Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 11

File:2001child2.JPG
discussion top The image is said to be used in the article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey "For use in section discussion the "Conception allegory"", but it's actually just an article decoration. The section on Conception allegory does not depends on the visual aspects depicted on this image. And nevertheless, the image is not even placed near that section, but as a top decoration.--Damiens .rf 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I love 2001 as much as the next person but this image, as cool as it is, isn't necessary to the understanding of the article and does not significantly convey information that words alone cannot. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria*8 - and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Talk:Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. This is forum shopping by the filer.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with Dreadstar here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note that Damiens has been waging this little edit war for 2 1/2 years now: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know about that but we should vote in relation to policy and the picture fails the wiki non free usage guidelines, all other issues are irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is never irrelevant. It makes the wiki go-round.  The main point is that all involved should actually read the entire dispute and not just this little bit of forum shopping.  It is discussed in the article, both in the lead and in the section the image is in. Dreadstar  ☥  00:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the way you rewrite your comments on old thread, in the light of new facts, to make others arguing with you to look stupid. --Damiens .rf  15:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I say it does NOT fail item 8. Without the illustration, how is the average reader going to know what on heaven or earth they're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Baseball Bugs, let's be real folks, fetus, baby, space, earth orbit, end of film; not exactly a standard or well known combination outside some strange combo of the womb, the space shuttle and a truly unique imagination. Needs an image. Period.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * keep per talk page consensus listed by Dreadstar. — Ched :  ? 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Consensus does not supercede NFCC. Image fails NFCC #8. Night Ranger (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I say it passes rule 8. Your conclusion is based strictly on your opinion, not on any rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion is also your opinion, unless you're omniscient... :-/ Night Ranger (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only the omniscient would not need the photo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as there now appears to be at least two sourced articles that connects the image to the allegory of conception. This wasn't the case a few days ago  so the changes improve the meeting of NFCC#8. --M ASEM  (t) 02:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because Damien's objection was that the text didn't make reference to it. It now does, and so this discussion should be ended quickly. --RussNelson (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Masem and Russ. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is for retaining the image in Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:FeliceManiero.jpg
discussion top File:FeliceManiero.jpg was, up until today, used in the article Felice Maniero. Even though the image is of a living person, his legal status would indicate no free image is obtainable (living at a secret location under a new identity). Accordingly, that would qualify it under NFCC #1, a non-replaceable image.

However, the provenance of the image is vague. It's sourced only to a website's image locker, with no context of where the image came from, such as a story on his crimes or a copy of his mug shot. So I have concerns about whether the image is what it purports to be. This concern isn't helped by the actions of, who removed the image today. Wawawaer had gamed the system by intentionally introducing false information to an article while not logged in and then reverting the edits while logged in.

That leaves me conflicted on how to deal with the image (which was uploaded in 2008, so it's hardly a recent addition). I think this is a valid case of using a non-free image in a BLP, but I'd rather expose the image to more scrutiny. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the image. I thought then that it would be OK to upload it under fair use terms, since Maniero is under the witness protection program living under an assumed identity and his current whereabout is unknown, making it's replacement by a future alternative free equivalent very unlikely. Joyson Noel   Holla at me!  11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Max Shertz Painting 01.jpg
discussion top The alleged fair use rationale for this painting is for "educational value". However, use of the painting on Max Shertz or History of Painting requires that it be used for "critical commentary" based on WP:NFCI#7. The painting is not being used in the Shertz article for critical commentary, but only as an example of his work. If that were fair use, then all of his paintings would be "fair use". I can't assess the rationale for the History of Painting article because it's not being used there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same response as below. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Max Shertz Painting 02.jpg
discussion top The alleged fair use rationale for this painting is for "educational value". However, use of the painting on Max Shertz or History of Painting requires that it be used for "critical commentary" based on WP:NFCI#7. The painting is not being used in the Shertz article for critical commentary, but only as an example of his work. If that were fair use, then all of his paintings would be "fair use". I can't assess the rationale for the History of Painting article because it's not being used there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty blatant fail. It's being used for decorative purposes at the moment. There's no mention of the work in the article, nor any assertion of any kind as to the importance of the work, especially as relative to the artist in particular. It's already been previously removed from History of painting, which it has a rationale for but I agree is weak. The rationale for Max Shertz is quite weak as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheets of toilet paper on which Pound started The Pisan Cantos.JPG
Myself and the uploader have agreed to avoid interaction, but another editor asked me to take a look into the use of non-free images in the article in question. Could someone else familiar with the NFC guidelines take a look at the use of this image? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fails #1 and #8. There are plenty of free images for the Ezra Pound article, and text can easily explain that he started the poem on toilet paper and the significance thereof. There's no need to actually show it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Easily passes both #1 and #8. Seraphimblade's argument that there "are plenty of free images for the Ezra Pound article" is obviously irrelevant and completely unfounded in policy, as he should be well aware from the ongoing RfC that directly addresses this pet notion of his. It's okay—he will learn.

There is no plausible free replacement for this deeply informative and memorable image. It is invaluable evidence of Pound's handwriting and his writing and editorial method, far beyond anything that could be conveyed by encyclopedia text alone. Its visual and mnemonic power also conveys the weight and meaning of his devotion to poetic composition in extraordinary circumstances, again well beyond what text can deliver. There is no prospect of any free material that could come anywhere close to conveying equivalent significant information, and its elimination would do nothing whatsoever to serve our mission of producing and making available free content. In sum, its use both meets the criteria and fully respects the spirit of our policy as explicated in its three-point rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DCGeist, kindly do not patronize me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am always very careful to treat you with exactly the respect that your recent behavior deserves. Someone who chooses to ascribe nefarious motives and "backdoor methods" to someone else who wrote this really has no excuse to be so sensitive.


 * But your delicacy is not the issue here; your misreading of policy is. The notion that the existence of applicable free media for an article renders impermissible any non-free media for that article has never been founded in either the rationale or the specific criteria of our policy, and it is now being explicitly and roundly rejected by the community. Any argument made on that basis is blatantly invalid.—DCGeist (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SB's argument that the image failed NFCC#1 was that "text can easily explain that he started the poem on toilet paper and the significance thereof". I hate to say it, but... J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if SB had simply made that argument, which directly addresses the substance of the media and its potential replaceability by text—a perfectly appropriate argument, considering our policy. However, J, I directly addressed and refuted that aspect of the argument on its merits: "[The image] is invaluable evidence of Pound's handwriting and his writing and editorial method, far beyond anything that could be conveyed by encyclopedia text alone. Its visual and mnemonic power also conveys the weight and meaning of his devotion to poetic composition in extraordinary circumstances, again well beyond what text can deliver." I hate to say it, but...—DCGeist (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:E66_Petone_Workshops_1906.JPG
This photograph is a member of the collection of the Alexander Turnbull Library of New Zealand http://find.natlib.govt.nz/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?ct=display&doc=nlnz_tapuhi829395&indx=1&vl%28D31185043UI0%29=any&dum=true&dscnt=0&indx=1&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&ct=search&frbg=&vid=TF&vl%281UI0%29=contains&fn=search&dstmp=1296303312355&vl%28freeText0%29=E%2066&mode=Basic&vl%2835124698UI1%29=all_items&scp.scps=scope%3A%28Timeframes%29

It is subject to the licensing policies of the National Library of New Zealand and therefore might be classified as "non-free". http://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/view/layouts/termsofuse.jsp http://www.natlib.govt.nz/services/access-to-items/copyright-usage PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kercher_single_bed_pillow_by_Italian_police.jpg
discussion top Image dominated for deletion because I think it goes against the following parts of WP:NFCC:


 * 3a Minimal usage. There are currently two other similar crime scene images on the same article page. I would suggest that using three similar non-free images on one page is excessive.
 * 4 Previous publication. The photo originates from a private website and it is not clear that it has been made available with the knowledge and consent of its author (i.e. I am suggesting that the photo may be leaked). It is also not clear where the photo has been published as a hi-res jpeg (the hyperlink provided links to a much poorer quality pdf).
 * 5 Content. The image contravenes WP:NPOV because it shows physical evidence against one of three defendants in a criminal trial. Images of evidence against the other two could be included, but this would, IMO, be the wrong solution to the problem. --FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (from uploader). I have waited 4 days, before responding, to gain a wider perspective. Fundamentally, per Italian copyright law (quoted by UNESCO), public institutions in Italy must allow fair-use of public photos, and hence there is no basis for deletion. However, for the record, I will tediously refute all other points, raised above. For point 3a, the image (of a bed pillow on bedroom floor) is the only such photo in the article; the other photos show a quilt which completely hid the pillow, and a bra clasp which was under the pillow (3 photos, as 3 different objects). For point "4 Previous publication" refer again to Italian copyright law (allowing fair-use display), and note the image is sourced to an American website, famous for being supported by Anne Bremner, an attorney working pro bono on the Amanda Knox case (it is unlikely that website has committed a copyvio, famously under direction of legal counsel trying to free a suspect). For point "5 Content" the claim of WP:NPOV-vio is not correct, because that bed pillow was used as evidence against all 3 current suspects in the murder case (not an imbalance as just illustrating 1 suspect's evidence): it was noted for having a palm-print of the first suspect convicted (print matched at 16/17 points), then originally matched to a Nike-Air-Force basketball shoe-print of a 2nd suspect (old news report, but no blood on his shoe) and so later re-matched to a Nike-Outbreak-2 basketball shoe-print of 1st suspect, and finally, that bed pillow was claimed to have evidence against a 3rd suspect, as a woman's European size 36-38 shoe-print (in blood), later shown to be a partial print of the Nike-Outbreak-2 basketball shoe. See pillow text in "Meredith Kercher trial: Bloodstained footprint linked to suspect" (1 March 2009, link: MirrorUK-27) or search 5 words: "Amanda Knox" "shoe print" pillow. With all NFCR points refuted now, the image should be allowed to remain. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikid. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC alone is enough to have this image deleted. We don't need to really show the trails evidence. We just need to mention they exist. We don't have to prove anything to the reader. Unless independent sources had discussed (and not only mentioned) the photo itself, we shouldn't be using it as a primary source. --Damiens .rf 23:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; we don't need these nonfree images as we can describe them. --John (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We know the palm print was significant in the conviction, but this image doesn't do anything to add understanding to that. That's a failure of #1, and that's just for starters. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails 3a quite handily and also #1 as there's nothing that couldn't be described in text; it doesn't even illustrate what it's meant to be illustrating very well which probably means it fails #8 as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. For all the reasons given above. There is nothing in this image that cannot be described through text alone - the content amounts to a bed with some items on it, a pillow presenting bloody marks (yet no handprint is readily visible), and a pool of blood behind the pillow. I'm not really persuaded by the POV argument, but descriptive text is sufficient here for the purposes of visualisation, and to a certain extent the existence of File:Kercher room labels by Italian police.jpg, which provides an overview of the whole crime scene, renders this particular image redundant, and therefore an example of excessive use of non-free content. Super Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to delete. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Narnia Timeline.svg and Narnian timeline
discussion top I'm not sure how to go about this because this is the first time I spotted a potential copyright violation. But after following through I found that a Wikipedia article reprints substantially all of a published manuscript that is the copyright of the author's estate. See my comment here for more detail.

Already, the speedy deletion has attracted some criticism. I'm reluctant to say it's in bad faith, because my understanding of copyright law is better than the average person's and people can easily misunderstand the issue. I also don't know how Wikipedia usually deals with copyright violations from books, and how to resolve a contested speedy deletion.

If someone could help look into this it would be appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the image, it's on commons, so if it's non-free it needs to be deleted there and not reviewed here. If the text is a possible copyvio but not obvious enough for G12 then it should be blanked via {{subst:copyvio}} to ensure it gets a proper review based on copyright grounds. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of via Articles for deletion/Narnian timeline, by User:Timotheus Canens, and VernoWhitney

File:Jim Parsons Emmy Awards.jpg
discussion top Doesn't meet WP:NFC criteria, particularly #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."). Supposed rationale by uploader is: "The image identifies a significant point in the actors career that should be depicted on the actors wikipedia page." Even assuming the event itself is noteworthy in Parsons's career, the image is not necessary to the understanding of the event or its significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, doesn't significantly add to understanding of award. Roberto Benigni walking over the backs of chairs to get to the stage at the Oscars probably would, but this is just a generic on-stage shot.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved: 00:04, 11 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Jim Parsons Emmy Awards.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy) (view/restore)

File:s-cleve-rivers-cuyahoga%201952%20fire.jpg
discussion top I am a Total newbie as far as image permissions go. The Cuyahoga River article could benefit from a picture of the famous river fire. I found one oft the 1952 fire at http://lisacanter.com/teachcleveland/images/stories/the_sixties/cuyahoga_river/s-cleve-rivers-cuyahoga%201952%20fire.jpg and one of the 1936 fire at http://lisacanter.com/teachcleveland/images/stories/the_sixties/cuyahoga_river/s-cleve-rivers-cuyahoga%201936%20fire.jpg but have no idea whether they are is usable or who took the pictures. How does one go about figuring out whether a picture is usable or whether a free alternative exists? Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (...Sound of crickets chirping...) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (..Sound of coyotes in the far distance as the lack of response to the above question continues...) Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only item of interest that I see, in terms of image licensing, is located at the bottom of Teach Cleveland, which says "artwork by Viktor Schreckengost, courtesy of Jean Schreckengost." Since we presume that images are non-free, and the site doesn't disclaim that, you'll have to tag them with copyright notices and use a Non-free use rationale. To me, the need for images such as this on the article about the subject of the image is clear, so I say go ahead and upload them. You'll end up having to defend that eventually, but... that's the price we pay for being "free", I guess. You could email the site and ask them for licensing terms (you might have to send them towards OTRS) — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested that fair use will apply, but that loading it up and testing the waters will be the eventual decider. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ten_Bulls_by_Tokuriki_Tomikichiro_(1902-1999).png
This file was discussed at the village pump. The Ten Bulls is some 800 years old and this is just a recent version. A free version of these 10 images with exactly the same encyclopedic value can be created by anybody and versions for which pd-old applies must be available. That this particular version is by far the best known doesn't change anything. As such this clearly fails wp:NFCC. The rationale was updated after I originally challenged it, but I still think it fails the NFCC, so I brought it here. The new rationale also includes the following statement: The publishers allow online publication of this work as long as the following information is added The book is available in hardcover from Tuttle, toll-free number [USA] 1-800-526-2778 [...]. If the images have a license compatible with wikipedia that would solve the problem, but if only online publication is allowed it is not compatible, for CC-BY-SA allows offline publication. Yoenit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as the image is used as a mere illustration of the generic concept of the Ten Bulls sequence, I completely concur with Yoenit. It's replaceable with any other version of the sequence, either a new {self|cc-by} one or a {PD-old} one, and therefore fails WP:NFCC (in the absence of a truly free license; the one we have now not being sufficient). The FUR currently argues that this specific version is special insofar as it is the best known and currently somehow iconic of the whole concept. This may well be the case, but the article is currently not talking about this. If the article contained well-sourced discussion of how this particular artist transformed the tradition into a particularly memorable form or something similar, then we'd have a classic, legitimate fair use case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Publisher has been informed recently.
 * What's a FUR? [w.] 10:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the jargon. "FUR" referred to "fair-use rationale". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fair-use rationale" is also called "non-free use rationale." —teb728 t c 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yoenit and Fut.Perf. Besides that, the uploaded images are too tiny to be of any encyclpedic value. The article links to http://www.terebess.hu/english/oxherding.html, which contains a PD-old-100 image set. —teb728 t c 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that "encyclopedic value" NECESSARILY has to go with "high-res" pics. Value is about "information", IMNSVHO. [w.] 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. But this image set is not merely low resolution (which as non-free content it must be); it is almost totally illegible (except of course #8). Only by magnifying it to 150% can I even tell for sure that it is the same set as at vi:Thập_mục_ngưu_đồ. —teb728 t c 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found that set, but why do you think it is pd old? According that website the images were made by "YOKOO Tatsuhiko", which seems to be a modern artist (see for example ). Yoenit (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed that “1801-10” in the line, “(Kuroya 1801-10, Chichibu-shi, 368-0001 Japan)” refered to 19th century dates. What do you make of it? The page at your link seems to be about Yokoo Tadanori; is that the same person? http://homepage2.nifty.com/sanbo_zen/cow_e.html, however, says Yokoo Tatsuhiko is a member of the Sanbôkyôdan Society; so I may be mistaken. —teb728 t c 12:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that link was indeed about somebody else. There are still however, both of which seem to indicate this artist is not 200 years old. The number is an adress in Japan as far as I can determine and probably has to be attached for attribution purposes. Yoenit (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is most certainly replaceable. Part of a nonfree rationale for printed material is generally that any other similar work would be derivative. When the original source material is PD-old, however, that's not the case. Anyone with the skill can go make a replacement for this by working from the PD original. That's blatant enough to tag for speedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Just saw Teb's comment, which makes this even more crystal clear. We've already got PD replacements). Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think those are PD unfortunately. Yoenit (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, comrades, the originals definitely_are_NOT_PD.

