Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 1

10 March 2006

 * Image:Red rain Kerala.jpg, Image:Red rain Kerala optical microscope.jpg, Image:Red rain Kerala SEM.png, Image:Red rain Kerala TEM.png, Image:Chung negative resistance setup.png, Image:Chung negative resistor.png
 * Images from research papers, used to illustrate the subject of the papers. — Omegatron 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article discusses the research papers substantially, I think these images are ok (although they really should be tagged with a fair use template). Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know which template is appropriate. — Omegatron 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-free fair use in? Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The red rain ones are fine, since the phenomenon is not expected to repeat. (The images are, therefore, irreplaceable.) But the Chung ones are not. They are obviously replaceable, and anyone could create a diagram that would serve the same purpose in the article. I'm tagging those rfu. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

25 July 2006
Guys. I would appreciate an opinion on Image:ZBWE1.jpg regarding its copyright/Fair Use status. I am considering inserting it as the lead image in Whites in Zimbabwe. The image appeared on the cover of the Sunday Times (London) colour supplement on 25 March 1984. The copyrightholder is a well known photojournalist and I would give her a credit. See earlier comment by TheGrappler on my talk page. Bob BScar23625 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ps : This is proving to be a tricky one. The photographer is Mary Ellen Mark - a famous photojournalist. The library that manages her work (the Falklands library, New York) has been approached and has replied. The librarian, Meredith Lue (mlue@falkland.com), has never heard of Wikipedia. Bob BScar23625 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is fair use, even in the photographer's page. In the Whites in Zimbabwe article, it would definitely not be fair use, since it could be replaced by any pic of a white Zimbabean. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

26 July 2006
And speaking of the Devil ;-) I came across Image:Ted Williams Time Cover 1950.jpg - yes, it's a Time cover, and it's being used in a biographical infobox, and no, the "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph" is obviously incorrect. Since I'm in two minds about taking this to IFD or just changing the tag to a more appropriate one, I'm bringing it here. I know that in all fair use claims there should be a full rationale stated and I really dont' feel comfortable with providing one for this image, whichever tag is used. Now, I know what User:Ta bu shi da yu would do... but I'd just like some slightly broader feedback before running off to WP:IFD! TheGrappler 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt the tag shoud be changed to Magazine cover because... it is a magazine cover. And regardless of the tag used, the image should be removed from Ted Williams because the article, as of the current version, do not even mentions the image. There is a chance that some editor will change the article, adding information about how important and historic this image is (see the 03 July 2006 discussion above), but it won't be hard to show that this information was created to justify the image presence. --Abu Badali 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the subject is deceased. So unless a free image of him exists (doubtful), any image we use will have to be fair use, right? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

5 August 2006
Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg This is from the Randall Flagg article. It shows a key point in the character's arc; namely, his death. Later, a disgruntled fan who ignored the spoiler warnings and saw the picture before reading the book wanted it removed and put it up for deletion. (Up until this point, there had been no problems with the image) No consensus was reached. Later, an administrator deleted it because he felt it was against WP:FUC#8: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose., saying that Flagg's death is described in the article enough and that it serves no purpose in the article. I'd like to keep the picture in the article, as I believe that it is important to Flagg's character and the page in general as a visual aid to that particular section.--CyberGhostface 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's examine this image under the lense of U.S fair use law. Factor #2 is "the nature of the copyrighted work". This image comes from a recent (2004) book that is still on the market. Factor #4 is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Full color illustrations are available in the hardcover edition, not in cheaper paperback editions. In other words, paperback users can now get features of the hardcover for free off of Wikipedia. These two considerations are encapsulated very clearly in criterion #2 of official Wikipedia policy: "The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product." Now let's examine illustrator Michael Whelan's webpage. His FAQ states:
 * "We receive numerous requests from fans every day asking to use Michael's images on their web pages. Unfortunately, Michael does not authorize free use of his images on either commercial or non-commercial web-sites. If you send a simple request as such, you will receive a form letter response politely declining your request."
 * He lists several reasons why this is. Among them:
 * "As an illustrator, Michael makes his living by selling rights to reproduce his artwork, not only selling to primary but also reselling to secondary markets. If all of Michael's fans decided to post his artwork across the internet, it would dilute Michael's copyrights and make his work less marketable."
 * "[Ex. Why would a publisher pay to use artwork that has already been used by thousands]. One site, of course, doesn't jeopardize Michael's copyrights in itself. One site violating copyright is, however, a rubber stamp for anyone who sees that site to do the same. Such is the nature of a mass medium like the internet."
 * Which essentially says what I have written above in different words. It's clear that including this image on Wikipedia is copyright infringement. The same goes for other Michael Whelan images. Punctured Bicycle 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems more to apply to his own art that he sells on his website. And he doesn't specifically own the art published in the Dark Tower series; that's copyrighted by Stephen King along with the rest of the Dark Tower series. --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Michael Whelan retains the rights to his images (the copyright page in the book probably says something like "Illustrations (C) 2004 Michael Whelan"). After all, he states in his FAQ that he resells his work to secondary markets. (If anyone besides Michael Whelan owns these images, it would likely be the publisher, not Stephen King.) Punctured Bicycle 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, guess what? Today he finally responded to my query with "Yeah, that's okay. Thanks for asking. It's a good article!"CyberGhostface 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The rationale seems pretty thin. The article is not about the image itself, the image could be replaced by a GFDL drawing by someone else, and the image doesn't add greatly to our understanding of the character. It's a nice picture - but we can't use it. Simple as that. Megapixie 09:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It illustrates a key event in the character's history (namely, his death). --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have sent an e-mail to Michael Whelan as I think using pictures for an educational purpose is different. If he says no I will remove it.
 * Also, I recommend that you look at the Randall Flagg discussion page and see Punctured Bicycle's posts. The whole thing is just a sour grapes response because he got himself spoiled and nothing more complex than that. Obviously we shouldn't just post pictures willy nilly but if it represents an important part of the story then I think it should stay. For example, if we were to make an Eddie Dean article I wouldn't show every single picture of him but I would show one of him getting killed as its representative of his character.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My objections to this image on the grounds that it reveals a major spoiler still stands. When you couple its spoiling nature with the fact that it is not essential to a free encyclopedia, having more decorative value than educational value (as I, Megapixie, and howcheng believe), it is clear that it should be deleted. However, the more serious problems with this image outlined above obviously trump all that. Please do look at my posts. You may also be interested in the history of the Randall Flagg article, where CyberGhostface labels my original removal of the image as vandalism, despite the fact that I brought the issue up on the talk page beforehand. Also see my talk page, where CyberGhostface calls me a "schlum" and has a generally uncivil tone towards me. Also view the history of the original image, Image:Flaggdeathx.jpg, where CyberGhostface reverts the image deletion template four times (a 3RR violation) despite the template specifically saying not to. Finally, you can see CyberGhostface misconstruing the story at User talk:howcheng: "The only reason why it was up for deletion was because someone foolishly ignored the spoiler warning and wanted to delete it because it spoiled something for him." Remember how I had to tell you to put spoiler templates up, because they weren't there? Punctured Bicycle 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not call you a "schlum". I was speaking in general terms. Maybe you fit that description because you foolishly browsed down an article describing a character and were shocked to discover his death was written, but there were no specific people in mind when I used that word. Furthermore, everyone else on the Randall Flagg discussion page all agreed that the image should stay yet PB wanted to remove without agreements from others for his own selfish reasons.--CyberGhostface 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedied as reupload of content previously deleted through Images and media for deletion. Please don't repost content removed through our deletion procedures.  Jkelly 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Howcheng told me here to reupload it for discussion. Later today I will upload it again until this is settled, preferably when Whelan responds to my request.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I reuploaded it under a different name. I will remove it if Michael Whelan tells me not to but I would prefer it to stay up until I get a response.--CyberGhostface 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1 November 2006
Image:Duel98.jpg &mdash; I tagged this image before with bad fair use template, because this game cover is linked to a page not about the game. The page is about the author, and worse that the page contains many links to game covers. In the fair use rationale, it is said: "to illustrate the packaging of the game in question". The fact is that it is not. Could somebody take a look whether the fair use of the image is valid? I do think that this image fails several criteria of WP:FAIR, esp. that the image serves only as a decorative purpose in the article. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. The image does seem to serve the purpose of illustrating the style of the artist. However there are far too many images on the page for purely that purpose. Two or at most three images would serve just as well to illustrate the style. Megapixie 13:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I meant. Fair images should be used minimally, right? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

10 November 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fso_prices2.png. While most of the image contains factual data (which is prob. not copyrightable), the layout may be. Because the factual information could be reproduced for the same effect, with only a low-res version of the image kept to prove the data's authenticity, I'm afraid this might not pass muster with fair use's unrepeatability requirement. Vpoko 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Fso_prices2.png" leads to which is linked at "prices2" by the label, "Download high-resolution version (850x1100, 187 KB)".  Scientology_as_a_business is where the image is used.  It is one of five similar images. Terryeo 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In their current state of scan resolution, the scans are barely readable, so I think these surely pass "fair use" muster regardless of their size, actual or kilobyte. If there's still a concern, we could "optimize" the images to bring them to a smaller file size while maintaining their actual size. wikipediatrix 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that resolution, as it relates to images on a screen, is the height x width (number of pixels). File size doesn't have anything to do with it, an 1200x800 image has the same resolution whether it's 1kb or 100mb. Vpoko 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a little more complicated than that, but I only throw the suggestion out there as a way of possibly appeasing the powers that be. The spirit of "fair use" is to use images at such a resolution that they cannot be pirated, and there's no way anyone could usefully pirate this price list from these barely-readable scans. wikipediatrix 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

16 November 2006

 * I tagged Image:Attloa.jpg for review. It's currently used to illustrate the DA article at the top. However it's a bookcover used under the bookcover fair use template which specifies it's intended to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. If this article covers the book in resonable detail (which it doesn't) it should be acceptable to used it under appropriate section. Alternatively, different fair use rationale may or may not apply (don't know much about that) but I don't think the current template is suitable given the way it's currently used Nil Einne 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, it's being used to illustrate the person, not the book. Tagged rfu. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

24 November 2006

 * Image:Hclplant-udl.jpg. I was about to tag this image as "replacable fair use", but then I noticed that it had previuosly been tagged with fairusereplace and this tag was removed because "(...)all hydrochloric acid plants will have either a designers copyright or an owners copyright, it is unlikely that a free picture can be made available to replace this picture. This production plant is very speficic.", the picture is used in Hydrochloric acid. I'm not aware of any special copyright to chemical plants vs. regular buildings so this sounds strange to me, but you never know so some outside input would be nice. --Sherool (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A hydrochloric acid plant is not a building but a combination of very specific technologies. You cannot replace the picture with one of just any chemical plant. To elucidate this hydrochloric acid production technology in the hydrochloric acid article, the use of a picture is obvious. As typically pictures of chemical plants are very limitingly copyrighted, it is unexpected that any picture of it can be made available more free than this copyrighted but promotional (and therefore acceptable fair use) picture. Its fair use status has been asserted in previous discussion. Can't find the link, though. And to prevent any further discussion of this topic, I have asked the probable copyright owner for more free permission. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I have copy-edited the text as well, to better present the current FU status, including an explicit rationale. I also added the appropriate Fair Use reference to the hydrochloric aicd article. Note that this picture, used in a Featured Article has been accepted as such already more than 1.5 year, well before Fair Use became a target of attention that it is today. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Firstly, I don't understand why a user drawn diagram of one couldn't serve exactly the same purpose ? Secondly, it seems unlikely that the photographic appearance of a piece of industrial equipment would be protected by copyright, we're not talking about scuplture here — an object whose primary purpose is its appearance.
 * Can you link to, or point me to somewhere that explains this copyright restriction for industrial machinary ? I don't see the difference between a photograph of this and say a Combine harvester or a internal combustion engine.
 * Thirdly, I'm sure the process has been patented, we can normally use the images from US patents (as long as there are no restrictions stated in the patent themselves). Megapixie 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think whether a diagram can be used or not is relevant to the Fair Use status of this picture.
 * Photographs of industrial equipment are simply not published anywhere. Owners don't want photographic information of their equipment available to others. Remember that industrial oneupmanship is often the result of technological advantages, e.g., by better combination of various technologies. Anyone walking by a harvester in a field, or opening up his/her car hood can take a private picture the harvester or the engine. No one can privately walk on a chemical industrial area and take a picture of a hydrochloric acid plant. That makes such pictures very hard (impossible) to come by. The UDL promo-picture is therefore an exception to the rule. (Note the lack of chemical installation pictures in oil refinery, cracking (chemistry), Chlorine and sulfuric acid, the most produced chemical compound in the world)
 * The process cannot be patented: it is a combination of 'common technologies'. The only thinks you might be able to patent are details to the process not shown on this large scale. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
 * If we could replace the picture with a diagram - then it's absolutely relevant - see WP:FUC #1 - "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
 * Agree that it might be hard (but probably not impossible) to get a free photograph of the same equipment - but it isn't important in the other articles for exactly the same reason it's not important here - we can convey the same information with a diagram (probably more clearly).
 * You can absolutely patent a common industrial process that consists of trivial steps - see, , etc Megapixie 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The information conveyed in a actual photograph is, in my perception, totally different from a diagram. Even if a diagram  would be a good addition to any article, it can not replace a picture. And yes, indeed you can put anything in a patent. That is fully true. But they aren't the kind of patents that a chemical industry is built on. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC).


