Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 18

File:ST-VOY Time and Again.jpg
This image is too dubious, and the article still lacks enough balance. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in section two above. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Easily described by text, and not a scene of note in the article. Delete. --M ASEM (t) 02:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do that, then all episode shots from this series should be grouped together in an AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not necessarily. Not that I've looked at that, but there may be cases within the series where there's critical reception of the scene (mind you, my knowledge of Voyager says, "very unlikely" given the general lack of any critical reception for the individual episodes). A mass FFD would be disruptive, but I'm sure there's an appropriate venue somewhere (WP:TV maybe) to get input. --M ASEM  (t) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In cases where the images are not mentioned in particular, not doing a group FFD is itself disruptive. Doing it piecemeal causes an enormous amount of work, rather than the whole issue being discussed in a reasonable fashion in one coherent place. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cougar town 109 thanksgiving.jpg
This image is not part of article's critical commentary. It may identify the episode, but it may fail WP:NFCC criteria. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has rationale, and common practice is to include an image from the episode in the episode's article, as I noted in the previous section. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Easily described by text, and a scene of no note in sources. Delete. --M ASEM (t) 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you nominate it for deletion? --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've simply removed it, a bot will tag it orphaned, and it will be deleted in 7 days unless restored. If it restored, then FFD would be the next step. --M ASEM (t) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it. Per my comments in the next section, there should be a centralized discussion regarding screenshots not specifically mentioned in the article. Please don't misinterpret my action; I'm not trying to be obstructionist here. But, given the enormous amount of discussion that erupts over NFCC enforcement, not having a centralized discussion to refer to as supporting proof of the need of removal is bad. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have advice, from the TV project itself, from WP:MOSTV : "For episode articles, a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode - that is, the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary - and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood. There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode." There is no need for central discussion when this has been long-standing, its just a matter of cleaning up under it. --M ASEM  (t) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (please take as humor) Is there where I'm supposed to say you're being heavy handed? As would be said back to me if I tried it, WP:MOSTV isn't policy. Further, common practice is that there is an allowance for an image per episode where the episode has its own article. It's all over the place (ex: Category:Monk episodes, Category:South Park (season 9) episodes. So, we have a case where reality and guideline don't agree. You claim reality is wrong, but if I fix it I'm being heavy handed and if you do it you're...what? An angel? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the humor, but it's important to separate OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic from what actually is established. Unless there has been some significant review of the articles, we can't just if the image use is appropriate, being aware that newer editors tend to follow the patterns of established articles without referring to guidelines ("Oh that episode article has an image, must be okay here..."). Given that I've gotten one positive response at the TV project to clean up the various series of inappropriate screenshots for infoboxes, it is definitely true that the practice is not for automatic allowance for images and they must follow NFCC. --M ASEM  (t) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. First, Wikiprojects don't set policy. Second, the common practice is as I described. It's not a question of otherstuffexists. It's a question of what is routinely done. Episodic screenshots exist in probably thousands of articles across the project. Whether it is wrong or right is really beside the point at this point; it's not a clear violation of WP:NFCC, and there's no question this sort of use is very common. What are you going to do when these sorts of uses are routinely reverted? Is that when you become heavy handed, point to a wikiproject and a manual of style and declare them to be wrong? Or, as you seem to have previously suggested in related matters, we have to bring each of these cases here or to FfD? Hmm? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, WP:TV's guideline on episode article images falls right in line with NFCC; my point is that the fact the project acknowledges there is no immediately allowance for episode screenshots shows that the project as a whole is aware of this. Secondly, that's why I posted just earlier the message to help with clearing of unnecessary screenshots from TV episode articles. Either that will prompt them into action (meaning they will help fix images added by newer editors that are simply mimicking how other episode articles are presented), or will spawn discussion that should affirm the consensus or set up a new one. If the TV project has no objection to this remove, then there's no point in spending the time to FFD such images since there's agreement for those affected. --M ASEM  (t) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what the project thinks, since (as I noted) projects don't set policy. You seem to imply an assumption that it is only newer editors are adding episodic images. Evidence? The TV project aren't the only ones affected. Every reader of every episode article is affected, not just the few hundred listed as in the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:MichaelKelsoFinale.jpg

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

This image looks too inadequate or dubious. It merely identifies Ashton Kutcher as Michael Kelso (or Kelso (That '70s Show)). And I don't think any image of him in the show can help matters, especially the promo image. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was a media kit promo image, we'd generally allow it (there's aspects of branding and image in that), but as just a screenshot to show a character that looks exactly like the actor in question? Not needed at all. --M ASEM (t) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just Delete it Plenty of free images that show how he looks. Nothing notable about this shot or how he looks in it over a standard photo. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Showing how he looks could be relevant if the characterization was a significant trait of the character. As this one doesn't have anything significant, just delete it. Diego (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of free images of the actor on commons, but none that look like the character did in the program. The closest is File:Ashton Kutcher Talks About Valentine's Day (Cropped).jpg, but that is cropped from an image that was deleted because of flickrwashing, so it's subject to deletion. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A new version from Twitter is uploaded to replace the dubious version. Can anyone close this review? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