If, either, the community can accept them to be "fair use", or, on the other hand, publishers would "set them free", they can be kept.

If not: Bad luck for the rest of this planet (in case, they evwer read ;[[)

[w.] 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Beloved ~blade, my question to you is; IS_IT more important (for this project) to keep formalisms, or to spread information? Maybe, some day you take your time to read B._Brecht's "Der gute Mensch von Sechuan".
 * Have a good time, meanwhile! [w.] 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about any of the versions found here ? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TX, user:Fut.Perf. for this link -- as my knowledge of XH and JA =<Z.E.R.O, I have no idea whether any of those files might be "PD" -- most of them are very probably not.
 * @user:teb728 -- I was late to find out that my orignal GIF upload, 694×6540px, 1+_MB, had been downscaled to a 30_k "mini-pic".PNG Thisone is of course of "relatively little value". Best, [w.] 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AND, to finish with thisone, "let's have a smile": [w.] 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:HP TouchPad.png
HP recently announced their new line of smartphones, and an editor has added a whole load of non-free press images to their articles: The images I've marked with a plus I believe to be completely unnecessary on Wikipedia; they don't add anything to the article. The other images I believe still have a very weak case for being here. Slightly more discussion is here: Media_copyright_questions. I also don't believe those three articles (TouchPad, Pre3 and Veer) need the HP logo on them.
 * File:HP TouchPad.png
 * File:Touchpad_touchstone.png +
 * File:Touchpad_case.png +
 * File:Touchpad_keyboard.png +
 * File:HP Veer.png
 * File:HP Pre 3.png