 * I'm just not clear what you are saying. Could you make it clear what this photograph conveys that a diagram would not convey ? If it's the technical details of the process - i.e. pipe here, chamber here, etc - then a diagram would convey it a lot better than a tiny low resolution picture. Likewise the general appearance of the equipment in question could be conveyed in a diagram.
 * What exactly does a photograph convey that a diagram couldn't ? Megapixie 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A photograph of a technical installation such as a chemical production plant shows the real implementation with all its technical achievements to get the real plant running, where a diagram shows merely the various process steps. They serve completely different purposes. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Could you be more specific ? It seems that a reader who is interested in how the process works would be more interested in a diagram illustrating the process (which they could re-use in their own work) than a low resolution photograph that they can't. A photograph that exactly three helpful labels (66 feet, splice plate, stair tower), two of which are completely obvious. Especially where it's actually impossible to make out any detail of the process or machinary involved - sure you can see the steel frame of the tower but nothing else. If the best argument you can muster is that a photograph is a photograph and a diagram is not a photograph then I'm sorry but that doesn't cut our fair use criteria.
 * If your argument is that this is showing some kind of pinacle of human achievement - then I'm sorry but the Eiffel Tower is a far more impressive structure at 15 times the size. And the far more important Oil refining process page seems to use a diagram to illustrate the process.
 * We simply don't need this mediocre unfree photograph. It neither informs the reader or illustrates something essential that cannot be conveyed in words - i.e. Image:The Persistence of Memory.jpg. Megapixie 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You say no and I say yes. A rather balanced intermediate conclusion, isn't it? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You still haven't made clear why it can't be replaced by a diagram. Why can't it be replaced by a diagram ? You should be clear that the onus is on you to explain why it should be kept. Megapixie 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know what exactly the important information that his photo convey is. The caption tell us it's a Hydrochloric acid oven but all we rely see is a stair tower that's aparently 66 feet tall and aparently there is a "splice plate" (or some such, it's hard to read) in there somewhere. Maybe it's just me but my understanding of direct synthesis of hydrochloric acid is not exactly greatly enhanced by that photo. Even if it had been free licensed I would have prefered a generic diagram outlining the process over this, and fair use images are supposed to be used only when they add significantly to the article. --Sherool (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I give in. Delete the darn picture, if you insist. If you can't or won't see the significant difference between a picture and a diagram, then I won't spent more time on this IMHO unpleasant discussion. And feel free to gloat over the fact that you have 'improved Wikipedia': in my perception all these negative actions are NOT contributory to the success of wikipedia, merely to aggravate people who do actually contribute content to Wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I do get that there is a significant difference between the photo an a diagram. I just don't agree that the photo adds a lot of unique information to the article that can not (probably better) be provided thought other means. sorry if you feel this has been a waste of time. --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5 January 2007

 * Image:VforVendettaNorsefire.jpg is tagged as fair use, but it fails criterion #8 that it only serves as decorative purpose. Furthermore, the image was taken not from the official source, as noted that it is a promotional usage, but from third party website: http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/oneimage.php?id=44045&movie_id=465, which states clearly that "No other uses are permitted without the prior written consent of owner." I am asking for an independent review. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The image appears to be fine at V for Vendetta (film), since it's illustrating the use of red and black as it's discussed in the article. In Norsefire and Adam Susan, it violates criterion #3, along with Image:Sutler2.jpg since only one of those images is necessary to illustrate the subject.  Either one works at Norsefire, but the other image works better at Adam Susan since he's more visible.  As far as consent of the owner, it appears that the image is incorrectly tagged and that film-screenshot would be more appropriate.  —ShadowHalo 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ShadowHalo is entirely correct. Also, the copyright of the image does not belong to the third-party website, but to the copyright-holders of the film itself (Warner Bros). – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

10 January 2007

 * Image:TIME Magazine 23 October 2006 Barack Obama.jpg
 * Image:Obama vs. Hillary.jpg

Requesting that someone more in the know than I look at the usage of these two images and deem whether or not they are used properly in accordance with appropriate guidelines. --Bob 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they are both OK. The first is referenced in "In his October 2006 Time magazine cover story, Primary Colors author Joe Klein compared the cultural sources of Obama's rapid rise and crossover appeal to those of U.S. celebrity icons Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan.", and the second is referenced in "In a December 2006 cover story headlined "The Race is On", Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter asked: "Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?". So both are used to illustrate the article in question (not just the subject of the article), thus they fall under fair use for magazine covers. Herostratus 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

27 January 2007

 * Image:Snltracymorgandvd.jpg

A DVD cover, that is only used in the article about the person on the cover (Tracy Morgan) to illustrate the person. I think it fails criteria 1 and 8 of the fair use criteria. --88.134.44.28 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. This would be usable in an article about the DVD, but not in article about the person. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

30 January 2007

 * Image:VigilSash45degrees.png

Listed as free use, but probably falls under scoutlogo fair use. --NThurston 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it, and the image it was modified from, accordingly. Jkelly 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several things wrong with the image as it stands. It shouldn't be being used in user space at all (see WP:Fairuse 9) also it doesn't actually appear to be being used in articles (7). There is no rationale provided for it's use anywhere (10) and there is no attribution of source (also 10). I'm going to notify the uploader and tag as fairusedisputed. Megapixie 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Megapixie is correct. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2 February 2007

 * Image:USA Mens National Team.jpg -- This is a photo of the starting lineup of the United States men's national soccer team in the 2006 World Cup against Italy. As it's being used in the article, I think this is a violation of WP:FUC #8. It serves only a decorative purpose, as there are no specific points being made about this exact lineup. It could be easily replaced by a photo of the starting lineup in one of the team's other matches, or action shots from any of the matches, or even a photo of some of the team members training in preparation for the World Cup. Other editors of the page, however, are not so receptive to my arguments and suggested getting outside opinions, so here I am.  howcheng  {chat} 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Howcheng makes some good points. However the photo is used in a section about the 2006 team, and since 2006 is over, no further photos of the 2006 team can be produced. (That really only explains why it passes FUC#1, not #8. I'll leave it to others to decide if the image is serving an informational or decorative purpose.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just speedied this. It was from International Sports Images -- a stock photography provider.  While it's great to have thoughtful discussions about whether or not an image is replaceable, meets our criteria, etc., the "taking an image from someone who sells the image to be republished on websites and then republishing it on our website" is an electric fence.  Please speedy any images that come from Getty, Corbis, or any other similar business.  Jkelly 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here. I uploaded this from and tagged it (Promophoto from http://www.ussoccer.com/sights/index.jsp# Gallery: MNT vs. Italy I - 06-17-2006 The USA's Starting XI vs. Italy. © Brad Smith / International Sports Images) on 8 August 2006.  If it should never have been uploaded in the first flace I truly am sorry and appologize for all this trouble.  But, as a side question, I never hid the source of the image and International Sports Images was clearly there in the tag, so why wasn't this ever speedied before? --After Midnight 0001 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is probably a combination of 1) the fact that it was sourced to the website that had licensed it from ISI was checked more carefully than the (correct) copyright notice, 2) ISI isn't a well-known stock photo seller the way Getty or Corbis is, and, 3) we've gotten really focused on things like "replaceability" and "critical commentary", because "impact on the commercial activity of the copyright holder" comes up so rarely. Jkelly 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't recognize ISI as a photo agency. Otherwise I would have speedied it myself.  howcheng  {chat} 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that means it failed FUC#2, fwiw. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

27 February 2007
Barack Obama uses Image:Obama 08.JPG, which I believe could be replaced with Image:Obamaaustin.jpg. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Obamaaustin.jpg is not an adequate replacement for Image:Obama 08.JPG. Also, Sen. Obama's campaign site contains a Creative Commons notice at the bottom of its pages.  There is an ongoing discussion on this matter at Talk:Barack Obama, which User:Hipocrite is choosing to ignore. Italiavivi 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a valid replacement. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? The images both are illustrate his 08 presidental campaign. One is free, one is fair. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Obama 08.JPG is a logo. It is impossible to recreate a logo freely. If you go take an image of this logo somewhere, you can't release it under the GFDL. I disagree that any free image of the subject "represents the 08 Presidential Campaign" as well as the logo or in the same manner as the logo. -- MECU ≈ talk 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, MECU. Italiavivi 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also completely agree MECU. I've given a detailed fair use rationale. Suggest that Hipocrite has a look at the foundation licensing policy, which explains that fair use is allowed " to include identifying protected works such as logos". Addhoc 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't completely agree; while a logo is a logo and difficult to replace freely, it can be done: freedom of panorama. If somewhere that logo is engraved in stone (think of big corporate complexes with a permanent sculpture including their logo), then it could be used freely due to the ease of copyright restrictions detailed in freedom of panorama.  That said, I don't imagine that a campaign logo would be shown to the world like a corporate logo would, and I doubt that the situation is similar, but it is false that a logo is irreplaceable.  --Iamunknown 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

26 March 2007

 * Christina Aguilera A back-and-forth between unfree images, such as screenshots and album covers, to illustrate sections where there are many free images available at the Commons. ShadowHalo 08:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Today's foundation policy release makes this quite clear: the non-free images cannot be used if there are free replacements. --Carnildo 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Fortsaginawscotts.jpg This image was scanned from a 1960s tourism pamphlet for Saginaw, Michigan, and the pamphlet doesn't seem to have a copyright anywhere on it. This is the only way that I can provide an image of the mall's interior, seeing as Fort Saginaw Mall has been boarded up for about ten years now. TenPoundHammer 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is a tourism magazine, the rights to the image are likely not held by the publisher. Is there any indication of who the photographer is?  --Iamunknown 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1 May 2007

 * Image:Obama sr.jpg -- Photo of Sen. Barack Obama's father who died in 1981. Fair use on feature article Barack Obama where it is currently the only non-free image used there? --HailFire 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The primary concern is that we do not know who the copyright holder of the image is; in order to use the image we must (see WP:NFCC). The secondary concern is that it doesn't seem particularly relevance in Barack Obama.  I notice that there is a merge tag at Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.; I think that a single use of the image would be appropriate, but not both uses of the image.  (And, again, to use the image we must know the copyright owner.)  Also, the fair use rationale, "Fair use of a non living person, hence a free photo cannot be made," is semantically and practically incorrect; it is true that a free photograph cannot be made, but it is not true that an existing free photograph cannot be scanned and uploaded.  Has anyone tried contacting Barack Obama's campaign manager or secretary?  Additionally, the fair use rationale is simply weak.  (Probably because of the use of that template which, in every use I have seen, provides very weak rationales.)  --Iamunknown 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For unexplained reasons, a new image was uploaded to replace the original one. The replacement image is redundant to the pre-existing Image:Ann obama.jpg. Time for speedy delete of Image:Obama sr.jpg? --HailFire 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, tagging image with . --Iamunknown 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

11 May 2007

 * Image:Robert.Newton.ljs.gif in International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Image appears to add very little to the article. Other use not disputed at this time. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrr, shiver me timbers! That usage would only spark the eye of some piracy lubber, no doubt. To the plank with it! --Gmaxwell 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Image probably isn't fair-use, the whole patron saint rationale is dubious. Addhoc 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Image has since been removed from article in question. Removing the rationale on the image page would seem okay as well. (I agree it isn't needed in the article too.) MECU ≈ talk 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

13 May 2007

 * Image:Playa Fly.jpg - replaceable image of a living person. Addhoc 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

25 June 2007
Images on Cinema of Hong Kong and Music of Hong Kong. Several non-free images were removed from these articles with this edit and this edit. A user asked me the following questions on my talk page. There are certainly some subtleties here, and any additional opinions would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Many older artists have not performed since the 60s, 70s, 80s. They almost have to use albums and screenshots.  They are still alive, but are no longer publicized.  Will album images be allowed for them?
 * 2) An artist that is no longer alive should automatically be allowed to use album images. Does this seem fair?
 * 3) To my understanding, news site and magazine images are not eligible. Please let me know if this is correct.
 * 4) Also is an image of Bruce Lee really that unencyclopedic for the Cinema of Hong Kong page?


