usage in Boris Pahor#International recognition does not meet the non-free content criterion No. 1, because the section could easily be illustrated with an alternative free image depicting his international notability. It is also not in accordance with the criterion No. 8, because it does not substantially contribute to the understanding of the article. --Eleassar my talk 08:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The book cover appears to be all text, ergo, should be a free image under {{PD-ineligible}}, and thus can be used without having commentary. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
In my understanding, the quote in the upper right corner is 'fair use'. WP:QUOTE states: "Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States." --Eleassar my talk 07:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The image has also been deleted as non-free in Commons.[2] --Eleassar my talk 09:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WQMX logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo per Commons:TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 18:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a case where I wouldn't bet on how the US copyright office would decide. It's indeed essentially text with rectangles, but I wouldn't bet on how much of a difference the color gradients make. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Fenwick Getting It.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-ineligible -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this too simple to be copyrighted? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:HuffPost Live Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: File was moved to Commons and local copy deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:KYSR logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Obvious PD-Textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Costa Salafis, distributing blankets.png

Deleted as F7 -- Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC #8, in that all it shows is a group of people by a truck, there is nothing in the picture that could significantly increase readers' understanding of anything. No discussion of the image in the article. LGA talkedits 20:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and add that there's a good chance that being a recent Facebook photo that the group could be contacted to ask for free licensing of the photo. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Third Square movement, demonstrating in Sphinx Square, Cairo.jpg

Deleted as F7 -- Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC #8, in that all it shows is a group of people nothing in the picture that could significantly increase readers' understanding of anything. LGA talkedits 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and same as above: there's a good chance the group could be requested to license this freely. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WAPS logo.png

Logo is obsolete; I have uploaded the new logo. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo? Unsure about 3D effect. Levdr1lp / talk 23:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Danse avec les stars (France season 4)

Files fail NFC, removed Werieth (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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


I'm not convinced that the screenshots in the "Styles, scores and songs" section satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Caverns of Mars#Sequels

Clear violation of WP:NFG removed Werieth (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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


This section has unreasonably many non-free images, see WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logybaymiddlecoveoutercove.JPG

Non-Admin Closure: The image itself has been released into the public domain by the uploader (Neelix) and the seal itself was determined to be three dimensional, where Canada has Freedom of Panorama. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is picture of a seal (Canda has FoP). If the seal is dated prior to 1923 then this could be public domain. In any case a crest could be replaced by a drawing made from the Blazon surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Canadian FOP doesn't apply to 2D works such as this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It casts a shadow, and is therefore three-dimensional, not two-dimensional. Therefore it is okay per Canadian freedon of panorama law. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the image should be retained because of Canadian freedom of panorama. I am the image's uploader and originator and I hereby release the image into the public domain. Neelix (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To Tell the Truth

Non-Admin Closure: The only image discussed was the cast photo, which was determined to be in the public domain. Closing as No Consensus as there has been no further discussion on remaining images in many moons. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I request a review of whether all of the non-free images (except for the infobox logo) satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am of the opinion they do not. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I think [3] provides context needed to fully understand the time period and how the show looked. The cast shot could be done with individual free pictures, so unless free images of them don't exist that needs to go. Most of the rest don't add enough, IMO, to meet NFCC#8, though the black and white logo might if there were some non-trivial coverage of the logo change (which I doubt). Hobit (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The cast shot is public domain (pre-1978 publication in the US with no notice). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'd (obviously) not looked. I'm assuming the same doesn't apply to the screen shots from before 1978 for some reason? Could you explain? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless on this... Hobit (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure. Currently, the images are tagged as non-free. I have no idea whether the episodes from which they came has copyright notices. Even if they lacked copyright notices, case law says that pre-1978 broadcast of a copyrighted work does not constitute the kind publication that would trigger the copyright notice requirement. See Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1981). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One Deep Breath