I added this to Commons before realising I was getting in the middle of quite a big deal. Cheers, <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><font color="#20406F">Alex Muller  13:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say most of the non-free images in HP TouchPad are simply there for "decoration", and most lack true FURS as well. ("Product representation" and "no" aren't really detailed reasons how these meet the required criteria) I also don't see a real need to include the logo and the prodcut shot in the main info box either. Same goes for HP Pre 3 and HP Veer. And on a further observation, while I understand that the Pre and the Veer are different products the outward visual appearance is basically the same. In the context of the text - one has a 2.6 inch screen and the other has a 3.6 inch screen, both have a Snapdragon processor, one is "credit card-sized", the other has "a high definition video capture mode, a higher resolution display and HP's new Touch-to-share capability." In that context neither image here really illustrates those features. Yes, one has the keyboard out, and one doesn't but other than that they appear, visually, to be the exact same. To compare how much alike they are visually here is the Pre with the keyboard open, compare it to File:HP Veer.png. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see a few separate issues here:
 * I cannot see that the logo passes the threshold of originality, as it looks far less complex than the logo for Best Western, which failed copyright registration on the grounds it was not sufficiently creative. I think there's a case to be made there for submitting it as PD-logo to Commons. However, if it is copyrightable, splattering it in every article that involves HP is not acceptable. It would be alright only in the main company article in that event.
 * The images which show the device with no screenshots clearly fail replaceability. They are easily replaceable by taking free photos of the device after its release.
 * The images which do show screenshots are irreplaceable, but since the article is about the device, not the OS, they would be inappropriate there. A screenshot of the OS is already present in the WebOS article, and that's the only place it's appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've made a start here by removing the two accessories that don't add anything at all and the logo from HP TouchPad. Cheers, <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><font color="#20406F">Alex Muller  20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Alan Harper.jpg
discussion top Image of Jon Cryer dressed for the part when we have a free image (right) of him wearing the same shirt and largely (except for the stubble and jeans) looking the same. To me it clearly fails NFCC#1 but ......... what do the rest think ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a live discussion at WT:NFC currently on the replaceability of shots of characters.
 * In my view, showing how he was shown on screen does add something more than a shot of the actor in the wild, even if just showing the character as lit and styled for the production and the ambience of how he was seen. The main purpose of NFCC#1 is to not to allow images that would discourage a free image being taken.  In my view, images of characters do not discourage images of actors being sought out, because use of a character image on a character page is not a substitute for use of an actor image on an actor page.  Jheald (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m not opposed to character shots if they show something significantly different from what the actor looks like in real life. But in this case the red carpet situation is the only thing that distinguishes the free photo from another character shot. BTW, the main purpose of NFCC#1 is to prevent the use of non-free content if it could be replaced by free; encouraging the creation of free content is only a side effect. —teb728 t c 09:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the lengthy "live discussion" at WT:NFC is now archived to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No real discussion in 6 months. This can be nominated for deletion if it seems to fail NFCC#1, but there is no consensus for that here. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Manchester City.svg (but club logos in general)
discussion top Please see where there is a rather verbose discussion about whether non-free association football logos can be used in season articles as illustration. There were on the page but I removed them as not meeting the NFCC as they were being used solely as decoration. One user disagrees. Some knowledgable opinions from here would be helpful here or over at WT:FOOTY, thanks. Woody (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably best here as that discussion is increasingly circular and personal in nature, as well as being incredibly long already. Thanks, Woody (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's only used in three now. No problems in a while. – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Sexton Blake.jpg
discussion top I'm confused by the rationale on this one - surely a character created in the 19th century would have public domain representations that could be used in place of one covered by copyright, no? 96.39.62.90 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Suspect the description "This is a logo owned by Mark Hodder for Sexton Blake" is incorrect. How did Mark Hodder come into ownership of the image, apart from placing it on his website? I the original provenance of the image is unknown, then this] looks like a reasonable public domain alternative. --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mark Hodder does not hold the copyright to the character. He does still hold the copyright on this particular image. It's possible that a free replacement exists, but I haven't seen one; since the image FormerIP links to is from 1933, it may still be under copyright as well. I'm closing this since there has been no discussion in three months. If a truly PD replacement is found, it should be uploaded and used instead. – Quadell (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:The Silent.tif
discussion top Adding to this review page to hopefully clear up arguements regarding its removal from two articles and the fact it is being considered for deletion, it is believed by some that it is the only image that can adequately illustrate the subject of articles Silence (Doctor Who) and The Impossible Astronaut. It is also believed that a free alternative is available however a concensus on this has yet to be found. Peteb16 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, by definition it sort of belongs on Silence (Doctor Who); a picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words, and certainly makes their appearance easier to explain than words. Of course, the page may or may not be reverted to a redirect, so this may end up being moot. I agree that it may necessarily not belong on The Impossible Astronaut, though. Half  Shadow  18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issues with it being on Silence (Doctor Who) since it is a picture of the monster and you can't well describe the subject of an article on the monster without depicting it. However, its use on the episide picture is unjustified. The description of the monster is not necessary to an understanding of the episode and merely illustrating an article isn't a good enough claim.--Scott Mac 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I had originally downloaded it for the creature page anyway. Half  Shadow  22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scott re. inclusion in The Impossible Planet. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► international waters ─╢ 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This image was nominated for deletion and was not deleted. There has been no discussion here for over three months. – Quadell (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:SatyajitRay.jpg
discussion top Does this file need an OTRS ticket to validate that the actual artist/coyright owner has released its use? Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is marked free and is on Wikimedia Commons. This forum is for the discussion of content that is marked as non-free but might be in use in violation of WP:NFCC.  This would be an issue to take up at Commons, not here at en.wiki.  <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong forum. – Quadell (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Sultan_Mohamoud.JPG
discussion top The use of this magazine cover in the articles other than the one about the magazine itself seems decorative and failing to comply to WP:NFCC--<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The image is historically significant and shows Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire at his Sultanate's headquarters, the latter of which is discussed throughout both his bio and the Warsangali Sultanate article, where the pic is included for commentary. Middayexpress (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why the image is "historically significant", and the fact he happens to be at the headquaters (as shown by... the plain brick wall in the background) is irrelevant. This image adds nothing to Warsangali Sultanate (where it could easily be replaced by the free image) or Mohamoud Ali Shire. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is historically significant because it shows the Warsangali Sultanate's most notable Sultan on the cover of the oldest and most renowned popular history magazine. As such, it is irreplaceable. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a picture of the Sultan. The fact this one happens to be on the cover of a magazine is not important. I can't place a non-free picture of a musician into an article and claim that it's not redundant to our free picture, because this one is on the cover of a magazine and therefore irreplaceable. Every picture could be argued to be irreplaceable- it's just a question of what we need in our articles. We need a picture of the subject- could a non-free one be replaced by a free one? Yes, it could- it already has. We don't need a picture of the subject, this time on the cover of a magazine, so, replaceable or not, it's not needed. Unless this photo itself is in some way significant (ala Guerrillero Heroico, which is what is typically meant by a "historically significant image") it's hard to see how it can be justified. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the image from the articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved. It's now only used in the article where it's appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Blackbeard POTC4.jpg and other images
discussion top Also nominating File:Depp Cruz McShane POTC4.jpg, File:Depp Cruz POTC4.jpg. These three images are all used in the article Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Now, I'm not an expert on non-free content (this is my first post on this page), but as I understand it three copyrighted screenshots in one article is excessive. According to WP:NFCI, screenshots like these are only meant to be used 'for critical commentary', and I don't really see any critical commentary here; they just illustrate that these actors are in the film. I find it hard to believe that they 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic', as required by the non-free content criteria. Robofish (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe these images do significantly increase a readers' understanding of the topic. After having 3 films with the same characters, a number of new characters were added for the fourth film.  These images help illustrate the new characters that were added, including the legendary pirate Blackbeard.  The other images are extremely important to the understanding of the film.  The other 3 films were shot in the Caribbean, whereas this film was shot in Hawaii.  The image helps illustrate the new types of scenery that were featured.  For a movie that cost over $100 million to make, I find this noteworthy.  Thoughts?  --TravisBernard (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated two images for deletion. The soundtrack cover, unless it is itself in some way significant, is not warranted. Yes, there is a general consensus that a single album cover image on an article about an album is fine, but this does not extend to other articles that discuss the album, whether or not the album has its own article. I've also nominated the wading image for deletion- it's apparently there to show two characters, but both are shown in another image. This is not me endorsing any other image in the article; further review may be required. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it is fair to delete the soundtrack image. Perhaps I should have provided a different explanation for the wading image.  The wading image is important because it shows the exotic locales in Hawaii, which are new to this film in the series.  --TravisBernard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could a free image of the kind of area in which it was filmed not serve that purpose? J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could, but I think it would be better to remove the image than to have a non-set image in the article. After reading through everyone's arguments, I think the best course of action would be to remove the Cruz and Depp wading image, but keep the (1) Depp/Cruz/McShane talking and (2) Blackbeard images.  How does everyone feel about this? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with that, seems like a reasonable solution. Robofish (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since none of these images are in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides anymore, the case is moot. – Quadell (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Minecraftblock.png
discussion top The image FUR rationale claims this is a logo from www.minecraft.net, but is the icon of the executable. The actual logo is as seen at the top of File:Minecraft title.png -- the "Minecraft" title. I believe FUR does not apply to software art assets, such as game's executable's icon? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Image no longer exists. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:WakeUp Jap.jpg
discussion top All three files do not appear to be low resolution. Each appears to be large than 1200px X 1200px. Request a review.--v/r - TP 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Resized all to be approx 300x300, deleted high-res versions.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bill stewart.jpg
discussion top I'm not too familiar with Non-free content, but something doesn't seem right about this - subject was coach of a major college football program, so it seems replaceable. Also, it is a television screenshot, but the use is in a biographical article - not an article about anything related to the television show itself. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Image no longer exists. – Quadell (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome.jpg
discussion top Complete androgen insensitivity basically means that an XY individual's body ignores their Y chromosome, that they are thus phenotypically normal women. Basically, as far as the physical body goes, despite having a Y-chromosome, people with complete androgen insensitivity are no different from an "ordinary" woman. I really don't think this calls out for an image of what is essentially (by definition) an ordinary woman. Banaticus (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let the FUR speak for itself on this one. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the definition of replaceable. "Medical quality photography" is a totally inappropriate rationale. If it's replaceable, it's replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a look at the AIS talk page and you'll begin to see where the problem of medical quality imagery versus free non-medical imagery comes up, as well as the politics behind showing a photo of a phenotypically female CAIS patient alongside someone without CAIS. I would also point out (though I know this isn't a strong argument) that there are very few non-free images in this subject area and each were selected with some care to offer a coherent illustration to a reader.  It isn't as though we are plastering the page with them or as though they represent a real fair use problem. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not a fair use problem. Our nonfree image policies are far stricter than fair use, and deliberately so. One absolute restriction is that if an image is potentially replaceable by a free one, we cannot use nonfree. Any replaceable nonfree image does represent a nonfree image problem, and that's one the Foundation was clear there are no exceptions to. I understand your reasoning, and I believe you're mistaken in good faith, but you are mistaken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the basis of the non-free content policy, thanks. My argument is that the spirit of the policy is obviously being followed and whatever diminution of downstream use may exist because this non-free image crowds out a free image is minuscule. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid the spirit of the policy of not being followed here. An essential purpose of the policy is to ensure that non-free media does not "crowd out" substantively equivalent free media. It seems clear that all the significant information conveyed in the image could be conveyed equally effectively by a similar free one, which it is possible to produce. Our policy thus obliges us to remove the image, which serves the purpose of encouraging Wikipedians to produce that similar free image which can convey the same significant information.—DCGeist (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you guys need to take a look at the AIS and CAIS talk pages as well as the articles themselves to see what the problems with producing a free alternative might be. The issue of medical quality photography arises because photographs like this are very sensitive and our articles should include only photographs where we can assure a chain of permissions and releases exists.  Second, the issue of crowd out is one of degree.  Not all non-free images crowd out free images with the same magnitude.  A non-free image of a famous living person crowds out free images because the 1: the threshold level of quality is much higher than the average free photo and 2: because a free photo would be relatively easy to secure.  the biggest impact is the reduced incentive to search or produce a free image.  In cases like this CAIS image (or any of the other AIS non-free images), those factors are minimized.  The only real argument I can see is that the image is replaceable by text.  That's a fine argument but the image itself adds veracity to a claim that CAIS women are phenotypically identical to any other woman, support which cannot come from text alone.  Lastly, the policy obliges very little, especially if the immediate obligation results in a degradation of quality to an important article. 184.59.29.41 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think these images should be viewed as replaceable. The condition is comparatively rare -- about 1 in 20,000 XY births according to the AIS article -- so we're talking of on the order of 7,500 people affected in the USA, 1500 in the UK, etc., and so on; and so about 100 new cases a year in the USA, 20 in the UK, etc.  That gives a baseline, but to that we need to also consider firstly the personal nature of these photographs; and, secondly, the essential "no obvious difference" which is the point of what they show -- which together I think make for verification issues that go beyond what we can expect OTRS to deal with.
 * I would also add that showing matching images of two affected people, taken in the same environment with the same set-up, very usefully conveys the natural variation of those affected with this condition, and adds to the difficulty of replacement.
 * I therefore think that what this image conveys goes beyond what we can reasonably expect people to be able to replace. I also think the value the picture adds to the article is considerable, in showing that people affected with the condition really do look completely normal.
 * One other question is, could there be any NFCC #2 issue? I would think probably not, unless there's any clear evidence of these being of high commercial value.  Jheald (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, I don't buy the "odds" argument. We consider images replaceable even when there's only one person in the entire world whose photo would suit, and those odds are about 1 in 6 billion. 1 in 20,000 gives a much greater pool of people to select from.