 * Here are my answers:
 * There are no hard-and-fast rules that always apply; there are only rules of thumb. You really have to look at whether the ten non-free content criteria apply for each use. The most important criteria for this discussion are 1, 2, 3, and 8. That said, an album cover image generally can not be used to illustrate the artist (or any other image depicted on the cover). In my opinion, an album cover image can generally be used in an article about the album, or in cases where all of the following are true: (1) the album, and not just the artist, is mentioned in the article, (2) the album is import enough in the article to satisfy criterion #8, and (3) the image of the album gives some sort of important information that words alone cannot. Examples where I think the use of an album cover image is justified include XO (album), since the article about the album itself, or Paul is dead, since the content of the album cover image is important to the article. Articles about musicians or musical styles should not include album covers unless that particular album cover is important in the article.
 * If the artist is no longer alive, then criterion #1 is not a problem. But criteria 2, 3, and 8 may still be. You can't "automatically" use the image, but only if you're not hurting the copyright-holder's ability to make money off the image (#2), there aren't more images than necessary in the article (#3), and the image is important enough in the article that it's not merely decorative (#8).
 * Sort of. Images from news sites and magazines are much more likely to fail criterion #2. But occasionally such images are allowed.
 * Good question. That image might pass all our criteria. I'd like more opinions. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can easly think of an article (not only a Wikipedia article, but an "article" in the general sense) about cinema in Hong Kong that could need to fairly use an image of Bruce Lee. But that article is not Cinema of Hong Kong. Due to being part of a vast hyperlinked encyclopedia, Cinema of Hong Kong doesn't go into enough depth to discuss the visual details of specif movies or actors. --Abu badali (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg and Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg - Is this fair use of the AP's copyright? Clearly these are non-replaceable, but do they pass criterion #2? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say so, because the article is not about the event depicted, but about the media coverage of the event depicted. But the article, as it currently is, only needs one image, not two.
 * And these images badly need sources. The articles puts the Associated Press in bad light, and we should be completely sure that these are really Associated Press images.
 * Also, the image captions should changed be to avoid drawing conclusions about Associated Press's fault.
 * If these points are addressed, I volunteer to write a completely sound fair use rationale for these images.--Abu badali (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This source attributes them to the AP. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. It says that the article is a reproduction from spiegel.de, but the link it provides doesn't work. I would be extra-careful with these kind of possibly defamatory articles. --Abu badali (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find a better one. It's looking like nsd. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's bad. And the article also uses this source to backup the possibly defamatory claim. This should be carefully addressed. --Abu badali (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an apparently reliable source for the children photo: The Albuquerque Journal . nadav (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems like a reliable source for the image. I'll be writing the rationale shortly. Great work! --Abu badali (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also being covered at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_25. -N 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

28 June 2007

 * Image:NikitaS4DVD.jpg and all the other DVD cover photos taken from La Femme Nikita (TV series) copyrighted DVD box sets cover art and screen shots of the program; see La Femme Nikita (TV series), where the photos are featured and related talk pages, e.g., Image talk: NikitaS4DVD.jpg and the talk page of the uploader User talk:TARDIS. Please also take into account the featuring of such photos of the DVDs in relation to WP:Spam and Advertisements. Please review (again in some cases) carefully.  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a gallery to me, so I think it fails WP's nonfree image policy. I think one cover might be appropriate to show the character (although that's not how they are currently used), but I don't think there's a legitimate justification to use all of them. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings either way. They aren't an advertisement, in the sense of the links put forward by NYS.  They do show how the show was marketed at retail, which is a valid objective.  I don't think they contribute an awful lot (at least not to me personally); but they might be significant to users who had specifically looked up the article.  However, what I do think is objectionable was the removal of the images used to show what the characters in the show looked like.  It's absolutely standard that those are fine by WP policy, and they ought to be re-instated.  Jheald 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese erotic actresses
Yesterday, I had tagged 40-odd fair-use images of Japanese actresses from articles in Category:Japanese porn stars as replaceable fair use. I learned most of these had been uploaded by Dekkapai. I've been in communication with Dekkappai, and we agreed to remove the tags from the articles and, instead of hashing out replacability on each individual image page, we'll treat them as a group and abide by consensus reached here at WP:FUR.

The fair use rationales for each image are thorough and well written - the actresses fall into two basic subsets for purposes of discussion - those that are still active and those that have retired. Rather than list all the images on this page (the full list can be found here), I'll give a representative example of each. I'm leaving a note on the uploader's page as well, as he has expressed a desire to comment. For now, I'll state his case as I understand it - I'm sure Dekkappai can clarify or expand as necessary. Videmus Omnia 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Active actresses
In theory, a replaceable free image should be obtainable. However, while I know that American porn stars make public appearances, I'm not sure this is the case in Japan, where the cultural mores are different. Videmus Omnia 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Example: Image:Sora Aoi.jpg
 * Porn pictures aren't necessarily replaceable. -N 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think images of an active actress are always going to be replaceable. Even if they don't make public appearances, an inquiry with their managements companies may prove fruitful.  They may value their privacy, but there are promotional motivations and therefore indirect financial incentives for helping contribute an image to Wikipedia. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot I don't know about Japanese mores, but we have to assume a non-free image is replaceable unless there's some evidence that it isn't. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify-- I uploaded these images with the understanding that promotional photos were acceptable fair-use. I see that under current Wiki policy, this is not the case. "Free" images of currently active Japanese erotic actresses, while extremely difficult to obtain, would not be impossible to obtain. As such, I do not dispute the images of currently active actresses being tagged for deletion. Dekkappai 18:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Retired actresses
This is a more complex situation. According to Dekkappai, the actresses, once retired, tend to disappear into private life/anonymity and are jealous of their privacy. He makes a good case by citing this news story about an ex-porn star Kaoru Kuroki who won a legal judgement for invasion of privacy. Videmus Omnia 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Example: Image:Ai Kurosawa.jpg
 * This is an interesting case. Certainly, the woman who sued would fall into the Salinger / Bin Laden category (i.e., people who are alive but go to extraordinary lengths to avoid being seen in public).  Beyond that, however, we're relying on speculation and tendencies to justify fair use, and I don't think that's sufficient.  I think at the very least someone should approach the subject's management company or studio with a request to take a new photo or to use an existing photo before we conclude that a nonfree image is not replaceable. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, this is tough. Yeah, a non-free image of the ex-actress who sued should be non-replaceable. Can anyone provide counter-examples? Images of Japanese ex-porn-stars who appeared in public or allowed themselves to be identified by a new photograph? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Quadell, yes, there are some such actresses who, after retiring from video/film, go into stripping, the mizu shōbai, or some other trade, though these are the exception rather than the rule... and actually, they haven't retired from public life, just moved to another aspect of it. About the typical AV (adult video) idol, Fornander says, "If she’s only out for money, she will studiously avoid publicity and quit inside a year—the average life-span of an AV girl." However he's talking about non-notable actresses rather than the major stars who are the subject of these articles. Nevertheless, even major erotic stars like Kaoru Kuroki (the one who sued for invasion of privacy), Kimiko Matsuzaka and Reiko Ike all use assumed names, all hide their real identities, and each of these very prominent actresses have famously intentionally vanished into anonymity after retirement. Adding to this the fact that they've been retired for a decade or more, the companies for which they worked are bankrupt, etc., I think it's safe to say that a new, free image of such an actress is nearly impossible to obtain. Dekkappai 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Butseriouslyfolks's idea (seriously ...) of sending a request for a completely free image to each actress. That's what Example requests for permission is all about, especially Example requests for permission. If no one else accepts the task, I'll do it, but it's not my main area of interest, so could take me a while; I'd much prefer if the job found Dekkappai. :-). Meanwhile, though, I think the images should be kept, since I do think the precedent Dek cites clearly shows these are comparable to the J. D. Salinger case, of people actively avoiding the media (and even the encyclopedia), so these promotional photos are not likely to be replaceable by anything better. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite happy to take up that task, Anon (but don't let me prevent you from helping). However, I suspect that this is going to be very, very difficult. I've been in contact with the owner of Boobpedia (Warning: contains boobs) for a few months, who has been trying to contact the agencies of such models (active ones, not retired). He is a professional in the field, the owner of a website in the field, and he has had no luck in even getting a response from anyone. What chance would an anonymous Wiki-editor with a vaguely vulgar ID have? But try, I will... Dekkappai 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to err on the side of inclusion, personally. If someone can show evidence that a photo is non-replaceable, and NFCC #2 is not an issue, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. If you've sent an e-mail and not heard back for 3 months, I would say that the image is not replaceable (given the Kaoru Kuroki case). Others will, no doubt, disagree. But the hurdle of NFCC #2 will be difficult to overcome. We'll have to be sure to only use images that don't compete with, or detract from, the copyright-holder's ability to profit from the images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it help to list specific efforts made to obtain free images on the image Fair Use Rationale? And if so, could this apply for still actresses until the promophoto can be replaced by a free one (As AnonEMouse suggested)? Dekkappai 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would help to list efforts to obtain a free image, because it supports the claim that the image cannot be replaced by a free one. Otherwise, that claim is largely speculative.  I do think it would have to be specific to the model in question, though.  You may find that some are happy to have an article in Wikipedia.  --  But | seriously | folks   16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

30 June 2007

 * Image:Eksicapture290607.jpg : This is just a screenshot from a web page. I didn't think that it would be a problem copyrightwise but it got tagged anyway so I need some advice. Kerem Özcan 09:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should expand the article to include information that would genuinely require an image to illustrate it, e.g. about the layout of the website and structure of definition pages. Currently, the image does not really add much information to the article and may fail WP:NFCC. nadav (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cisco Images

 * Image:Cisco-rs1.jpg :
 * Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg : I uploaded this two photos and placed the wrong tag on them, which I later corrected, but just to understand this for my own knowledge I would like to ask a question.
 * I used this tag now:

From promotional ad material supplied by vendor to promote this product. There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product.


 * Although wiki would prefer a free photo taken of these items, and it is theoretically possible, it would in really be next to impossible since they are always in secured locations. The Cisco-rs1.jpg runs on the Internet backbone and I am sure no-one would allow a photo of one. (security risk)


 * Seeing that these photos are from a press kit. Does wiki still prefer them to be free? What exactly happens if you cannot find a free alternative? I personally beleve the photo are neccessary to show the differnce in size between routers, one that consumes a wall of a room to the smallest that can fit into the palm of you hand.  The one that consumes the entire wall is in question here.  It not like they sell these things in Radio Shack. I do not believe that words alone can express what these things look like in the article, most people have never see routers of this size or scope, in this class of hardware.

Thanks for any advise on this --User: (talk • contribs • count) 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about core routers, but if these are in an ad, doesn't that mean they're for sale? And if so, someone could buy one and take a photograph, right? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not correct. In theory, uou could not take an image of one of these units, but they are the most expensive units sold and they run the Internet backbone. They are not even displayed at Cicso's office.  Cisco provided this photo from a press kit so that it could be placed on Wiki as the largest router in the world. (maybe one of the).  It is unreasonable to ask for a free image to be taken of one of these images.  Fair use policy states that, a free image should be used if one can be reasonalble taken.  They cannot be reasonably taken.  You cannot buy one of these units in a store and you cannot take a picture of a running unit installed because it is a security risk to the internet backbone provider. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged these rfu, since it seems to me that free replacements could be made. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a picture of a copyrighted item is still a violation of copyright. See the 2d image of a 3d object tag. Many of your spammed tags have been because you don't understand the difference between free media and fair use of copyrighted media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:[[User:SanchiTachi|User:SanchiTachi]] (User talk:[[User:SanchiTachi|talk]] • Special:Contributions/[[User:SanchiTachi|contribs]])
 * Cicso routers aren't copyrighted. Please don't accuse others of spamming without a good reason. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Using a photo of a copyrighted item is not a violation of the law. I know a great deal about this law. Using a copyrighted photo and declaring fair use, does not violate the law.  This law is meant just for things like wiki.  If the photo is used in a way to inform the public like in a newspaper or an article in a magazine, newspaper or encylopedia, fair use is justified, may be claimed and in no way violates the copyright law. Please read up on fair use law before stating I violated a law.  I know this law very, very well. I own a company and I enforce this law, so please do not accuse me of breaking it. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, all Cisco equipment is copyrighted, or there would be no dispute over their images being here to begin with. Furthermore, any picture of a copyrighted piece of equipment is called a derivative image, and falls under copyright law. It is a violation of the law. However, those are publicity photos, which fall under fair use. The main point is that Quadell has put tags on thousands of images without putting forth the required, verifiable evidence that there is a free image, which is violation of Wikipedia Spam. You cannot just put tags any where you want, you must have a justifiable reason, and to claim that an image can be replaced by a free one needs to be proved by producing a free image.
 * Are you sure you're not mixing up copyrights with patents? Does Cisco really copyright the appearance of their routers? (I honestly don't know). Videmus Omnia 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a trade dress argument, which would be trade mark, not copyright. I don't know whether you can copyright something like that. --  But | seriously | folks   05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged as rfu a number of other non-free images of routers, switches, and servers uploaded by akc9000, since it stands to reason that someone can photograph these products when considering purchasing them or after buying them. nadav (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You tag these, and you should untag them. Your logic is flawed. In theory someone could spend over $100,000.00 to purchase one of these units and someone could let you take a photo of one in theory but it is not going to happen.  Furthermore, all the photos fall completely under fair use law and there is not copyright infringement at all.  Wiki is full of photos from press kits. Are you going to flag the thousands of other photos as well or should I?