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that four non-free files cause the article to violate WP:NFCC#3a and that at least two should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Are four sound samples really needed for a single album? Werieth (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but I'll be damned if I could tell you which two (at most) illustrate the album best. The fact is that a very many albums will attract the sort of track-by-track review given in the article, so it's what gives the best idea of the album as a whole. Two might be needed to illustrate contrasts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, at its current state, the article violates WP:NFCC#3a, so some of them need to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Miami Dolphins 2013 Logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Image removed from 2013 Miami Dolphins season due to violation of WP:NFCC#10c. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#3b in that it renders perfectly at a very high resolution. It also violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2013 Miami Dolphins season and WP:NFCC#9 in File:Miami Dolphins logo 2013.png. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As there's no indication that the SVG was pulled (not traced!) from an official source, then we should not be using the SVG, and that can be immediately deleted. (We do allow SVGs of non-frees if they are SVGs directly from an official source) --MASEM (t) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Virgil Sollozo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is not compliant with WP:NFURG. Image has therefore been update with appropriate Non-free use rationales for both articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Used in Al Lettieri and Virgil Sollozzo. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in both articles, as what is present in File:Virgil Sollozo.png#Summary is not a rationale that is compliant with WP:NFURG. I am not sure whether the use in Al Lettieri satisfies WP:NFCC#8. Is having a non-free image of an actor in his role actually preferred over having no image of him? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Virgil article fails notability guidelines, so unless that can be improved, that article actually should be deleted, removing that image use. Otherwise, a non-free image of a character played by a deceased actor which they would be best known for is reasonable, but the rationale needs to be improved greatly. (eg this is okay on Lettieri's article). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
To note, if the Virgil character did get its notability improved to be a stand-alone, it is then not unreasonable to have a non-free image of the character, but the notability issues have to be dealt with first. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Albert Odyssey (Super Famicom game)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is one screenshot and the first cover are acceptable per WP:NFCI#3 and all other non-free files should be removed from article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The following non-free images in the article might be problematic:

  1. File:AlbertOdyssey1.png
  2. File:AlbertOdyssey2.png
  3. File:AlbertOdyssey2front.jpg

The two in-game screenshots are unnecessary in my opinion and so violate WP:NFCC#8. I believe the gameplay could be adequately described with text. Regarding the third image, WP:NFCI#1 requires critical commentary of the item to which the cover belongs. The whole section Albert Odyssey (Super Famicom game)#Sequel is completely unsourced, so the use of the third image in that section might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

One in-game screenshot is reasonable per WP:NFCI#3, as long as there is sourcing for the gameplay section (standard VG practice). Any others need better justification, which is not needed here. The second cover is also not needed. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranks in the Scout Association of Japan