 * That only leaves "quality" and "difficulty". A free image of reasonable quality is always preferred over a nonfree image, even if the nonfree is of superb quality. The free image need not be exactly the same. That's been established in many, many articles about living people. The fact that a photo would be difficult to get also does not allow nonfree. If it would be impossible, such as the article being about someone who's in prison indefinitely, a recluse, who is missing for an extended period, etc., that may allow it. But I strongly doubt all these things are true of all those people with this condition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quality and difficulty are not the only remaining issues; others have brought up valid points. Among them:
 * Due to phenotypic similarity, it is impossible to verify that a given image is actually of a woman with CAIS unless it has been published in a medical document. This is one of the reasons using free images is so very difficult (otherwise, I would have uploaded one).
 * The image actually does significantly add to the value of the article. The most accurate and complete way to describe a phenotype is through a photograph; this is exactly why any review of CAIS in the medical literature will feature a similar photograph.
 * The image policy obliges very little, especially if the immediate obligation results in a degradation of quality to an important article.
 * Only images where a chain of permissions and releases exists should be used, due to the very sensitive nature of the photographs. You really should take a look at the AIS talk page; the issue of inappropriate images is very delicate.
 * Honestly, if there was a way I could get around having to use a non-free image, I would have definitely have done so. I cannot see how using a free image in this particular instance will ever be practical or even possible for that matter... Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need an image at all in this instance. By definition, the image shows an "ordinary" female next to an, well, ordinary female.  That the image is of a "certified" person with complete androgen insensitivity is almost immaterial.  By all definitions, both images are of physically ordinary female body.  How can this disease, rare or not, require a non-free image in order to display what is so remarkably evident across so much of the internet?  That the disease itself is rare was never in question, the question is why a non-free image should be required st all, given the nature of the disease -- namely, that as far as a body being female goes, absolutely nothing happens out of the ordinary. Banaticus (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the image shows two individuals with CAIS.
 * Yes, our article says that people with CAIS are phenotypically female with a full female habitus; but the article and resources elsewhere go on to explain that the condition does produce differences: female internal organs not present; underarm and and pubic hair typically sparse, or not present; height usually taller than the average; hands and feet larger than the average, though not out of line with height; breasts typically fuller and often more round than the average -- from which a reader (possibly just getting a diagnosis of CAIS themselves for the first time) might very reasonably conclude: okay somebody with CAIS turns out basically female-looking in body shape, but still be left wondering, does someone with CAIS really look like an 'ordinary' XX woman. But by seeing this photograph they can see and assess for themselves just how much somebody with CAIS looks like somebody born XX.  Jheald (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Jonathan, you're creating requirements out of whole cloth that aren't really there. If the uploader can verify that the image is what they say it is, and they had permission to take it, we'd absolutely accept a free image and assume good faith on their part in the absence of evidence otherwise. We always, to some degree, have to trust uploaders when it comes to photos they took. That's nothing unusual, and it doesn't justify using a non-free image based upon refusal to do so. If you have a free image you can upload, you should do so. You'd be extended the same presumption of good faith anyone would be that the photo is what you say it is. And yes, the image policy crystal clear "obliges" that replaceable nonfree images never be used, regardless of whether their non-use would result in a "quality degradation". Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  If an OTRS reviewer just AGF'd a nude image through with the claim that it was somebody with CAIS, they wouldn't be doing their duty.  At the very least, the OTRS reviewer would need to confirm or find overwhelming reason to believe (i) that the image really was of who it was said to be; (ii) that that person was over 18; (iii) that the person had consented to the picture being taken; (iv) that it was being uploaded with the subject's knowledge and approval; and (v) that the person really did have CAIS.  Merely "assuming good faith" on any of those points would be a dereliction of duty.
 * Secondly, while using a lower-quality image may be appropriate, materially reducing the quality of information given by the article is not. I suspect that it is in that latter sense that Jonathan Marcus was making plain his concern about potential "degradation of quality of an important article".  Jheald (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OTRS routinely handles verification of identity, licensing, etc. This is not exactly new ground for them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We appear to be talking at cross purposes. There is nothing in the non-free content or image use policies which require the attribution and consent chain that johnathan is talking about, but social issues surrounding CAIS demand that we use an image which was taken with informed consent if we are to be a respectable resource on the subject.  I'm going to ask again that you take a look at the AIS talk page for just a small taste of the emotions and issues surrounding CAIS imagery within and without the medical literature.  The chain of attribution that wikipedia handles or cares about pretty much ends with the uploader.  We are talking about the process that leads up to the image being taken, something which exists outside the bounds of what we expect OTRS to deal with.  Also you continue to assert that the image is replaceable even though we have produced some evidence and arguments to the contrary.  Issues of replacablity like this one are invariably matters of degree.  We could replace every single image on wikipedia with text (free or non-free), the amount of text required to provide a sufficiently good replacement varies and we would expect that images where a small amount of text would provide an insufficient replacement (that is to say, where article quality would suffer too much) would be retained.  That is why NFCC 1 and 8 work hand in hand. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the talk page the first time you asked me to, and have addressed many points you brought up there and here. Do you think seeing them asserted elsewhere is suddenly going to make me think they're valid? I'm not sure why you keep asking me to go look at it again. As to replaceability, we do not have special "permissioning" restrictions for any image, and we have other images that are just as potentially sensitive if not more so than this one. If you want to develop that as a policy, go propose it as one. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily deciding that's a requirement, and then using said arbitrary requirement to argue against replaceability. Until and unless that is an actual requirement (which I would be thoroughly against, but we could discuss that if you did propose the policy), and not a self-imposed limitation from you, it's not a valid argument. I think that's the reason for the cross purposes here&mdash;you seem to think everyone just agrees that whatever requirements you decide to set are actual requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It keeps coming up because it is relavent to whether or not this image can be replaced by text or by a free image. If we don't want to have an image which doesn't have some appropriate consent and attribution chain associated with it then that is a reason why we might not want to replace the image with a free one.  And I've never asserted these are or should be wikipedia policies.  None of them are.  There is no wikipedia policy (AFAIK) medical image policy nor should a notional medical image policy demand that we show only images for which there is informed consent.  I'm simply asserting that the social issues surrounding this disease present a case where we don't want to have an image which might not have appropriate consent.  But I'm pretty much done here.  If you guys want to delete the image I'll see you at DRV.  If you don't then you can close this debate and move on. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't find the agreements for use persuasive. As noted, the "odds" argument fails miserably, as most photographs of specific individuals have much lower odds. The ability to find someone willing to pose unclothed does add to the difficulty, but the test is not "would it be very, very hard to find a free equivalent" the test is "would it be impossible to find or create one". Has anyone attempted to arrange permission for the photograph in question? It is not outside the realm of possibility that a journal might consider it a positive to have one of their photographs used in an article with the traffic of Wikipedia. While this article doesn't exactly have Lady Gaga like traffic, it does get north of 100 hits a day, far more than the journal sales for a year, I would expect. Of course, contacting them may alert them to the use, but I don't see that as a negative. Even if they are unwilling to license it, perhaps because the bureaucracy of releasing permission may be onerous, they might opine of the validity of the FUR. The best option is that they agree to a compatible license, the next best option is that they can't provide the license, but they agree that our FUR is reasonable. The third option is that they object to the use, but I suspect they will be more reasonable about it if we approach them, than if they find out by other means and choose to object.--  SPhilbrick  T  01:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to offend, but I basically consider this discussion closed. No admin has stepped in to delete the images on the basis of this discussion and it has been stagnant for months.  IF you hadn't left a message on my talk page I would never have noticed your comment here.  On the merits, I don't find your claims convincing in the slightest.  First, we are not competing for use with these journals.  The letter and spirit of NFCC 2 reflects commercial use for the photos.  While commercial publishers profit off the sale of journal subscriptions I think an argument suggesting that they gain this profit through images in the main would have a long road to hoe.  Their stock in trade is scholarship and exclusivity--meaning that they can offer sales of journals because the transactions of a discipline occur there and because they provide a peer review mechanism.  The occasional medical image is incidental to that goal.  NFCC 2 is written for wire services like AP or stock photo services where an image on wikipedia would materially compete with their attempts to ration and sell the same.  Second, the discussion about NFCC 1 is already done to death.  The assertion of the primary article author and myself is simple.  The function of these non-free files is to ensure that the images on wikipedia are A: actually photos of the syndrome in question (and not just phenotypic females) and B: taken with the appropriate release and consent forms (an issue which is very important for this specific syndrome due to abuse in the past).  Apart from the actual information in the photos, both of those points add to encyclopedic value in a way that only a similar medical image in a copyleft journal could replicate.  As soon as such an image is available, I'm happy to use it instead.  This has nothing to do with the "odds" argument, however the odds are still materially important to the discussion.  If we had an article on a recently discovered, highly endangered species and the one available photograph was copyrighted we could have a healthy discussion about the likelihood of a free alternative appearing--we may find that likelihood alone was insufficient to meet NFCC 1 but it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  About the FUR.  The fair use statement is not a request or anything to be negotiated with the content owner.  Wikipedia has non-free content rationales (not really FURs, but that's fine) because fair use is permitted under the US code.  If we assert that these images have encyclopedic value and we follow our own NFCC in displaying them then we may display the images regardless of the journal's stance on licensing.  You or anyone else is free to contact the journal and request that these photos be released under a less restrictive license, but that is your business and doesn't impact the disposition of the photos.  I'm sorry for the brusque tone but this ground has been covered before.  We are basically rehashing the above discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An argument asserting this image is effectively free because it doesn't harm commercial opportunities is empty. The image is not available under a free license. As such, it is non-free for our purposes. You might try gaining release of the image under a free license. Failing that, we have to treat it as non-free as a corporate logo. It's the same thing to us. I don't dispute the image is encyclopedic. That's really not the point though. The point is that there are people alive today with this syndrome. If this resource is to believed, more than 300k in the world today. The idea that this image is not replaceable by a free image is flawed. There might not be a free image now, but one most certainly can be created. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I never made such an argument. I'm not sure how you could have determined I had.  My argument was specifically that the concerns of NFCC 2 are met because we don't materially compete with a commercial interest.  That's it.  The rest of your argument is well traveled ground.  Our claim is that given the subject matter the usefulness of this image to the encyclopedia hinges on more than the pixels displayed on the screen.  We would not use an image without an appropriate consent agreement and we would not use an image without reliable verification that the individual in the image actually had the variation of the syndrome in question.  Both of those are handled neatly by the use of a medical image from a journal. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Respecting #2 of the NFCC policy is just one of an array of hurdles that must be jumped for material to be acceptable, which follows into the rest of my argument; whether it's well travelled ground or not, it's indisputable that it is replaceable with free content. That makes it unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a novel assertion. But do what you want.  If this image is deleted, I'll bring it up in DRV.  I'm done here. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple points:
 * I don't consider this discussion closed, I consider it stalled. Seraphimblade made some good points, you disagree, but Seraphimblade hasn't edited in months. I see no evidence that Seraphimblade conceded the point.
 * I'm new to NFCR, so want to proceed cautiously. You said "Wikipedia has non-free content rationales (not really FURs, but that's fine)". I thought FUR was a shorthand for the rationale supporting the use of non-free content. I could be wrong, but I notice WP:FUR is redirected to here, so color me confused. I note that Non-free use rationale guideline implies "non-free use rationale" = "or use rationale" = "fair use rationale". If I'm using terms wrong, please correct me.
 * You emphasize NFCC 2 points, but I don't recall commenting on that rationale. My understanding is that the use must meet all the criteria, and meeting one strongly does not make up for not quite meeting another one. Perhaps I misunderstood why you brought up NFCC 2.
 * As for NFCC 1, yes, it has been done, and maybe to death, but not IMO, to a consensus. I see editors on both sides, but nothing yet approaching a consensus. I could be wrong, but I would expect that "no consensus" would default to remove rather than keep.
 * I am not arguing that a FUR is something to be negotiated with the content owner. My main point is that we can eliminate the need for an FUR is we obtain a license from the copyright holder. My secondary point is that if that is not possible, it may be useful to know what view the copyright holder may hold.
 * My understanding is that the Foundation has made it clear that it isn't a big fan of the use of NFC. To the extent that it is used, it behooves us to made absolutely sure we have solid rationales in all cases. I see this one as marginal at best.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stalled is fine, so long as we respect the length of time between the last major contributions and the potential decision. My comments about the "FUR" not being the real name of the template on the image reflects the nature of NFCC.  We commonly misunderstand NFCC to be fair use alone, which it is not.  NFCC includes fair use but the standards for use in a wikipedia article are much higher.  If we only needed to meet fair use in the us and fair dealing in the UK we would have fewer planks to the NFCC.  However, our policy reflects a preference for free content.  For the most part FUR/NFCC are somewhat interchangable but we need to be clear sometimes.  My point about asking the copyright holder also ignored one common misconception.  A license to use an image on wikipedia (as in File:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg) is insufficient to consider it "free", as it would have to be licensed for all downstream use.  If we want to convince them to freely license the photos, great.  But a specific license on WP still needs to meet the NFCC and it still considered non-free content.  I mentioned NFCC 2 issues because you wrote "It is not outside the realm of possibility that a journal might consider it a positive to have one of their photographs used in an article with the traffic of Wikipedia. While this article doesn't exactly have Lady Gaga like traffic, it does get north of 100 hits a day, far more than the journal sales for a year, I would expect." which I misinterpreted to read that hits on WP are potentially infringing on the commercial use of the journal.  Sorry.  The NFCC 1 point has been done to death and we probably will not reach a consensus but I'm not sure that dooms the photos themselves.  In my opinion there are valid (per NFCC 1) reasons to treat medical images with a chain of consent and verification as uniquely encylopedic where an amateur photo would un unencyclopedic (and would not be included in the article).  The responses to that have been, variously "nuh-uh".  So I'm becoming progressively more frustrated in articulating them.  And...frankly, I'm a little bemused at the focus on these images.  They support an informative article, they don't infringe on a commercial use, they would be hard to credibly replace and serve the same purpose and they aren't problematic in the same way that thousands of other non-free images are or may be.  The original argument for their replacability stemmed from what I consider to be ignorance of the syndrome in question and the medical-social discourse surrounding the syndrome--namely that phenotypically CAIS females "look like" non-CAIS females.  That's the start of this debate.  Once we dispensed with that argument the reasons for deletion shifted.  That's all well and good but we are kinda left arguing for 6 months over a relatively benign image.  So as I said to Hammersoft, delete this image or don't delete it.  If it is deleted I'll go to DRV and we can argue these points again with a broader audience.  Maybe that will be a waste of time and maybe it will be a helpful discussion.  I don't know.  But this discussion is long past the sell-by date. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the frustration about the timing. I saw the AN notice, and decided I ought to help out. (You may have a different opinion on whether I am helping out.) To me, this is fresh, and interesting. To you this is stale, and presumptively resolved. My apologies for the comment about traffic; I can see that it sounded like a comment on commercial opportunities, so I now have a better understanding of your re-emphasis of NFCC 2 issues. I was mostly thinking out loud whether the owner of the copyright would be inclined to be helpful, and I thought they might. (Perhaps I'm biased, because I recently contacted a professional photographer owning a copyright to an image, and I was pleased that she granted a license.)