 * None of these photos fail the fair use test that you contest. You should rethink your decision because you logic is surely flawed. You cannot go to an electronics store or radio shack to buy one of these units.  They are stored in secure locations.  Even the Snap Server costs over $2,000.00 and is not sold in stores. These are high end units that need to be purchased from vendors or distributers.  Your not going to go into a store and find one to take a picture.


 * The fair use policy on wiki states that a free photo should be used if one can reasonably be taken to replace the fair use photo. I have stated and will state here for the record, that it is unreasonable to delete these photos because no free photo will ever be available to show these units.


 * I asked Cisco if I could take a photo of these units and I was told no but they sent me a press kit and told me I could use the photos contained within. The Snap Server photo was given to me as well so I could show what a network attached disk drive looks like.  Please not it looks nothing like a disk drive.  The routers look nothing like what an average person would think a router looks like, therefore these photos are used to convey knowledge in a way words themselves would not and the photos themselves would not. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have been in contact with Cisco, the best thing to do is ask if they can release an image either into the public domain, or under the GFDL (or similar free license). If they were helpful enough to say you could use a press kit photo, it may not be unreasonable to assume they wouldn't mind releasing an image under a free tag. Follow the procedure at Requesting copyright permission in order to get proper documentation. That said, even if we assume this is proper non-free use, there are issues with Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg. WP:FUC #8 is not met. It is used for decoration at the top of the article, and is not specifically discussed in a non-trivial manner. That image does not relate directly to the text of the article. I'm not sure it is completely unreasonable to say that no one could photograph this equipment. There are a lot of techies who contribute to wikipedia, and some may work for companies that own this equipment. It isn't an unreasonable assumption. I think the best route is to try and get a free licensed image from Cisco, or try to contact wikipedians who may have access to this equipment. -Andrew c [talk] 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes techies CAN take pictures of this equipment, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/affan-basalamah/317016489/. I asked the copyright owner if he could relicense his picture freely. Besides this image is being used in the article router where its use is decorative. -N 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will admit that is a piece of the equipment but it does not show the entire 7600 router and it does not have the same encylopedic value. Secondly the phot is not used decoratively, there is currently alot of activity with this article and a number of editors are working on the re-write. The router is mentioned in the types of routers section, was or will be again. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, N. Then it's demonstrably replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you actually think that the photo supplied has the same encyclopdic value as the one I uploaded which shows the entire router with all the cards? What is more important to wiki? Quality and exact detail or just finding a free photo? You did not demonstrate to me that the photo is replaceable. The photo you provided is a portion of a 7600 router it is not the complete unit with all the cards available for it. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to your first question? No, it's not as good. But it demonstrates that a photo just as good could be created. The answer to your second question? Both are extremely important, and are founding principles of Wikipedia. Neither is definitively more important than the other. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I contacted the VP of Marketing at Cisco to see if they would be willing to release the photos into public domain to solve this issue once and for all. Cisco was very suprised that this problem even exists.   The rep told me that they do not understand the issue at all. I escalated this issue all the way to the top.  But to tell you the truth, It seems to me that wiki is wasting time on trivial issues that do not even exist.  If you want to crack down on these photos like this, I would suggest you start flagging the other thousands of fair use photos I see as well. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of them are already being flagged. You might be surprised how upset people get when one tags there images for deletion because they don't comply with policy.  17Drew 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm working on it! Give me time! Seriously, though, "other violations exist" really isn't a very good rationale. I know that many people don't understand Wikipedia's image use policy. It's a drag. You might check out User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images -- he's had some great luck getting people to license their images. We all hate to see a good non-free image go, but we love to see a new free one get uploaded, and sometimes it takes the former to get the latter. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why photos that really should not be on wiki, like Image:CMP.png are not tagged and you contest these photos I uploaded that do serve a useful purpose and are really not replaceable exactly. This photo of the Blue Man Group is completely replaceable since they allow you to photograph them after the performance. I did in LV when I was there. I see well over 1,000 photos that do not belong in wiki not tagged. These photos of the routers belong and are not replaceable. You have not shown me a photo that replaces this router you have shown me a portion of a 7600 router but not the complete structure that is available. So no you did not show me a that this photo is replaceable. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can explain it in three words (or, rather, one long compound word): WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are encouraged to tag other replaceable fair use images as you come across them.  As you said, there are well over a thousand of them, with more uploaded every day, and there are a limited number of people watching for them and tagging them.  You are not being singled out; we just haven't gotten to the others yet. --  But | seriously | folks   01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that image to our attention. I have duly tagged it as replaceable and have informed the uploader. There are undoubtedly a large number of images that require such attention but with only a handful of volunteers, many of them may go unnoticed for a long time. With regards to this discussion, what has been demonstrated that it is possible to take a free picture of routers. Perhaps nobody has done so yet for this exact model, but it is possible. Surely there are a number of our readers that work in data centers or for ISPs -- all it takes is one such person to go and take a photo of the equipment.  howcheng  {chat} 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * akc9000 has removed the tags from this and several other images on the basis of a "permission" license from Cisco. I marked one of them for deletion because the license is not free enough. If it closes delete I'm going to nominate the others. -N 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

28 June 2007

 * Science fiction film - There are an awful lot of nonfree movie posters here. Are all of them really justified? Are any of them? —Angr 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, just about all of the images are decorative, and have little to no discussion of the specific films. Image:Clockworkorangeposter.jpg and Image:Discovery1b.GIF both have some discussion of the films' themes, though I'm not sure if those images would meet WP:NFC or not.  ShadowHalo 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely these images are replaceable with pre-1978 stills from trailers? The free images for every (big-budget) pre-1978 film exist (somewhere, even if it's on film reel), therefore they are automatically replaceable. -N 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why pre-1978? – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some crackpot genius on Commons figured out that pre-1964 trailers in the US were never registered for copyright, and they qualified as short films. Since they were never registered for copyright back when that was required, they are all now public domain. (See for instance Image:Jerome Cowan The Hurricane Trailer screenshot.jpg). There are tons of these on Commons, and nobody here even seems to be using many of them. I misspoke when I said 1978. -N 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Also I just realized none of the films being discussed is pre-1964 -N 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the best news I've heard all week. Commons-wonks are the bomb. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. The info comes from here. That took some digging to find out. It's pre-1964 for all trailers, and pre-1978 for trailers that didn't have a copyright notice (which is rare, but happened on occasion.) If you want, you can just play the trailers from the IMDB or somewhere and take screenshots. Be careful though. If it's a "reconstructed" trailer, made recently in order to sell the DVD or something, it's copyrighted. It has to be a scene from the original trailer that played before 1964. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, commons:Category:Science fiction films is shamefully sparse. That's not to say that there aren't free images that can be used; it's just that we don't seem to have any that would work at the moment.  ShadowHalo 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * La Femme Nikita (TV series) – please see the section posted above concerning the photos and Talk:La Femme Nikita (TV series) for related issues pertaining to disputed fair use rationales for images promoting the series as if Wikipedia were a fansite. The article and related articles being added to it through cross-links (forks) need to be encyclopedic [in keeping with Neutral point of view and documented with Reliable sources throughout; the images used in it need to be truly within fair use guidelines of U.S. copyright laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (pertaining to unauthorized public [re]distribution via the internet (Wikipedia) of video and music as well as cover art). Please review the cover art and other digital images posted in this article (some currently deleted) with regard to fair use (see above section on "Images".  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dulé Hill

 * In Dulé Hill, there is a lively discussion about whether Image:Dulé Hill.jpg is acceptable in the the "roles" section. (The discussion is so lively that its already been to mediation.) Here at FUR, we've seen many similar images in many similar situations. What do you think? Acceptable, or policy violation? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added my comment in the RfC for this image. In this case, unacceptable. Videmus Omnia 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It's replaceable as far as the actor is concerned. -- But | seriously | folks   04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On a more general note, the justifications that these photos illustrate a significant role for the actor are often bogus. For a show like The West Wing, the fictional character looks exactly like the actor wearing a suit. The image doesn't tell the reader anything additional that a free image of the actor wouldn't show. I think the circumstances are different in cases like Michael Dorn, where the makeup/costume drastically change the appearance of the person. Videmus Omnia 15:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There seem to me to be far too many fair use images (some of which implausibly claim to be under the GFDL) at Claude Jade. Most of these should probably be deletd but I'd like a second opinion. --Cherry blossom tree 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All of those images have problems - lacking rationale, replaceable, and likely copyright violations. The images have been tagged. Videmus Omnia 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Claude Jade is no longer alive, so it may prove impossible to find a free picture of her. Thus it could be acceptable to allow one or two non-free photos of this actress if a free photo isn't found. nadav (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly - but she did pass away fairly recently, so there are likely some free images out there. For example, I was just able to obtain a free image of David Hackworth, who died in 2005 and was much less public than this actress, to replace a non-free image of him. An effort should be made to get a free image, at least. Videmus Omnia 03:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This case is now at IFD: – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Profumo Affair

 * Profumo Affair. I contend that the use of the two non-free images of the principal players in this scandal are not necessary to the article. I'm not even convinced of the validity of Image:JohnProfumo.jpg since we don't really even know who the copyright holder is. However, Image:CKeeler1.jpg certainly shouldn't be allowed in this article as there is no commentary whatsoever on the image. I attempted to remove both images but was reverted by an editor who believes me to be an unreasonable person (I'm paraphrasing here). Anyway, in the interest of fairness, I am soliciting outside views.  howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Keeler image is one of the things that poured even more petrol onto the media furore at the time -- and you can see why. It should definitely be presented in the article.  Perhaps the caption could be edited slightly; but historically the impact of this image, in connection with the scandal, is indisputable.  It's a relevant part of the story.
 * The underlying copyright holder of the Profumo picture is the Press Association (PA), identified on the Guardian blog page which used it. It certainly adds to the page, and it is difficult to think where we could get a free picture of Profumo from, from the period.  But it's basically a straight portrait shot, not in any way "iconic" - this particular photo didn't become part of the story, so it's hard to make a fair use case for it. The article will be worse without it, but that's not sufficient to allow us to keep it.  Jheald 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the Keeler image, if the article is rewritten to discuss the impact of the image on the whole scandal (sourced, naturally), which isn't really even discussed in Christine Keeler -- the latter article instead talks about how the Arne Jacobsen chair became famous because of the photo. But given that PA is the source of the Profumo image, I'm afraid I'll have to nominate that for deletion.  howcheng  {chat} 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jheald, that's a good start, but it's still kind of lacking. You write that the picture added "fuel to the fire" ... how so? What were some reactions to it? Are there quotes from the Daily Mail, or The Sun, or better yet, some other politicians who referred to the picture? The source you cited doesn't address any of that -- only how the photo was endlessly parodied (which is good, but that belongs in Christine Keeler more than here).  howcheng  {chat} 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. You have made no attempt whatsoever to discuss this on the article talk page. Surely you should give it a few days there first?. Your point of departure should be to discuss the matter with the editors who regularly contribute to the article. Are you going direct to a forum where you believe you will find a more sympathetic audience?. Bob BScar23625 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make an attempt, but you basically shut me down, saying "No reasonable person would agree with you". The people who should be involved in this discussion are both those who regularly edit the article, as well as those who are knowledgeable about the policy. Hopefully there will be some editors who are well versed in both.  howcheng  {chat} 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. The article talk page does not just consist of me. You should have spent several days there before taking the matter elsewhere. Shopping around for a forum where you think you can find sympathisers is just a form of canvassing. Bob BScar23625 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The examination of whether the usage of the images within the article is proper according to policy should include those knowledgeable about the policy. I left links on the talk page so that other article editors could find their way here and then we could have a discussion between policy wonks and those familiar with the article. What I did was save myself "several days" of frustration. I could have fought with you for a few days and raised my wikistress level, then brought in outside opinions, or I could skip all that possible bad blood in the middle and get to the point. You would have preferred the more combative route?  howcheng  {chat} 06:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. The Profumo image is about the strongest case for Fair Use that I can imagine. You and certain others appear to have some moral objection the use of images in Wikipedia. That is your privelege and you are welcome to express your views. However, please try to work through the concept of consensus. You should have worked through the article talk page for a week before going elsewhere. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.  howcheng  {chat} 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Past_Doctors.jpg
I dont feel it is essential in the article List_of_Doctor_Who_items, this item has a lenghty text description in the article, to which an image adds little. The majority of items on this list are unillustrated! The Fashion Icon 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that all images in List_of_Doctor_Who_items are equally usable (or unusable). Is this item different for some reason? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metropolitan90TemplateCent.JPG
I received a notice that this image is considered a non-free image, and it isn't being used in any articles so it could be deleted. However, the copyright holder of the image is the Wikimedia Foundation. Somehow I suspect that they aren't going to sue themselves. Furthermore, the image is in use on one of my user talk pages at User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 2. Since user talk pages aren't intended to be copied to mirror sites, no other site is going to pick up this image and inadvertently use it without a free license. The image should be considered fair use as it is being used in userspace to illustrate the historical appearance of a Wikipedia template. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One concern is that it the screenshot was taken in Internet Explorer / Microsoft Windows and, as such, includes non-free imagery from those interfaces. AFAIK, this can be rectified by cropping out the non-free stuff (and leaving in the depiction of the website).  --Iamunknown 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just crop out the taskbar and the Wikipedia logo, and all problems go away. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game