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

File:The Accuracy International AS-50.jpg and File:Accuracy International AWM 338.jpg

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

Both images seem to violate NFCC#1. See also this discussion. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Non-free with permission. I am confused with the tag on the images. It seems that copyright holders can allow us to use the images under a limited licence and the community has found consensus on it a few times in the four(?) deletion discussions. How is this different than Britannica getting a licence from a photographer to only use an image in their books and possibly online. I can see the commons not allowing them but I don't see them violating any policy here. Do we need to revist this issue again?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That template says that copyright tag alone is insufficient and I still do not see how those images satisfy NFCC#1. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me explain the facts, the rights holder (Accuracy International) have permitted me to upload these images which belong to them to Wikipedia in perpetuity for educational purposes which are otherwise unavailable. I believe I have chosen the correct template, however if I have not please suggest the correct one, many thanks. Twobells (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A permission for use on Wikipedia is (isn't this ridiculous :) ) insufficient for Wikipedia. The images have to be released under a free license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Images that are not under a free license can only be used under a claim of what is called fair use and such images are on Wikipedia required to satisfy the criteria listed at the page Non-free content criteria. Those two images are not under a free license. They fail point 1. No free equivalent. of those criteria, because it can reasonably be expected that free equivalents of those images could be created. The rights holder needs to release those images under a free license or into the public domain (see Granting work into the public domain). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you try and see if they will donate the images to commons? Give them details about 'attribution'. They may insist that their name, website, etc. must legally be placed with every derivative use of the image. I think they can even specify the size and placement. This would give them a crapload of free advertising and they may go for it. The template itself seems to have reversed one of the WP:5P which seems strange. Have we found consensus to re-write that pillar?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Before we get too far - can any member of the public easily get pictures of these guns? If they are specialty guns that may only be given to the military, that might allow us to consider non-free images. But if we can get pictures, then yes, NFCC#1 is a problem, and the steps to request the company to donate the images would be good. --M ASEM  (t) 22:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems these rifles are being offered to the public (see for example here), but making a free picture of them might not be possible, unless they are being publicly displayed somewhere (which I can't confirm or deny). I don't know if for example the dealers listed at http://www.accuracyinternationalsrt.com/ when you click Dealers publicly display the rifles in their stores or not. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are being offered to the public then a free image is possible (though this should not discourage the possibility of getting the company to release the images in a free license); it doesn't matter what steps one might have to go through to take a photo of such. --M ASEM (t) 23:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Twobells In order to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons you can use the Upload Wizard which is located here. It will guide you through the necessary steps of the upload. When you are at step 3 where it says Release rights, select This file is not my own work. Specify the source where the file comes from (for example the internet address / url) and say who created the file. Select the license under which you (or the copyright holder) want to publish the file. In the next step, fill out the required fields and give a short description of the file. Then complete the wizard and the file can be used on Wikipedia. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Other non-free images of the weapons can be seen with a Google search so it is possible to obtain a free-image so it fails NFCC#1, the fact we cant find one is I believe not a defence. So you really need to company images to be release with an acceptable license, the steps above will still not give an acceptable release, unless the source url shows the licence or it is sent through OTRS. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Only because there are images on Google doesn't necessarily mean a free image can be obtained. All the weapons on those images might be located in non-public places, so it might be impossible in general to obtain an image, in which case a non-free image would be acceptable. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But you've already pointed out that you can buy these (after appropriate bg checks) online, ergo, a member of the public can get access to the physical item and take a free photo of it. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that generally seems to be true for nearly all commercial products, agreed. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Someone pointed out that there is a shop selling guns like these for a few thousand dollars. Thus, the images can be replaced by buying a gun and then taking a photo of it. Clear violation of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Winston Churchill 1941 photo by Yousuf Karsh.jpg
Seems to be used on 12 pages but only has rationale for two.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This was in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date. However, Canadian photos are still protected by copyright in the United States if the photographer bothered about copyright notices and copyright renewals. Many photos by Yousuf Karsh are claimed to be protected in the United States exactly because the photographer did make sure that the photos were published in compliance with United States copyright formalities. Thus, we have to assume that the photo is unfree in the United States. I have reduced the image per WP:NFCC and added a non-free licence tag. The WP:NFCC violations should be trivial to fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the old revisions of this image in case it is decided to continue using it under fair use. James086 Talk  21:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I only brought it up because it is used in more than the fair use articles allowed. Is it four articles maximum? Should we seek consensus on which ones, or just the ones that have rationale now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no maximum limit as long as the use complies with WP:NFCC. That said, I think that the image fails WP:NFCC in Churchill caretaker ministry and Churchill war ministry. There are multiple images in Commons:Category:Winston Churchill which are in the public domain in the United States, and those images can be used instead. For example, File:Sir Winston S Churchill.jpg doesn't look too bad. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel it should only go in the article of the creator. National Recording Registry has a rationale that I don't agree with according to policy. Should we remove it from all except for the photographer article then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