 * Unfortunately, on the merits, I feel stronger; I no longer think this is marginal. A person posed in the nude for a picture for a scientific journal, and now that picture is in Wikipedia. If I were that person I might be please, but it is easy to understand that they might not be pleased. We do have pictures of nudes on Wikipedia, while I haven't reviewed them all (give me time), I bet most have permission from the subject. I can think of one exception Phan Thị Kim Phúc but we obtained permission from the copyright holder. How many pictures of nudes do we have without permission from either the subject or the copyright holder?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're helping. I'm glad you added your voice to the discussion, even though I feel you are wrong on a few subjects.  I am, however, less sure than your perspective on the discussion as fresh and interesting is appropriate or sufficient.  but that's small potatoes.  You've articulated some smart, good faith arguments and I'm as happy as I can be to engage.  For your last point what you are looking for are personality rights, which aren't quite copyright issues and aren't covered in the NFCC.  I think you can find some discussion on the image policy page, but the takeaway is that personality rights apply more to amateur photos than photos with consent decrees or photos of newsworthy events.  Basically don't take a picture of some random person in front of the gates of Buchenwald and upload that to wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion to check out Personality rights. My quick read leaves me with the impression that the area is unsettled. Will read further.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on why this can't be replaced by text. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my estimation, this photograph is imminently replaceable, and fails WP:NFCC #1. – Quadell (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus. – Quadell (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg
discussion top This is a photo that is famous by itself. It has been discussed by news sources on its own merits and described as a "defining image" of the event it depicts. The Wikipedia article about the photo's author, David Rubinger, describes and discuses the iconic status of the image.