 * At Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, there are currently 10 non-free images being used in the "Sets" section (the first two are being claimed as public domain). I see these images as failing at least criteria 3(a) (minimal use) and 8 (significance) of the fair use criteria, but this is being disputed. I would welcome any further opinions. Cheers --Pak21 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill Keeler is not on wikipedia but there is proof that he made the frist two images. All images are significant. ~LG~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)

07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rule Book and Icon galleries violate WP:FU, that's for sure. Also, the Icon images appear to be commercially produced, not taken by the uploader, so they are replaceable. -- But | seriously | folks  
 * the rule books are free to download from wizards.com Maybe it should listed as instead of — ~LG~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)
 * Huh?? book cover is just a redirect to Non-free book cover. --Pak21 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Commons has a pic of a D&D miniature game in progress: Image:D&D Game 1.jpg. Other free images of the game could be produced (the stuff are all useful articles, so as long as it isn't like a mega high res close-up it shouldn't be considered a derivative work). A Flickr search for "dungeons dragons" and free licenses produces 401 results, although some of them would have to be weeded out for being derivative works/too blurry/etc, but of course we could use a freely licensed pic under a fair use claim if we had to. I say clear the lot out, it's all replaceable. -N 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that images of "Dungeons & Dragons" as (D&D Game 1.jpg is) are not images of the "Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures"  game.  They use many of the same components, but  one is a role-playing game, the other a miniatures wargame.  Showing an image of one in the others article will be actively confusing. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While that's true for that specific image, it's certainly possible to produce a free image of a game of D&D Minis in progress and as such there is no reason to use any non-free images of a game (not that this is actually an issue at present). --Pak21 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that would show a "game in progress" but not other significant aspects of the game ~LG~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry but beyond people playing the game and perhaps some carefully arranged non-derivative shots of game accessories, anything else just serves as decoration, in violation of WP:NFCC. The game icons and box covers add no information value to the article. If you believe some sort of fantasy picture is needed to give the reader a sense of mood, any number of free images can be used. -N 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain exactly which other significant aspects you feel need to be shown? --Pak21 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * other significant aspects I feel need to be shown: the game logo, the set symbols that appear on the minis and the cards, pics of the Icons, an image of a the two types of cards, the alignment symbols, the rule books and pic of some of the mins. I have yet to see anything on the page that was not significant. you play the game also so tell me what you feel is significant. tell us what you want to see on the page not just what you don't want to see. add a to do list and we will get right on it. Lets add not take away. ~LG~

I have removed the two galleries that are definately fair use violations, and can not see any real reason to keep all the logos. If each set had their own article, then yes, but, as it stands, they are a fair use violation for the same reason that album art in discographies is discouraged, and List of... episodes no longer use screenshots. J Milburn 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Mr falsely signing anon with warnings on his talk page, please do not reformat the discussion the way you did. You de-indented something I wrote and completely divorced it from the comment it was replying to. If you want to insert a comment you can de-indent or indent your comment in the proper way. -N 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The logos cannot simply be redrawn and released into the public domain. Could I redraw the Nike swoosh and release into the public domain so anyone could use it for commercial purposes? Of course not. Same applies here, the "public domain" tagged logs are improperly licensed. I agree with removal of the gallery of book covers (and they should be tagged as orphaned non-free images for deletion). As for the logos, J Milburn makes a good point that including them in a table seems decorative, but if they were in an article about each set, it would be different. I'm not sure any of the images in question meet out non-free use criteria.-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was decided long ago not to have seperate articles about each set but to put in just one article with talk of every set 71.33.167.187 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The set-identifying icons are significant information. They are similar to, say, a jeweler's or potter's mark.  Since the individual miniatures are "collectable" and frequently sold or traded individually, the primary way of identifying their set of origin is the symbol printed on their base.  So these are important reference information.  That said, the symbols on the bases are simpler and simply embossed; they have  no color.  A black-and-white version more similar to those on  the miniatures themselves might be superior (although still  subject to copyright and thus only available under fair use).   — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i think they are of some importance, however the colored originals from WotC website may not be needed as they are not presented that way on the cards, and the miniatures themselves. would a handdrawn image that is just black and white violate fair use? i had created som set symbols for my little software and would be happy for them to be used here if it would help to distinguish the sets of DDM by symbols, like Magic the Gatheirng is also distinguished by its expansion set symbols. someone look at those i have and see if they are any better than the ones by WotC present in the article itself. http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/minis.htm shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see that page, Shadzar. It just comes up blank for me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I ran into problems as well, but I poked around and found them. They're at http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/_00.jpg through http://home.triad.rr.com/shadzar/DDM/_11.jpg.  They're a bit smaller than I'd like, but they seem like a good start — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rule Books are free from Wizards.com. most of the game page i have seen on Wikipedia have pics if the rulebooks. like Warhammer 40,000 tom74.93.224.194 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the books are free to download or not makes no difference to their copyright status; they are not free for others to reuse, which is the important point here. The images used in Warhammer 40,000 are used to illustrate specific points in the text, which is the crucial difference from how they were used in Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game. --Pak21 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * then all we need is to add more info as to what the cover are all about. Comment of the history of the rulebooks. As they say a picture is worth a 1,000 words but I’ll add some word to go with them. Remember all Wiki pages are works in progress ~LG~ (til i can come up with someing better)74.7.53.146 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on this very similar situation, I would say the images can't be used in a list in this way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would anyone other than me be prepared to remove the images from the page? I don't want to edit war over this... Cheers --Pak21 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll help. I don't have enough hate in my life. Anyone else willing? – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too, I've already had it on my watchlist since the beginning of the discussion. J Milburn 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the consensus was to keep the images? -LG- 74.7.53.146 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The consensus is that our policy prevents using images like these in a list like this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tendulkar receives 2003 WC MoS Award.jpg