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion parallels WP:FFD discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 9#File:Scouting ranks (Scout Association of Japan).png. As the discussion in both places has turned into a deletion discussion, it is more appropriate to have the discussion at one central location, WP:FFD at the above link. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Several non-free galleries lacking sourced critical commentary Werieth (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Petty nitpicking by rabid deletionist after issue was corrected. Easier to source than to delete and have to undelete multiple images. In fact there is no "sourced critical commentary" rule in the NFCC for images-I just checked it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Its a derivative of NFCC#8. The article lacks any sources, let alone enough to justify 11 non-free files. We dont need to display all of the rank badges, using a sample is sufficient. Also the rationale's for the badges are completely invalid and copy/paste hacks. The reason I brought it here was because you are too involved in the topic to take a neutral look, and that the scouting related articles are notorious for NFCC violations and their unwillingness to address those issues. Werieth (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed it under those grounds and was reverted. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Now sourced, and if a "small number of them provide the sufficient understanding", how does one determine which stay, and who determines it? And if "the rationale's (sic) for the badges are completely invalid", then WP:SOFIXIT is much more civil than gutting the article. I don't mind that you brought it here-that's the first time you tried to engage in discussion about it, as you should always do first, and which you never do first.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually citing SOFIXIT is exactly what I did, I removed them. I cannot see a valid rationale for the files, so I removed them. Your action of combining them does nothing for the overuse issues. See Wikipedia:Fair use overuse#Q: Would creating a montage image of all the disputed images together clear up this problem?. Werieth (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
And do you think you were being civil in the process? That was part of the above truly fixing it. Starting fights is not fixing anything. If as you say "the scouting related articles are notorious for NFCC violations and their unwillingness to address those issues", it's your approach. You gut first and only talk once someone calls you out, as Evrik had to do above. You act as though you are the sole arbiter of NFCC. You'd get more cooperation if you were civil from the beginning, discussed it on the talk page and took a measured approach. The reason you face the unwillingness is that no one likes to be talked down to. Even if you're right, you don't have to be a WP:DICK. I promise you'd have far fewer fights if you discussed on the article's talkpage or with the author(s) before you pull images, which is actually one of the things you're supposed to do per WP:CIVIL.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually CIVIL isnt a factor for my removals. Its not uncivil to remove material that isnt in compliance with wikipedia policies. Whether its a large amount of copy/pasted text from an outside source, unsourced negative material in a BLP, extremely biased text, original research, or large amounts of non-free content. However your actions are rude, uncivil, and violate WP:NPA. So far you have called me a dick and a rabid deletionist. Werieth (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In that post you blended in some cases (copyvio and negative BLP) where there are legal reasons and widespread support for quick removal but which are not in play in this case. This is a case where the legal requirements look OK but wiki policies/guidelines unrelated to legal can be interpreted as prohibiting such. IMO the latter should be handled differently and handled in the more typical Wikipedia way via. discussions etc.. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
While there is now sufficient sourcing to discuss the general reasoning for the badge (specifically the fleur de lis aspect), that only gives enough sourcing to support up to two images - the one of the various lower-rank badges (a montage image created by the copyright holder thus we can treat as a single non-free), and the world-scout one (where the additional embellishments are described to match with other world badges of that rank). The other badges all have variations on the fleur de lis design but the changes are not discussed, and thus are not justified. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Al Ahli Club Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8, and will therefore be removed from the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The use in Al-Ahli SC (Jeddah) violates WP:NFCC#8. The logo is not essential for a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Throughout English Wikipedia, the use of an organization's logo for identification purposes in an article about the organization is deemed to satisfy NFCC. Sports teams are no exception. Is this logo used in a different way here? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's an older logo, not the current one (that is used properly in the infobox). Older logos should only be included if there is significant discussion of the logo's design or reason for change, which I'm not seeing here. (There's also two more images on that page with the a photo of an even older logo, and the anthem, that are inappropriate). --MASEM (t) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case only the current logo ought to be included. Historical logos should only be used if supported by sourced content in the article, and even there if that sourced content is actually relevant and useful to include in the article. I doubt that anybody is going to call Wikipedia to task for reproducing historical logos, but the copyright (non-free content) policies suggest we shouldn't include gratuitous copyrighted content. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Quantel Lotts.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Article that image is in was nominated per AFD, and the consensus was to merge into Youth incarceration in the United States. As such, the image will violate WP:NFCC#8.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Rational for use is "no additional photographs may be taken because he is imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole." However, given that this photo was taken after subject was already imprisoned under those terms, clearly the situation does not inherently prevent photography. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete this argument has come up numerous times with numerous incarcerated persons, and in almost all cases that I've seen, the consensus has been to delete the image. Incarcerated doesn't mean that there's no possibility of an image being located, it just makes it more difficult. Family and friends can be approached for images (not that they would comply in many cases), older images can be located occasionally, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that criminal mug shots taken by law enforcement agencies in the United States cannot be copyrighted, I find it difficult to believe that no non-copyrighted images can be found. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've written Pilkington to ask if he'd be willing to contribute a photograph, and am working on contacting Lotts' family, though that's difficult. I'm reluctant to use a mugshot for the article because of the heavy influence that would exert on readers of the article. -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Pilkington (the journalist who interviewed Quantel Lotts) is looking for a photo of his own to donate to Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Make sure you dot all your i's and cross all your t's. I had an image deleted for which I had explicit permission from the subject via email that was deemed not sufficient. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Er, if we know a person is incarcerated for a long period of time ("for life" qualifies), we assume that a free image cannot be taken, compared to say any person that is free, thus allowing non-free images to be used for identification. Yes, the argument that one could approach friends and family to get one is possible, but this requires expectations on the actions of non-WPian editors which we cannot assume will work. Hence, there's no NFCC#1 if a non-free is used. Of course, if as Darouet says he is trying to get a free image from a journalist, then as soon as that happens we have to make the replacement. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear yet what the result of AfD will be :) In the mean time I've uploaded a smaller version of the file, am crossing my fingers re: Pilkington's response, and have little hope for contacting Lotts' family after initial efforts. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Windows 8.1 Calculator.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is PD-ineligible due to being below the threshold of originality due to the calculator being made up of simple text and shapes. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this perhaps below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a screenshot of an app of Windows 8.1 which is a Windows product by Microsoft. So, it also means that it is a screenshot of Microsoft product and the license tag has also been attached in the File's page along with proper rationale. If you are saying like this, then I'm confused, I think User:Codename Lisa can explain the actual situation and solve it out. Himanis Das  talk 13:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The question is whether or not this image meets the criteria to be copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Arguably too simple, but I would see if commons has any other Windows 8/Metro themed screenshots (all which have the same flat color/no significant UI element approach) to see if there's anything to compare against. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's only an arrangement of squares with a non-original calculator layout on them. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyright protected: Hi. Although each button on its own does not meet the threshold of originality, the arrangement surely does. It is an original composite work; it is certainly not the first of the kind, but being first of the kind is not a factor in copyright. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really, as it mimics the typical arrangement of keys on a standard calculator (as well as numerous other online calculator like Google's). Also, it's technically utilitarian, which prevents such from being copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Isn't the arrangement uncopyrightable per Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Hi. Thanks for the article. I knew the district court ruled in favor of infringement but didn't know that it was appealed and reversed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Wait a second. Borland did not copy anything ad-hoc but we are doing exactly that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
          • What do you mean (I don't follow, as that case suggests that MS can't copyright the arrangement, and since the elements themselves are far below originality, the whole is uncopyrightable) --MASEM (t) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I mean we cannot do to Microsoft what Borland did to Lotus. Threshold of originality has it that:

              In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection).

              The court case sanctioned the reproduction of function, not anything else. So, even though we can develop a computer program that copies the arrangement through our own rendering code, it does not mean that we can copy the screenshot wholesale as below the threshold of originality. We are copying layout, color, font, proportion and each and every pixel. Each of these items are not copyright-protected on their own but together, they are. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
              • Okay, I understand what you mean, but I really can't see anything that can be considered an MS copyright here. You can't copyright the fonts, and a character in a flat-colored box is uncopyrightable; the only possible copyright is the arrangement of buttons but even that mimics the typical approach on physical and previous computer-based calculators; there is really nothing here that MS can claim as their copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                • Mind you, if this were the calculation from any of MS's previous OSs, like Windows 7, where there are window decorations that are copyrightable, that would be different. The flat Metro scheme in Windows 8 removes a lot of possible copyrightable elements. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caverns of Mars#Sequels and re-releases

See 3 sections up Werieth (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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


This was fixed yesterday (see Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 35#Caverns of Mars#Sequels), but the non-free gallery was immediately restored. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:1. All The Lovers.ogg

Non-Admin Closure: Closing as No Consensus as discussion has been stale for over a month. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Use in Aphrodite (album) violates WP:NFC#UUI §6. Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first) The policy you have listed pertains to images. 2) A sample of a lead single in the parent album's article is common and "All the Lovers" is considered to be the most representative song of Aphrodite (said by Minogue herself) and is a good example of its euphoric feel and synthpop and dancepop influences. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Henry's logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo or is 3d text too complex? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The 3D looks like a straight-up extrude, don't think that would count towards originality. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Kostfm.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo? Or is shadow too much? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the simple shadow effect is not original, so should be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Logo InternetQ.png