However, in the four other articles where this non-free image is currently being used (History of Israel, Israel, Six-Day War and Western Wall) it's serving as an illustration for the event captured in the photo. Information about such event can be (and in fact already is) perfectly conveyed by the use of free text.

While some editors may feel inclined to modify one of those four articles to discuss the photo itself and not only the event, in an attempt to justify the use of such a great image in the specific article, it should be kept in mind that this is against the spirit of our project, that is strongly committed with the Free Culture. The article about the photographer is the only logical right place to mention the photo for it's own merit.--<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 23:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an iconic photograph, and would seem appropriate in Six-Day War and probably Western Wall. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain how so, taking into consideration what I have raised here. Your comment added nothing that was not already pasted on the image's fair use rationale (the one we're supposed to be reviewing here). --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 02:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SlimVirgin. This picture is almost symbolic in Israel for the events related to the Six-Day War including the capture/liberation of the Western Wall. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you came here to save this photo, understand that This edit violates not only WP:CANVASS but also WP:NFCC. Please, make sure you're familiar with WP:NFCC before commenting here. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As Chesdovi has already pointed put correctly, perhaps the tone of his post was incorrect, but the fact of posting on a WikiProject is completely normal, and is not considered canvassing or forumshopping in Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting non-neutral notices is canvassing. He was gentle enough to fix the issue. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to be more specific the next time, in case the user isn't quite as perceptive as Chesdovi. And I would tend to dispute the notion that the wording was not neutral to begin with - the real problem was the use of the image.  "If you want it deleted, do nothing" isn't exactly the most POV wording I've ever seen.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be the the most POV wording in the totality of your experience as an Wikipedian to be considered non-neutral. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's called sarcasm; as I clearly stated, I dispute "the notion that the wording was not neutral to begin with..." Dreadstar  ☥  23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is actually listed at FFD Files for deletion/2011 May 13 though for some reason the image is not tagged as such and it was nominated for FFD before this review was requested. It should really only be listed in one place at a time. ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again. Not the same picture.--<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as image use goes, I would agree that it is appropriate in both Six-Day War and Western Wall since it is an image with iconic status and historical importance, as well as being the subject of commentary in both articles. The image singnificatly increases the reader's understanding of each article.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you interest in this discussion. Why should the same piece of work be subject of commentary in three different articles? Isn't this contrary to what is said on NFC item 6? --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 19:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mr. Moderator, I appreciate your allowing me to participate in your forum. I think the iconic and historial nature of the image makes it pass the threshold of NFCUUI#6 for each of those articles, it is of paramount significance to them.  Each article can stand on its own, and truly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the threshold of NFCUUI#6 for each of those articles"? NFCUUI#6 is not per-article, as I understand. It says exactly that if we have an article about an image, that uses the image, we don't use the image in other article's passages also mentioning the image. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 20:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right and I'm saying the iconic and historical nature of the image transcends that guideline. I think it's fine in all three articles, and I believe it's different in each one - it's not exactly the same use in each article.   Dreadstar  ☥  21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What uses, other than illustrating a discussion about the photo itself, would fulfill our policy on non-free content? --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Different discussions, different angles, differing opinions of the image. That is one of the potential and inherent natures of iconic, historical entities.  I would hazard to say that David Rubinger is not about the image, it is indeed about the person; so we cannot say that the image has its own article - like, shall we say, the Mona Lisa.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All aspects about the photo should be covered in just one article, with other articles linking to it when needed. Like I said before, if we have an article about an image, that uses the image, we don't use the image in other article's passages also mentioning the image. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 23:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NFCUUI#6 doesn't say that and the image doesn't have its own article. Period. Dreadstar  ☥  23:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably mistaken by User:SlimVirgin's recent change to NFCUUI#6 to fit his opinion above. Someone already reverted that edit. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't "mistaken" at all, first because it's irrelevant to the point that the image doesn't have it's own article and is a subject of commentary in the ones it's in; and second, because SlimVirgin's edit was made hours after I posted my last comment here.my edit, then over seven hours later, SV's edit. Get your facts straight.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I said "probably". --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 17:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see NFCUUI#6 violated either. This picture has no own article. Please add the link to that article here if I'm mistaken. --torusJKL (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Iconic image, relevant to several articles, no specific article on it, NFCUUUI#6 is not violated. Damiens.rf restrictive views on this have not been accepted as consensus or policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove. Per my comments on "transformative use" in the currently-active discussion on "historical images" at WT:NFC .  The way these images are being used is not transformative, and therefore as far as I can see likely not to be fair use.  Jheald (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the use of the image in Western Wall and Six-Day War are both tranformative and do not supercede or infringe on the copyright holder. The image portrays a significant milestone in the history of the Western Wall from the 1967 to present time period.  The image also illustrates a major milestone in the Six-Day War, the capture of the Western Wall.  Both are truly historical and iconic events in both the history of the Wall and the war.  So, yes, under law, it is indeed Fair Use in those articles.  In the overall History of Israel and Israel itself, it is not quite such a milestone as with the other three uses, so I think it can be removed from those two articles.   Dreadstar  ☥  21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Picture represents an historical event. No rules violated. At most remove from the article about Israel. --torusJKL (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The photo greatly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject matter in most of its usages; I can understand removing the image from Israel, in which it most likely does not belong, but in other usages -- for instance, Western Wall and Six-Day War -- it provides illustration for a momentous historical event critical to the subject of the article. That this is even under debate makes me suspect I may need to remind certain users of WP:CONFLICT.----Chromium (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No consensus, no recent discussion. – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Gallery of non-free images at Scouting in Russia
discussion top