 * Request review if fair-use tag for Image:Tendulkar receives 2003 WC MoS Award.jpg as ireceived a FLC comment that this image violates #5 of fair use guideline. --Kalyan 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a clear case of #8 violation: The image of someone receiving or holding an award doesn't increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. Depicting an unrepeatable event is necessary, but not enough for a non-free image to be used. --Abu badali (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall remove the image. --Kalyan 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Boeing 777F.jpg
Maybe there is a difference, but this image looks EXACTLY like the 9 free images of Boeing 777's used in Boeing 777 and the dozens of Boeing 777's on Commons. This model is in production and is in testing now and should enter commercial service in 2008. Its use in the article is decorative as it provides no new information that can't be gleaned by looking at the other 9 free images of Boeing 777's; all the changes are internal, the plane's exterior doesn't change with this model, so this external shot doesn't provide ANY new information. I orphaned it from the article but it was reverted, I marked it as replaceable and it was disputed. Submitted for review. -N 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The differences are: Freighter model, not passengers; no windows (no passengers) except for the cockpit; large cargo door at the rear. You actually have to look at it to tell the difference, but these are not small changes.  Until Boeing at least rolls out a 777F for someone to have a chance to take pictures of it, it's not replacable.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert on this one. Not all B-777s are the same, and right now, Image:Boeing 777F.jpg simply isn't replaceable. The plane doesn't yet exist, and can't be photographed. - auburn pilot   talk  05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:NFCC #1 is pretty clear. A free alternative could be created. Not now, perhaps, but it will be possible in the future to do so. That makes this replaceable.  howcheng  {chat} 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may make it replaceable in the future. It doesn't make it replaceable now. Jheald 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A GIS shows other images of this plane, I don't see why one of them couldn't be released under a free license. -N 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I use is this: "Could a member of the general public, using tools available to the general public (even if those tools are extremely expensive) create a free image that would give the same encyclopedic value in the way the current image is used in the article?" In this case, it appears to me that the answer is no. (Note that this is only my personal way of interpreting policy.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would lean towards being stricter. We are not actually making any critical comment on the image in question - i.e. "This image is typical of Joe Bloggs style when creating CGI imagery, blah blah blah" - thus not actually making this fair use. The image does not depict an un-repeatable historic moment. The image itself is promotional, but that's not something we permit without critical comment. Since the image itself is CGI (i.e. not a photograph) there is no reason why we couldn't create a CGI replacement image like, say here Image:KLM777-Sec41.png. Quite simply this is replaceable - by art in the short term and by a photograph in the long term. Megapixie 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DC animated universe
There is a gallery of non-free DVD covers at the bottom. This clearly violates WP:FUC #8 (or at least, it was clear yesterday, before the criteria was changed... must have missed that conversation). Anyway, all the images are tagged as being orphaned (Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 4 July 2007)and the 7 days have expired, only an anon restored the non-free gallery on the 6th (so they aren't orphaned). I was just going to delete all of the images anyway, because their use is improper, but instead I came here to see what the correct process would be.-Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of it looks like. All deleted. Maybe we could keep an eye to make sure it isn't recreated.-Andrew c [talk] 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg
This is a photo of a stone that is at a museum in Singapore. In the fair use rationale, the uploader said "The image is not replaceable. The Singapore Stone is displayed at the National Museum of Singapore. For preservation reasons, it is unlikely that visitors to the museum will be permitted to take photographs of it. Therefore, it is also unlikely that an image which does not rely on the doctrine of fair use is easily obtainable." I tagged it as replaceable anyway, thinking that we would need evidence of "no photography allowed" to deem in non-replaceable. But I'm not sure whether I did the right thing or not. Should we assume that images like this are replaceable or non-replaceable? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you did the right thing. We need some verifiable evidence for "photographs are not allowed" claims. --Abu badali (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The plot thickens. It turns out the museum allows photography, but only for non-commercial purposes. On the one hand, that's not a copyright issue, and the museum can't stop you from licensing your photos any way you want. On the other hand, you would have to lie (at least implicitly) to replace this photo with a GFDL-compliant one. Where does that leave us in terms of policy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't have to lie. If asked, you could just reply "I will respect all your rights in relation to the photograph I will take" (since they have none... ;) ) --Abu badali (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was the editor who uploaded the image. Of course it would be difficult for the museum to control what people do with photographs they have taken at the Museum, but then doesn't taking the line that images of artefacts at the Museum are replaceable implicitly encourage people to breach the contractual terms of their entry into the Museum? Granted that this is not a copyright matter, but should Wikipedia be encouraging editors to break the law in other ways? By making fair use of the image on Wikipedia, at least there is an arguable defence against breach of copyright. Which, then, is the lesser of the two evils? Cheers, Jacklee 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Question. (All right, maybe more of a nit-pick. But germane nevertheless). If the museum allows photography for non-commercial purposes, how precisely does it define that?  Is it asserting some sort of subsequent downstream rights on the photograph. (I'm not sure I can see any contractual linkage with downstream third and fourth parties).  Or is it that the actual act of the photography itself is to be non-commercial -- i.e. that photographer must not be making any money off their act of photography?  Not 100% clear to me.  Jheald 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it matter? If I take a picture of a public domain object with my own camera, then the museum cannot stop me from doing what I want with the picture. They have physical ownership of the object but any claim of intellectual ownership is gone. Does that make sense? It's the opposite of the problem faced by people who own objects still in copyright. You may physically own the object but you do not own the intellectual rights, and so the artist could object to you selling pictures of it. -N 14:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Jheald's comments: I don't see any material difference between the act of photography being commercial (e.g., someone being paid to take a photograph) and the subsequent licensing or sale of the photograph being commercial (e.g., person originally taking photograph for personal use, but later deciding to license or sell it for profit). Clearly, what the Museum intends is that visitors do not make any commercial use of their photographs, whether in the former or latter situation. As to N's later comments, I would say that the Museum doesn't have any intellectual property rights over the historical object itself. It is ancient (possibly 13th century), so clearly the artist who originally inscribed it is long dead. Any person who snaps a photograph of it gains copyright in the image. But a visitor who takes photographs and then uses them for commercial or non-private purposes arguably acts in breach of his or her contract with the Museum. If the Museum found out, it could sue the visitor. Cheers, Jacklee 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not any realistic danger of a suit. The question is, do we interpret policy to mean that this image is replaceable, even though that would de facto encourage a photographer to be deceptive? Or do we say that a replacement cannot "reasonably" be created, since the only way to do so would be to act unethically? In other words, is there an ethics exception to our replaceability criterion? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has come up a few times over at Commons. Contracts between the photographer and third parties (such as museums, sporting venues, etc) are outside the bailiwick of Wikipedia or even the WMF, so in other words this has no standing on freely licensed existing images and/or new uploads that violate this contract. However, as Quadell notes, introducing fair use into this throws a new wrinkle into the mix. I think that sort of discussion needs to be done at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or even escalated to the Foundation.  howcheng  {chat} 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got into this issue before even here on wikipedia. It is a common requirement with museums in particular. It was considered in the now abandoned guideline to replacability. In my opinion, we should assume such images are not replacable Nil Einne 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:^demon removed the tags from the image, and has ruled it is fair use. I disagree with him. -N 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daredevil46.jpg
This has been deleted several times and was tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of its recreation. I have removed the speedy tag since it looks like a good fair use to me, but I'm listing it here for review. -- But | seriously | folks   20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not good fair use. Fair use is to discus notable information about an image. The image in question was an early design that was never used. The article is not discussing the cover, and indeed there's nothing to talk about as that cover was never used, the person uploading it just wanted to use a character portrait that he happened to like, probably because it's showing part of a nipple. As an unpublished, unofficial graphic this fails fair use quite massively, and the fact that it has been deleted over and over and over should be a good clue that it doesn't belong here. The ACTUAL cover of that issue was uploaded at one point, which would more likely fit fair use rationale, but the editor in question insisted upon using the nonstandard one. Any argument that this image was chosen in good faith attempt at fair use goes out the window at that point. DreamGuy 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The use on Alex Maleev looks acceptable to me, to illustrate the points made about the artist's style. As for Typhoid Mary (comics), we generally allow one or a limited number of fair-use images to characterise significant ways in which the character has been depicted.  If this image is characteristic of the way that Typhoid Mary has been depicted in a notable part of the comic's run, then there's a fair use argument.  IMO it's down to editors of the article who know the subject to have an editorial discussion as to what they feel is the best depiction of Typhoid Mary from this period for the article.  But this one is a possible such fair use depiction.   Jheald 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the tag back until a decision is made - then if any copy vio problems come up at least it looks like we were doing something. I can't see a reason to not tag something until it's status has been agreed. Sophia  17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use review and community discussion is not doing something? I don't understand, but if the speedy tag makes someone more comfortable, that's fine.  I added a hangon so it doesn't get deleted by someone who is not aware of this discussion. --  But | seriously | folks   17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not everyone will notice that straight away - the tags are there to make it very clear to all. Has this picture been published anywhere? This seems to be an important point looking at WP:FUC. At the moment the tag says it's cover art that was never used and is sourced from a copy vio web page. Sophia  09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point, but I want to clarify that even if it wasn't used as the cover, it may still have been published, and even if it is used on another website in violation of copyright laws, it could qualify for fair use here. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying we need to know more.  If it was stolen from the artist and posted, I would agree we can't use it here.  Barring that, I'm not sure how the uploader would have gotten it to upload if it was never released by the artist or publisher somewhere, which would mean it was published. --  But | seriously | folks   09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in these situations the onus is on the person that wants to upload the picture to prove it is fair use - not us to prove it isn't which means that unless this can be properly established it will need to be deleted. Sophia  12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in the ordinary case, but here, where there's an unusual allegation that the image was not previously published, I think it's up to the challenger to clarify that allegation. Especially if the only objection to fair use is that the image is unpublished.  Otherwise, someone could go around vaguely claiming images were unpublished, and it would be difficult to refute that position. --  But | seriously | folks   17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me? So you think any image every published anywhere becomes fair use if we want to use it? And pretending that was my only objection to it is crazy anyway. This image is not and never has been the cover of the issue in question. It was a preliminary piece of art the artist had. Apparently he decided to show it to someone at some point and they took it upon themselves to spread it around. Fair Use by its very nature has to be something that can be demonstrated by the people wanting to use a copyrighted image without permission. While we could argue that an actual comic book cover is fair use, I think interior images are on very shaky ground (and I am disturbed about how many articles already have such images) but preliminary images by artists that never got published are off the scale inappropriate. DreamGuy 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just left notes for the uploader and primary opponent of this image asking for their input. Hopefully they'll be by shortly to shed some light on the situation so we can resolve this issue quickly. --  But | seriously | folks   02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are the one getting in the way of it being resolved quickly. It has been deleted countless times in the past as a copyright violation, and you took the speedy tag off of it and only put it back with a hold on notice after people told you what you did was improper. If you honestly wanted it solved quickl;y it'd already be deleted. How many times do we have to delete the same image before it sticks? This same person just reuploads it over and over, even when the official cover of the issue in question was helpfully uploaded by someone else to use as a replacement (for all I know it has since been deleted as an orphan after the edit warrior removed it and put the bad one back). Fair use does not mean "I saw this some where and I want to use it so I will." Can we have some sanity here for a change? DreamGuy 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I obviously don't think that any published image is fair game per se, but many of them can be used under our NFCC. I limited my question to that area because that is the only aspect of your argument I found persuasive. There's no rule that makes the cover or an interior image more appropriate for fair use. That determination can only be made by reference to the contents of the article itself. In this case, we're discussing the character and the artist, so any artwork of the character or by the artist can conceivably be fair use, subject to the other NFCC. I'm more interested in making the right call on this than deleting it in a hurry. I didn't put the SD tag back, btw, that was Sophia. Thanks for your input. -- But | seriously | folks   03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "There's no rule that makes the cover or an interior image more appropriate for fair use." Are you kidding me? Cover art is by default used promotionally. Interior art shouldn't be used either, unless we know it's been officially released as publicity materials, in which case we need to prove it. Some copyright violation nabbed out of nowhere absolutely is not fair use.
 * And please don't try to say my only argument is only the part *you* find persuasive, because what you find persuasive isn't even of interest to me, based upon your coomplete lack of understanding of Fair Use Doctrine as demonstrated in this discussion. IF you think it's fair use, then you need to justify it, or the original uploader. That's how fair use works. The assumption that something is fair use isn't good enough, because that would definitely lead to anyone using anything for any reason. If you can't prove the image was promotional, that part of the fair use explanation is completely bogus, and without that there's no rationale for using this at all. DreamGuy 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not kidding you. Please show me where it says that only promotional images can qualify for fair use.  --  But | seriously | folks   03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The cover was published on several official sites (like Newsarama; Newsarama is not just some forum as you stated, it's a news site for comics). 2) It is on Alex Maleev's, the artist's, official website. --DrBat 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see someone has already removed the speedy deletion tag. Since this image has clearly been published, I concur with that action.  I am rewriting the fair use rationale and including a reference to this discussion. --  But | seriously | folks   16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to archive these discussions whenever they're resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well paced excellent work ButSeriouslyFolks - my commendations to you on your tenacity. I am prepared to archive this discussion tomorrow with a link to the talk page of the image - unless anyone has any objections?-- VS  talk 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I object... you didn't delete the copyright violation yet. So it's on Alex Maleev's website. So what? You can;t just take an image from a website and use it without permission. Fair Use doesn't work that way. Nobody has yet come up with any rationale that shows actual fair use, so far it's just that they want to use it and it's been posted online... under that criteria ANY IMAGE ON THE WEB could be labeled "fair use". The fact that we have some people who rushed to judgment here and now are bending over backwards to try to justify their actions (including an admin who abused his blocking power and got yelled at by other admins for a clear out of process action) doesn't change the fact that this image is not legal to have here. DreamGuy 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a complete fair use rationale, in template form, on the image page. Which aspect of it do you believe is inadequate?  Or are you saying that only promotional images can be fair use? --  But | seriously | folks   07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pulling this together what it seems has been established is that the true cover has been published on other websites but this image is available from the artist's website. From my limited understanding of fair use we need to show that this particular image must be used in these articles as there is no freely available alternative. The fact that the artist has put it on his website does not grant fair use unless he has explicityly said so (this link if it exists will need to be added to the tag for verification). I must agree with Dreamguy that so far compliance with WP:FUC has not been shown. Sophia  09:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a little confused here. Fair use is not a license.  The artist's permission is not required.  Fair use is the right, preserved by law, to make limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances without requiring permission from the rights holders.  Jheald 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jheald's comments directly above and at the top of this section are, IMHO so far, the most obvious "fair use" rationale and these appear to be explained on the image page to a more than satisfactory level. Thus the relationship between the uploading of the image and purposes/s explained as "For Typhoid Mary (comics): To show a characteristic image of this comic-book character & For Alex Maleev: To show a representative example of the artist's style, illustrating the points made about it in the article" seem more than adequate.  That said I would be happy to be swayed by DreamGuy's continuous complaints, even when they are peppered by other coloured falsities, but to date his argument when inspected closely, (to see if it is solid or not) would mean that no image uploaded for the above type of purpose/s is valid fair use?  Alternatively rather than indicate that this image is definitely not fair use by his personal decree we would be assisted by his giving us an example when such an image would meet his fair use criteria!  Is that possible DreamGuy because then this whole saga could be dealt with and archived.-- VS  talk 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

''So what? You can;t just take an image from a website and use it without permission.''
 * I have the artist Alex Maleev's permission. --DrBat 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just about to suggest someone tried this as it worked for me in a similar situation with an image. I have no more objections as long as a link to the artists permission is added to the tag. Sophia  18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Judy Garland
All barring the infobox image are copyrighted, but with inadequate sourcing and no fair use declarations. -Malkinann 06:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nominated all for deletion. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind Album cover

 * Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Tarc ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is being used in a ton of articles, some of which discuss the cover, some don't. The use in the various articles needs to be examined. — Videmus Omnia Talk  01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that per policy and guidelines, use of the album image is acceptable for identification, in an article or a separate (prose) sub-section of an article devoted to discussing the album.  Discussion does not need to discuss the cover image specifically.  Just adding this comment as a general note - I haven't looked at the pages in question to see which ones may or may not conform.  Jheald 09:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, since you just changed policy to say that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was principally thinking of this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_22 from 7 June 2007, which all sides (following extensive other discussions in talk) seemed to agree was a useful clarification. But the recent extra clarity, that a (prose) sub-section of an article devoted to discussing the album qualifies, is a good further sharpening, yes. Either way, an article doesn't have to specifically discuss the image.  Jheald 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. If an article had to discuss the album art, and not just the album, in order to use the image, we would have to delete 90% of the album cover images on Wikipedia. I don't think that would be for the best. (By the way, my reply above was pretty confrontational. It was early in the morning, and I was grumpy. Thanks for not snapping back.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the assertions made above. You don't have to describe the art on every instance so much as actually have commentary about the album, which a lot of these did not have, and some were being used as decorations as "covers" of the singles, which this single cover is not. Linking to Nirvana in a sentence is 'not enough to have an album cover used as an image for an article. — M o e   ε  16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. What people are saying is if there is a prose section with its own header, devoted to discussing the album, that's likely to indicate sufficent grounds for inclusion.  In some cases discussion which isn't a whole section may be sufficient - eg the recent review for Barack Obama's book.  But rather more than a casual offhand reference in a sentence.  Jheald 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's also keep in mind that Nevermind is a seminal album, akin to Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon, so its cover should probably survive fair use challenges more hardily than your typical record album cover. What I'm saying is if any cover should illustrate "Rock in the 1990's" or some such article, I would say it would be this one. --  But | seriously | folks   17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is currently used in 5 articles: Those are my thoughts. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Nirvana (band) - it's used in the "Nevermind" section, which is long and detailed. Acceptable.
 * 2) Nevermind (album) - obviously acceptable
 * 3) Music of the United States - used in the section "The grunge explosion", which discusses the album, but is not primarily about the album. This is borderline. Couldn't a free image of Nirvana be used instead? (At least one exists.) Or a free image of Pearl Jam, also mentioned extensively? How about Image:Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam in concert in Italy 2006.jpg?
 * 4) Music history of the United States (1980s to the present) - Similarly borderline. I would lean toward saying that this use is not acceptable. The image is used in the Grunge section, and is mentioned in only one of the six paragraphs in the section. Any "grunge" image could replace this use, in my opinion.
 * 5) Spencer Elden (the baby) - the album is a bit stubby, but he is best known for appearing on the album cover, and the album cover art is pivotal in the article. Acceptable.