Non-Admin Closure: PD-ineligible. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Are the semi-circles next to the q simple enough to make this pd-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, too simply for originality. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above, however it should not be {{PD-textlogo}} as it is from the UK, use {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}. LGA talkedits 23:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WFEA-GOOD.png

Non-Admin Closure: PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WPOR1019.png

Non-Admin Closure: PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure. If the letters and numbers as well as the border between the black and yellow parts were parallel to the edges of the square and the narrow horizontal stripes were not there, I'd feel confident saying it doesn't meet TOO. I don't know whether the United States copyright office would deem those elements significant enough to make the whole work eligible for copyright protection, so unless someone else can give a reason why the US copyright office would likely reject copyright registration, I'd treat it as non-free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The tilt doesn't affect creativity (the Home Depot logo is considered free, for example). The light horizontal lines appear to be an artefact on the website's end; a google image search shows that the same logo used elsewhere lack these "scan lines" (eg [4]). I'd recommend replacing that image with this one (cropped to the same logo) just to remove those lines, but even without that, this is clearly PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Warframe Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is non-free due to specific 3D effects and the level of creativity in the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should treat it as non-free because of two reasons:
  1. The 3-D effect of the letters (texture, reflection effects and the slight tilt backwards)
  2. The overlap of some of the letters
Both of those effects are creative enough to make this possibly eligible for copyright protection in the United States in my opinion. I don't know whether it is eligible for copyright protection in Canada, but I would assume so. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above - it is not a straight-forward 3D effect and shows some creativity. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Vietnam Idol logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is non-free to due to the level of creativity. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

May not meet threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that the light sparkles and the gradient push it over as creative; I note we have this free version for the US show File:American Idol logo.svg that lacks these features and of course is free, but those extra elements are creative enough. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:VivaAerobus.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-textlogo and has already been moved to Commons. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Threshold of originality may not have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ThisTV WBNX-TV Akron-Cleveland.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been moved to Commons as PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo. Solid background version possibly available. Levdr1lp / talk 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably okay without removing the gradient/shadow, but it would be more assured if we could use a version free of the shadow. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to remove the blueish shadow, but due to the color of the text (white to light grey) it does not show well with clear or white background. If there were a solid colored logo (maybe a screenshot one from their website) it would definitely be PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
plus Added version w/ blue background. I used the source file for the foreground, and sampled the blue background on the website for the background layer in the file. Technically, the blue shadow is still visible if you look very, very closely, but it's barely detectable. Levdr1lp / talk 00:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Definitely PD-textlogo :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Wide World Of Sport Logo Small.PNG

Non-Admin Closure: Due to lack of critical discussion, article does not need two non-free logos (especially since they differ little. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Image is not discussed in a critical manner at Nine's Wide World of Sports. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 22:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:ITunes_11_Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there is not currently enough evidence to show that the glass look and the shaded gradients pass the threshold of originality and as such the file is correctly listed as non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This appears to fit "PD-ineligible". It's simply an image of two beamed musical notes on a circular background. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The glass/jelly look likely pushes it over the edge, but I do note that the newer NBC logo which has a similar glass look in the peacock feathers is considered okay at commons. I personally would play it save as copyrightable until we get better clarification on that. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Do shaded gradients add to originality? I've heard arguments saying it does and doesn't. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It may or may not. That's why I point to the NBC logo that uses them but considered free at commons. It's not straight-forward and might be a question better to ask experts at common at where the line should be drawn. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ScoreBig 2013 logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Is the tear effect on the right side of the logo too much to push it over the Threshold of Originality? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would play it safe and say yes its original enough to keep this copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WKVT (AM) logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on saying it is uncopyrightable - the shadow effects are just simple enough to be uncreative. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Lindbergh (book).JPG