I recently removed a gallery of non-free emblems of Russian scouting organisations from the bottom of this page. This removal is contested by another editor (although I don't fully understand the edit summary) and invite a review of the usage of non-free content at this page. CIreland (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Galleries of non-free images are of course discouraged by WP:NFG. This is descendant from WP:NFCC #8, and #3a. Galleries almost always fail NFCC due to there being no accompanying critical discussion of the non-free media in question. The gallery should be removed. However, be aware that a frequent response to removals of galleries (example of gallery removal) is to then sprinkle the non-free images throughout the article without changing the article text to include any sourced commentary regarding logo changes (example of sprinkle restoration). It's still a failure of WP:NFCC #8, but not WP:NFG, which misses the point entirely. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I am missing something, the old WLOR logos were never FfD’d – until now. IMO that's the way to go in such a case. —teb728 t c 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, an FfD is used to delete files. The question here is not whether to delete, but to use in the article in question in the manner in which they are used. Subtle, but important, difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true if the files are used on another article where they have a valid not free use. But the WLOR logos like the Scouting in Russia gallery files are used only in the article from which they needed to be removed; so after removal they would be deleted as orphans. —teb728 t c 20:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is only one example of excessive use of non-free images in a scouting article, on the Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files there are a total of 17 scouting article listed (including this one out of the top 759). I have not reviewed them so don't know if they fit the gallery or sprinkled style, but such a high number of related articles appears out of balance and should, no doubt, be reviewed more closely by experts. I don't see any other topic so highly visible there. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm nearly at the point of exhaustion in dealing with these sorts of violations. I spent the last several months working on very much the same issue with regards to numismatics articles, and the resulting explosion of debate just wasn't worth it. So what's next? Another explosion of debate on scouting's entitlement to have as much non-free content as they like? I'm just not up for it. The usage here on this article is inappropriate. It needs to be removed, period. If the resulting edits after that sprinkles the emblems through the article, that needs to be undone as well. But, if anyone does these removals they might as well do this to themselves. Have fun storming the castle! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting.---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that those five badges do convey that those are the organization-level emblems for those scouting in Russia organizations. Galleyr is just the tool to put those 5 emblems in that section rather than being a typical gallery situation.     But I added a sentence to the section to sort of double up on that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still completely insufficient. There's just display of the emblems, and nothing more. That's still a blatant failure of WP:NFG, and more importantly WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite North8000's protests, not one of the badges in this article has a valid rationale. The "purpose for use" claims the images are being used in the infobox at the top of the article. That is false. The FURs further goes no to say "help the reader identify the organization" but there is no article about those organisations; it is a general article. Again a false claim. The only image that can possibly make that claim, except there is no infobox for it, is File:Russkiy Skaut.svg. These image completely fail WP:NFCC because they do not add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic; they just decorate the article. The only way these individual image could be appropriately kept is as an organisation identifying symbol in the infobox of its own article especially as there no critical commentary about these images. Hammersoft has it entirely correct. Nominate them for deletion and get them out of here. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't make any "protests", so please stop inventing things that I said. (I have not expressed my criticisms here because they are not unique to this instance.) I gave my opinion, and said that I added a sentence which I felt would "double up" on that.  They appear to be the main logos of main organizations there.  I don't have the expertise to fully integrate them, I was just trying to help a bit / do something a bit constructive. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Images are no longer used. – Quadell (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Eric Harris.JPG and File:Dylan Klebold.JPG
discussion top File:Eric Harris.JPG and File:Dylan Klebold.JPG

Used in

Does not meet non-free content policy; the rationale says, "it portrays a deceased person involved in a historic event" - it does not show them involved in a historic event at all; it's just a picture of the person. (The source is, as of now, a 404). This snapshot serves no encyclopaedic purpose; it does not add to understanding of the topic; there is no contextual significance.  Chzz  ► 02:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This meets the criteria to illustrate the subjects, as a free alternative is unlikely to be obtained, as the subjects are dead, as there is clear encyclopedic value in portraying them ,a s there is no possibility of causing commercial harm to the copyright holder, and are used only in the article space to illustrate a minimal amount of articles. If other non-free images of similar illustrative purpose exist, we could use them instead, but the quality of the encyclopedic information on the subjects would be impaired if we have the possibility of illustrating but choose not to do it because doing so requires we exercise fair-use rights. --Cerejota (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have updated the criteria to say: "To illustrate the one of the perpetrators involved in the Columbine High School massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs) 06:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not required that the image show a person while he is involved in a historic event. The images seem to pass all our NFCC as it is. By the way, this forum is very infrequently watched. You might have better luck asking at Media copyright questions, or nominating for deletion at Files for deletion. – Quadell (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Kept. – Quadell (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)