 * So where are we at with this one? Someone already swapped in Image:Nirvana around 1992.jpg for #4, so I did that for #3 as well.  Are we cool with fair use for #1, #2, and #5? Tarc 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sivaji Poster.jpg
Uploader claims fair use. But this image was taken from a blog (probably owned by a fan). This is a duplicate of a non-English image that was speedily deleted several times. Also, uploader has a history of running a sock farm and adding similar copyvio images for Tamil films with fake licence tags. See also Image:Sivajirajinishriya.jpg, Image:Sivaji-poster.png, Image:Sivaji-05.jpg, Image:SiovajiW1.jpg, Image:Sivaji_release_PVR-Bangalore.JPG and Image:Siivajicoverin.gif. See also original sockpuppetteer account. Anwar 11:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source matters if it's fair use, as long as the image has been published by the copyright holder. (It's not like the uploader is claiming it's free.)  And it's fairly well established that a movie's poster can be used to illustrate an article about the movie. No comment on the sock allegations. --  But | seriously | folks   04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is acceptable in the article Sivaji (film). – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jackie DeShannon
Is use of Image:Jackiedeshannon.jpg legitimate on this page?


 * User:Durin has just deleted it, with the edit summary "rm use of fair use image to depict living artist". On the other hand, example #17 of unacceptable use at WP:FAIR says "17. Pictures of people who are still alive,... provided such an alternative would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. (emphasis added). Ms DeShannon is primarily noted as a 1960s recording artist, and has not had a top 10 hit since that decade.  Is it not a rather different encyclopedic purpose, to show her image then in the 1960s, at her most notable, in the form of the image chosen for an album cover of a retrospective compilation album, rather than whatever she may look like now?  It's a 1960s image that's appropriate here.  Jheald 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy clearly indicates "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" This fair use image is being used to identify the person in question. It is not being used to discuss the album in question. We do not use copyrighted images in this way. The person is alive, we can reasonably expect to get a free license replacement for it. I am undoing this re-inclusion as it is a blatant violation of our policies and foundation resolutions. If you want to discuss the album, then including the album cover in a major section on the album is entirely appropriate. To use the album cover to illustrate the artist is entirely inappropriate. --Durin 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate for the article to illustrate the artist as she was (and as she was merchandised) in the 1960s, and this album cover is a particularly appropriate way to do that. That is fulfilling a different encyclopedic purpose to an image of the artist as she is now.  I'd be grateful if somebody could restore the image to where it was on the page, if they think that's appropriate, so we can see what we're discussing.  But I leave that to another editor, because I don't propose to get into an edit war with Durin.  Jheald 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't any reason to restore the image to discuss it's placement. Simply link to the version that had the image, for example. The image shows the album and is using the album cover to depict her, nothing more. The album isn't even mentioned in in the inline text, only in the discography. The argument that it's use is to depict how she looked back in 19XX does not carry weight vis-a-vis the foundation resolution. Further, her appearance at that time isn't even relevant to the article's text. Let's take a counter example; Mark_Hammil. If there were only fair use images of the appearance of his face before the accident, then the use of such an image to discuss changes in the appearance of his face, and comparing it to a current image of his face, would be entirely useful and pertinent to the reader's understanding of the incident. Here, the image is being used entirely for identification and decoration of the article. It doesn't matter that the person has aged. The use here is clearly, clearly inappropriate given the person is alive. --Durin 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what anybody else thinks. This is the image of her that her record company evidently thought was most characteristic of her at the height of her success.  Jheald 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So? It's still a fair use image being used to depict her. We don't do that for living people. --Durin 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just sent a request for an image to her here. We'll see if she responds. (Or did someone try this already?) Videmus Omnia Talk  14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there are some cases where we can deem a photo of a person non-replaceable, even if the person is still alive and available, based solely on the difference between his appearance then and his appearance now. First, the difference in appearance has to be notable. "He looks older" or "She's fatter" are not good enough. Second, the difference in appearance has to be discussed in the text in its own subject. For example, Michael Jackson's changing skin-tone is notable and worth its own section; the fact that Harrison Ford is now older than he used to be is not. In this case, I don't see anything in the article Jackie DeShannon which would make it necessary to visually see the difference between the way she looked then and the way she looks now. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A very interesting and evolving area. Is a decades-old image of an actor or singer in his or her heyday replaceable just because the person is alive, or has the "moment" passed so that the person's former appearance can no longer be captured, and is the latter sufficient for us to use it here?  (I don't have an answer yet, just questions!) --  But | seriously | folks   16:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer already exists at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The answer is "no". --Durin 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I always enjoy getting a yes or no answer to an A or B question! (Seriously, I understand.  Thanks for the tip!) --  But | seriously | folks   18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote from that link, "An EDP [fair-use policy] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Almost all. A free photograph of B.B. King, at 81, would serve the same encyclopedic use as a portrait of him at 35 used in an infobox. What if the article had a section called "In the 1960s", and the image was used there? No, that would not be acceptable, because if it were acceptable, "almost all" non-free portraits of living persons would be acceptable somewhere, and the Foundation Policy says almost all are disallowed. What about in a section specifically devoted to detailing the notable differences between the way Michael Jackson looked in 1983, and the way he looks now? I would argue that a non-free 1983 portrait (in the absence of free alternatives) could be used for this specific purpose. But such situations are necessarily rare, since the policy says they are. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would this qualify for an exception? Take a look at the article to understand the "not replaceable" argument. -- But | seriously | folks   18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. . . but for a different reason. In that very interesting case, what is significant in the photo is not "what she looked like" then, but the fact that she was in that photograph. (After all, a free, clothed image of her from the period would not replace the pic.) So the question is, is the photograph itself notable enough in the article to satisfy NFCC #8. I would say yes. Others might disagree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an
Someone tell me why this is not fair use. People keep removing this image. Here I go: This is all significant commentary in relation to this image and it goes in very well with the rest of the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image: Image:Submission screenshot.gif
 * Article text in context: The film Submission, which rose to fame after the murder of Theo van Gogh, critiqued this and similar verses of the Qur'an by displaying them painted on the bodies of abused Muslim women.[56] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the film's writer, said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film" [57]. In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi Ali said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting."[58]
 * Image caption: Image of a woman's body with Quranic verses written on it from the film Submission. The actress plays the role of a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an.[55]


 * The Criticism of the Qur'an page is not primarily about the film Submission, and it does not have a major section dealing with the film. In the Submission (film) article, of course it's acceptable. If there were a Criticism of the Qur'an in film article with a major "Submission" section, then it would be valid to use there. But the bar for WP:NFCC #8 is rather high; if a subject is not important enough to have a major section in an article, it is generally not important enough to have a non-free image of the subject in that article. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for Fair use that says it must be the primary page and also a major section. That page you linked is also under dispute. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The dispute is only about the specific wording and how do we make it clear and cover many different situations without it being too verbose. There is no dispute about the actual content of the policy.  howcheng  {chat} 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That discussion is about cover art used for identification. This is a screen-shot where the screen image was the story.  The two cases are very disctinct.  Jheald 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So I think that it's wrong that a whole section is needed. But on the other hand, I'm not persuaded that this image is sufficiently central to this article in its current form -- the discussion about the film seems more of an aside, not (at the moment, I believe) part of the central spine of the story of the article.  I don't think it's out of the question, but (at least in the edit I read) the article is just too dispassionate and bloodless about this film. If the film and its aftermath can be represented as centrally important in bringing this issue to a national awareness, the article doesn't explicitly establish that.  That's what I think would be needed for the image to be justifiable.  Jheald 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the law say about fair use in this context? How would we be breaking the law? By that I mean extracts of the actual law of fair use (not Wikipedia policy). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., there are two parts to the law: statutory law, and case law. The statutory law is quite vague: see Fair use. The case law is horridly complex and frequently contradictory. It too often depends on which judge rules on the case. Basically, if you're making any money of the image's use (even indirectly), and your use could be argued as depriving the copyright-holder of money (even indirectly), then it's a really bad idea to use the image. In this case, I can't imagine a film company would sue a non-profit for an unmodified reproduction of a screenshot. But if they did, and the judge was a prick, we could well be held in breach. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm back, sorry. Ok, where on the policy page does it say that there must be a major section on the image? The policy page only says we should have discussion of the film/cinema. Thats what this article is doing, isnt it? For #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."
 * This image significantly increases the understanding of Domestic violence in the Quran, which is a very hot topic in itself. Also, the film's creator was murdered and its a very notable film in it self in relation to the topic of this article. This is also a film screenshot like you said. The whole theme of the movie, is a major theme of the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oscar2.jpg

 * Image:Oscar2.jpg This image is doubly copyrighted. The statue is copyrighted, and the picture of it is only available under a non-free license. This image is replaceable by a freely licensed picture of it, as they are in circulation. Furthermore, its use in the article is purely decorative. I replaced the image with a free image that shows exactly what the statue looks like, plus Commons has other free pictures that adequately can replace this image. I marked the copyrighted picture for deletion but User:^demon, an admin, reverted. I don't see how this image meets the NFCC, as it's 1) replaceable, 2) this image was commercially produced and our use competes with the original use, and 8) it is purely decorative. -N 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the image was revived by admin User:^demon at my request, and it is absolutely 'not' purely decorative. it is being held up as an illustration for the detail description in the article and is permitted by policy. the image proffered by N is a 3 metre plaster and chicken-wire monstrosity that represents the oscar much as monopoly money might illustrate a genuine euro note. --emerson7 | Talk 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with emerson7's comments above. The image is not merely decorative, and it is permitted by policy.  In my opinion, the image supported by emerson7 is, by far, preferable over the image supported by N.  The first image enhances and complements the article; the second image distracts from the article.  (JosephASpadaro 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Emerson's image is prettier, but both provide the same encyclopedic information. We can't keep the non-free image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My caption was "Academy Awards ceremonies are decorated with oversized versions of the Oscar statue, such as this one from 1989" just for reference. -Nard 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is Emerson's image not copyrighted? Were it a picture of the room, it'd be de minimus.  But statues like that are copyrighted, and we can't use a picture of a guy next to a giant Oscar to depict an Oscar and pretend it's not copyrighted.  17Drew 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is copyrighted -- to the photographer, Alan Light. Even though it is a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture, it's still copyrighted by the photographer, just as the image N prefers is copyrighted by the photographer. Both images depict a copyrighted subject, and we would have to invoke "fair use" to use either one -- but that doesn't stop the larger photograph itself from being released under a free license. In one case, we would have to make a fair use claim on both the representation of the statue (derivative use) and the photo itself (direct use). In the other, we only have to for the representation. So the image is replaceable. By the way, even if we all agreed that the large statue image was not suitable, we still couldn't use the smaller image. Many of these statues exist and could be photographed, and that photo could be released under a free license, so the image is replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the same Alan Light though :P -Nard 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's more than one person name Alan Light. Anyway, using the Flickr photo is just silly.  Either way, we're relying on fair use to be able to use the image, and any downstream user will too.  It is impossible to freely license a picture of an Oscar without AMPAS' permission, so one picture is hardly freer than another.  Considering the Flickr photo can't be used any more than the original one, there's no point in using it.  17Drew 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, either way we're relying on fair use to depict the subject of the image. But only with the "official" image are we relying on fair use to use the image itself. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll put it another way: suppose we wanted to write an article about the phrase "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should". Now we could write our own article, or we could copy Britannica's article on the phrase. Either way, we have to invoke fair use to use the phrase, which is copyrighted by Winston. But if we copy Britannica's article, we're also violating Britannica's copyright. It wouldn't be a defense to say "There's no such thing as a free article about the phrase, since the phrase is copyrighted." We still would have to use a free article to describe the non-free phrase. It's the same here. We still have to use a free image to depict the non-free subject. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

 * Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png Has a PD-self license. I don't buy it.KeNNy 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not a hard photoshop to do, actually, I can't see any reason for deleting it. -N 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks legit to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

22 July 2007

 * I'd like some comments on whether the use of Games Workshop-produced photos of Games Workshop miniatures is fair use or not, and in particular whether such images are replaceable. Recently, Image:Necronimmortals.jpg and Image:Leonatos.jpg have been deleted for being replacable, while Image:Kal Jericho.jpg and Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif were today reviewed and found to be non-replaceable. I don't see any fundamental difference between the two of them, so was wondering what the feeling was on these. Cheers --Pak21 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the Oscar case above. The underlying sculpture is copyrighted in both a free image and a non-free image, but that doesn't mean we can use a non-free image to depict this copyrighted character. (It's the same people, too -- me deleting some of the images, and ^demon judging that they should be kept.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