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#UUI§6 in A. Scott Berg and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6 in A. Scott Berg. Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup; image is fine on the article on the book, but we don't need the cover on the author's page. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zahara (South African musician)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is article uses non-free images in an acceptable manner. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate use of cover art in a BLP article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Here's a case where I think one can argue that the albums are notable enough to be separate but the editors have decided to keep the albums in discussion with the artist together for cohension (eg it is not just demonstrating this album, but doing the marking/branding that it would do if it were separate). In such cases, I would be inclined to allow at least one of the cover images. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't create separate articles for the EP and DVD releases because I want to improve the overall rating of the "Zahara (South African musician)" article. I'll take improving the rating of the article all day over creating separate stub articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases. If my use of the images violates Wikipedia's non free policy, then I suppose I could merge the "EP" and "DVD" release into one article. If creating separate articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases would prohibit the images from being deleted, then I guess that's what I'll do. If you agree or disagree with my proposition, please add to this discussion. I would appreciate that. versace1608 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally, you did the right thing in terms of making something cohesive and thus why I'm arguing that, of the images, I think the DVD cover should easily be kept since this is also an article about that album. I don't think you should have to split it, because its atypical of when people typically just drop album art on an artist article. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Does this mean the tag Stefan2 left at the top of the article deserve removal? versace1608 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is just my opinion, so others may chime in. An uninvolved admin will close this discussion (hopefully within a few days) and remove the tag, if nothing else comes of it. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-CAGov and has been updated accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Isn't this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it is, if being taken be the CA Dept of Corrections is true. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Basilisk snapshot9.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is although software is a "free and open-source product" screenshots of the software are still copyright. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi. I have been looking at this image and File:BasiliskII.jpg, which is uploaded on Commons and I have to ask: Is the license tag on this image correct? According to Basilisk II article, Basilisk II is a free and open-source product. So, is there something in this shot that makes it non-free? Codename Lisa (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Art assets do not necessarily have to carry the same copyright as the program's source, and can be copyrighted. That is, everything here is a default UI element from the Mac operating system, which are under copyright too. (Note the license tag say "Note: if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately.") So unless the Mac UI elements have been considered free (Which, spot checking Mac app screenshots) they are not. Thus this image should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Press Your Luck.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Obvious PD-textlogo and has already been updated to reflect. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Possibly a PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly in the US, but where there's a lower threshold like the UK, probably not (the curvature of the letters would contribute there). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
What? Press Your Luck was an American show, not UK. It should be uploaded to Commons. Now I've tagged it as PD-textlogo. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg

Closing this as it's listed for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

To save this image from deletion, I must put this image under review. Somehow, I'm not sure why it is replaceable, but Image:BRafamily.PNG is a banner (or some sort), not part of the opening title. Also, under WP:IUP rules, a JPEG should be used for photos. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of JPEGs is a "rule of thumb", not a hard and fast rule. We've never quibbled over the formats used in TV infoboxes. File:BRafamily.PNG has been used in Brandy & Ray J: A Family Business since 2010 and was sourced from the the VH1 website. File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg is a print ad sourced from somewhere else. It was uploaded today and used to replace File:BRafamily.PNG. It is currently orphaned because its addition to the article was reverted. We simply don't need it. The image that we've been using in the article since 2010 is more than adequate for the tas and more in line with the convention we use for TV series infobox images. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Why would a banner from website be more substantial than a promo ad? Since we couldn't obtain the title card when the series originally aired, how do we obtain one, now that it's unavailable on DVD? The banner itself shows a happy, smiley family. The promo ad doesn't do that. What's wrong with the promo ad besides being just a "promo ad"? George Ho (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say "more substantial", I said the existing file was "more than adequate". There was simply no need to upload another item of non-free content to replace an existing item of non-free content. All we try to do with these images is to identify the program. The existing file does that. The poster provides nothing that the existing file doesn't already provide. In fact it provides less. The existing file gives us a reasonably good view of the four cast members, while the new file has two of them in the background, making them much harder to identify. The existing file uses only 30.8% of the screen real estate that the new file does. It's less overwhelming than the new file. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:French Printer and Engraver.jpg

Clearly PD-Old, tagged as such. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

A 1521 work is Public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_35&oldid=1136449777"