24 July 2007
Image:NewsweekObama.jpg fair use in Barack Obama? I have removed it once and requested a fair use rational that has now been provided. But the rationales offered appear to fail under WP:NFCCa and WP:NFCC. The magazine article is referenced further down in the article's Barack Obama section. Based on messages posted to User talk:Bbsrock, it seems the editor adding this image has a different view of WP:NFCC. My main interest is in maintaining the article at FA quality, and in compliance with WP:NFCC, and this requires not overdoing the images. Thanks. --HailFire 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Newsweek isn't actually mentioned in the article except as a source. Not fairuse. Megapixie 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This use not only violates our policy (NFCC #8), but it quite possibly violates copyright law as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Morrison
Image:InnocentmansinglecoveMM.jpg would normally be considered fair use as an album cover. The music accompanying the cover, however, is the subject of some legal dispute (see the talk page for a full discussion). Does this in any way dilute the fair use rights to use the image on this article? Cmprince 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The legal status of the music does not affect the legal status of the album cover, so the album cover can be used as normal. However, we cannot use album covers in discographies. If there were an article about this album, then the image could be used in it, but the image can't be used in the Mark Morrison article. I've removed the other album covers from the discography in the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review use of non-free media in this article - I had previously tagged article with non-free but tag has been removed. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BenoitHouse.jpg
Is it certain this is irreplaceable? It seems probable to me that security around the Benoit house would be tight, but is it good enough for anyone to avoid getting a picture? Is the value of this shot in it being from the time of the event? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the house still exists, then the image is replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the cops being there for the one-time event of the murder-suicide? -Nard 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * urg. Not fair use per WP:NFC counterexample #5. Megapixie 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I like Devil's Advocate. Replaceable, the cops being there can be described in words. -Nard 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the image is replaceable (at the moment) because of all the tight security and that they would probably not want anyone to take photos at the moment. However, 3 or 4 months down the line, a photo may appear on a website like Flickr or something. I uploaded it mainly because I couldn't find any other photos of Benoit's house - I only found that one. Also, I don't think that the Benoit family would of wanted pictures of their house being posted on the internet, as this would be invading their privacy; it is only now after their death that a photo has been released of the house. Davnel03 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The image is replaceable by free text. Actually, it's already replaced. It doesn't adds any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Images from Ex Cathedra
The article Ex Cathedra (about a famous classical choral group) used to have two images of Ex Cathedra performing: Image:ExCathedra-BirminghamOratory.jpg and Image:ExCathedrasingers.jpg. They were tagged as replaceable, and their replaceable status was disputed with the claim "The photograph is not replaceable. It is generally the case that photography is not permitted during concert performances, and this would apply to performances by Ex Cathedra." I decided that the images were replaceable anyway, and I deleted the images. (They can be found here and here, both from the official site.) The uploader has since contacted me, quite politely, and we've been discussing the situation, and I'm not sure I made the right decision. It appears that the group only performs at specific venues where photography is not allowed, and that ban seems to be enforced (unlike most pop music concerts). We could create free photos of different members of Ex Cathedra, but they wouldn't be performing as Ex Cathedra, so those photos wouldn't provide the same encyclopedic information. I'm not sure the best way to interpret policy in this case, and I'm acutely aware that whatever decision is made here will most likely be seen as a precedent, so I'm asking for comments by other people familiar with non-free image policy to comment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone asked for a free content image from the webmaster of the site or the group/management itself? Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the uploader of the photographs in question. Back when I created the "Ex Cathedra" article I did e-mail Ex Cathedra's administrator to ask if consideration would be given for the photographs to be licensed under the GFDL, but unfortunately no response at all was received. I appreciate that photography and videography seem to be permitted (or at least tolerated) at pop and rock concerts, but at classical music, dance and theatre performances they are generally not allowed. There is often a verbal announcement to this effect before the peformance begins, and/or a notice on the concert ticket or in the concert programme. It seems to me that this is an appropriate situation for regarding photographs of such performances as non-replaceable. Would Wikipedia accept that a policy of disallowing photography and videography generally exists, or would it be necessary for uploaders to reproduce quotes from tickets and programmes as evidence? Cheers, Jacklee 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think copies of the tickets/brochures need to be submitted as evidence; we'd trust you to tell us the truth about these matters. I remember these images and I'm not convinced that photographs of them mid-performance are required for the article. There's no reason someone couldn't wait outside the stage door, for example, and take a picture of the people afterwards.  howcheng  {chat} 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say there was a qualitative difference between a photograph of musicians in performance and a photograph of them milling around smiling for the camera which wouldn't show that they were actually musicians. Also, I suppose that the images are not entirely "required" for the article (perhaps only a few articles really "require" images), but they do contribute positively to the article. Cheers, Jacklee 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

30 July 2007
 Discussion dormant. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image gallery in Head Over Heels (video game)
I recently removed the image gallery from Head Over Heels (video game) on the basis of it being a gallery of fair-use images and not adding significantly to the article; this has been re-added as a "comparision" of the different formats of the game, but with no text comparing the versions in any way. Fair use of not? Cheers --Pak21 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg
Caught this one while looking at deletion requests on Commons. PD in Mexico is life+100 years (it is possible the old Mexican law of life+75 years would apply, but that still wouldn't happen until January 1, 2030). May be PD-US if published in the US without copyright notice or without copyright renewal (usable on English wiki, not usable on Commons). In the meantime I've changed the licensing to fair use. Didn't list at WP:PUI because I believe that even if this is non-free it qualifies under the NFCC for at least some uses. I'm going to try to track down the copyright status, but in the meantime we should probably assume it's non-free. If anybody wants to help they are more than welcome. As to fair use, it should pass the NFCC in Frida Kahlo at the very least, for the purposes of showing both the painter's style and her self-image. -Nard 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's almost certainly non-free. I agree that it would pass our NFCC in an article on Kahlo, although I'm not sure about the other uses. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for all reasons mentioned above, as well as "typical of artist's subject matter" But why not tag it  ? --Knulclunk 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe this isn't a vote. WP:FUR is more of a non-adversarial forum than deletion. Nobody's going to delete it (unless people believe it doesn't qualify for fair use). Instead what we're about here is reviewing the articles the image appears in and seeing if we can justify its inclusion in each of them. More constructively, you can review the articles it appears in and come with with a list/reasoning for each in which it should remain. I will change the tagging as you suggest. -Nard 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - an important image by an important artist that illustrates and demonstrates several important issues concerning 20th century painting. She is one of the most prolific self-portraitists and she demonstrates important narrative, educational and historical values and issues, her work illustrates and represents an important moment in 20th century painting also, and her inclusion at the history of painting and western painting is both unique and educational as well. Her importance to the articles cannot be overstated - not in the least is the fact that she is a woman, and an artist from Latin America. - Modernist 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationales have been added, covering all the issues mentioned here. Modernist 11:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fair use rationale here has serious issues. This image is used in seven articles, which does not seem to be minimal use (WP:NFCC). In order to justify this much use, more than just a single, generic fair use rationale is needed. A fair use rationale for each article needs to be developed, explaining not only why the image contribributes significantly to the reader's understanding of that article, but why the use of the image in all the other articles isn't sufficient. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Individual fair use rationales have been added. The image is critically important to all the articles. Modernist 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is the only image we have by this important artist, who is in my view clearly the most famous artist (at present) produced by Latin America. The individual uses should be treated individually, but it is blindingly obvious that any fair use criteria are met for some articles - not least the biography. Seven does not seem excessive. One of the uses is a duplicate article version, where we only need the history, so it can be deleted there. On the other hand, as the only Kahlo image we have, it is odd it is not on Diego Rivera - perhaps someone removed it. It could certainly be justified there.  Deleting the image is not the way to deal with any inappropriate uses. Johnbod 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a deletion discussion; everyone seems to agree the image will be used here as a nonfree image. The question is which of the articles it should be on. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the photo from Women artists and List of Latin American artists. Neither article has any commentary about Kahlo or this painting, and nonfree images can only be used to support commentary in articles. (The Women artists article has many questionable images). That leaves the following uses. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Note that the use rationales are not in any way specific to the articles they pertain to. WP:NFCC requires that each rationale must address exactly why the image is used in each article (it must be "relevant to each use"). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * History of painting
 * Frida Kahlo
 * Self-portrait
 * Western painting
 * I agree with the above selection and I'll be more specific in the use rationales. Modernist 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are significant problems with including this image in History of painting, Self-portrait, and Western painting, but this is a much larger problem on each page. These pages each have dozens of non-free images used in galleries. Each of these pages should be looked at as a whole, deciding which images are discussed enough to warrant a non-free image, and which should be deleted.

July 31
 Image has been deleted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image:DominiquePoltergeist.jpg
This is a non-free screenshot from the movie Poltergeist being used in the articles Dominique Dunne and Poltergeist curse to show what the actress Dominique Dunne looked like. It is thus not being used in accordance with its tag non-free film screenshot, which requires critical commentary on the film and its contents when non-free screenshots are used. Therefore its fair use claim is invalid and it must be deleted. —Angr 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Must be deleted"? Considering this is a request for a review, you probably should've phrased that "should be deleted". But, oh well...--Celtic Jobber 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep For multiple reasons:
 * 1) Most notable performance by actress by far.
 * 2) Performance in movie directly related to death. Albeit only in a superstitious and unlikely way, but the concept of the Poltergeist curse is directly related to her acting in this movie.
 * 3) Actress is dead. No free images will ever be available.
 * --Knulclunk 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) is irrelevant. Movie screenshots may only be used in conjunction with critical commentary on the film; this has none. (2) is also irrelevant, even if true. This image has nothing to do with the concept of the "Poltergeist curse"; we don't need an image to prove that she was in Poltergeist or that she later died. (3) I never claimed the image was replaceable with a free alternative, merely that this image isn't being used in a way compatible with its license. —Angr 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It completely fails WP:NFCC in Poltergeist curse. I'm not sure about the other article. --Abu badali (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Angr. We don't use screenshots in order to identify the actor, even when the role is their signature role and even if they're dead.  howcheng  {chat} 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * First off, please don't misrepresent this. The "gallery" was altered to address the criticisms before it was put back.


 * I agreed with your original reasoning. Although it had been my aim to give a good overview of the different aspects and versions of the game, it was too vaguely defined and a bit gallery-ish.


 * Therefore, I removed two of the three of ZX Spectrum screenshots, and added a screenshot from the 8-bit Atari version which was from the same screen as the Amstrad one. This made comparison easier and doesn't gratuitously add "extra prettiness".


 * As for the lack of comparison; yeah, I could put more in, but aside from the bare bones explanations, there's not really much to say without duplicating the visually obvious (aside from not wanting to tell people what to think).


 * (This is also ironic given that I complained about cover art being given more prominence in the article than the game screens... because personally I felt this was being done for aesthetic reasons, i.e. people like having the pretty game art in that position even though that isn't the stated aim.)


 * Anyway, the gallery is now IMHO fair use. I'll add some basic captions, but I'm not putting in waffle for the sake of it.
 * Fourohfour 23:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If some critical commentry for the screenshots was added then it should be fair use via critical commentry. Captions aren't really enough on their own. Megapixie 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The CPC screenshot at the top of the article clearly shows it has four colour graphics; there is no need to use another screenshot further down. Above and beyond that, I still don't see what the actual need for these screenshots is: the text of the captions would convey the same information without the need for non-free media. There's no real commentary being made on these images. --Pak21 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that we need to slap some contrived "commentary" (which would probably be original research anyway) beyond what is already there. They already serve a purpose, the text simply explains that.
 * And I'm not convinced that text could easily replace the pictures altogether. Describing something and being able to accurately convey what it looks like are two different things. In the case of the Spectrum screenshot, it would have to explicitly (and longwindedly) explain how it was monochromatic, where it varied in colour, blah blah... and IMHO it still wouldn't properly convey the same information as a screenshot. Fourohfour 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think showing the variation in graphics between different versions of the game is valid fair use (under law). Backed by critical commentry (possibly sourced from reviews of the game) - i.e. (completely made up) "In its review of the game Commodore user noted that while the graphics were more colorful than the Spectrum version awkward color clash issues made them less appealing. A retrospective in the 2004 edition of Retro gamer also noted this and described the graphics from the Amstrad version as 'looking like dog sick', concluding that the Spectrum versions clear crisp monochrome graphics were the best of all 8 bit formats." Megapixie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just an observation. I know you specified fair use under law, but don't forget that the legal criteria for fair use or much less strict than the Non-free content criteria.


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