done? I left it in just the one article and changed the image in the others. If no one objects can we close this review?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg
Use in Art of the United Kingdom seems inappropriate. I question the third point of the rationale File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg, which seems dubious and inadequate to me. I do not see where this specific portrait is discussed in the article. The only thing in the article that seems to have any connection to the image seems to be the statement "The "London School" of figurative painters including Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, Frank Auerbach, Leon Kossoff, and Michael Andrews have received widespread international recognition". No direct reference is made to the image in that article. Thus I question whether the use of that image in that article satisfies NFCC#8. It appears to me it doesn't. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again Lucien Freud is an integral and crucial figure in the Art of the United Kingdom and it is important that his work be visually included in the article; probably needs more text...Modernist (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCI#7 says a non-free image of a painting can be used "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." In which way does the current use of this image in Art of the United Kingdom constitute critical commentary? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Toshio's right in that this is just being example of a named artist's work just to have an image there, but no reasoning behind the image. We're obviously going to have images like that on the artist's page and possibly on the artwork's own page if it exists, but there needs to be much stronger reason to include it as an example on a summary article like "Art of the UK".  --M ASEM  (t) 12:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a proscribed and limited reservoir of Freud's imagery. Lucien Freud (1922-2011), is or rather was along with Hockney and a very few others the most important living British artist and amongst the most significant figure painters of the 20th century. The image that we have to use is a portrait of Freud's first wife who was also the daughter of the famous American born English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein and in my view it is an important visual addition to the article. However I agree with both Toshio and Masem that the inclusion should benefit with additional text. I will add some text over the next few days...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sufficient text now added on the specific to justify use. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - I added a NYTimes discussion of Freud and specifically Girl with White Dog with reference to the Times ...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty good (having the painting called out specifically in context via that quote); just note that we just use quotation marks to offset quotes, not italics. (per WP:QUOTE). --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod repaired my erroneous italics :)...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What Masem said, well done. If others agree, I will remove the template from the article and close this discussion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You have only discussed the problems related to this image in one of the articles, but there are also problems in other articles. In particular, it violates WP:NFG in a number of articles, and it also violates WP:NFCC in some articles. There seem to be public domain paintings of the same type which could be used instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the use in 20th-century Western painting fails WP:NFG. I also see no justification for this use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:DLF IPL Logo.svg

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

Uses in the articles of each IPL season are in violation of WP:NFCC. The stated purpose of use is an exact copy of the (appropriate) FUR for Indian Premier League. It states that it is to "help the reader identify the organization". "Identification" is not relevant to these articles as it is not the focus of the articles. File:Ipl.svg is sufficient for use in these articles. --SocietyBox (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A non-free logo that is repeated for an annual event should only be used on the main page of the event and not on each year's page. --M ASEM (t) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


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

Casper (cat)
This article could be improved with a non-free image, citing the fact that the cat is no longer with us. Before anyone uploads a copyrighted image I thought I would bring it up here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly possible, since the cat's passed on, but I'd strongly recommend that the image has to include the cat getting on/off the bus, to provide better context. --M ASEM (t) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I don't think I found that exact image but did find some of Casper by the door and seated. Many are low resolution as is, should they be reduced further?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an external link to the suggested images? Low res is fine for this, it just should be clear. --M ASEM  (t) 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some I found from the find a grave website at the bottom. I didn't try google images. We may be able to email his fan club and get a free licence hi-rez one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be a possibility (the free image approach). You can point them to WP:CONSENT to help them get a free image there.  Should that fail, there's certainly a few from google images that can be used, or even screengrabs one could take from the various television reports on the cat. --M ASEM  (t) 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

resolved--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Endukante... Premanta!

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Non-free content review/Archive 17. This was previously solved by deleting a few images and has now been unsolved again by uploading different images. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculously common. See The Breakfast Club, The Faculty, Mean Girls, The Runaways (film), for some examples of how pervasive this practice is. Doesn't hold with guideline, but so what? This isn't a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but rather that the overwhelming common practice is to include both. Doesn't matter what the guideline says against the images. You can remove one of them if you like. Won't matter. It'll be back. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start an RFC on this, as there was a similar confusion at the VG project on this. This is a different issue from past cover art discussions (in which the focus was alternate covers of albums). --M ASEM (t) 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * RFC here. --M ASEM (t) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Extra-logo.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried asking others about its eligibility for copyrights. , but I cannot tell which is right. I hope more answers come through here. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That image appears to be similar to the example at Threshold of originality, so I think US copyright office would refuse to grant copyright protection. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the file is too simple to be protected by copyright, so I have copied the file to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:My Beloved World cover.jpg
This fails WP:NFCC in the article Sonia Sotomayor. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a problem, per that, NFCC#3a (since the cover is just her photo, again), and the concept behind NFCI#1.  If the book turns out notable, it can be used there, but not on a page about a person. --M ASEM  (t) 14:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * done. I removed the rationale and image from the bio article and left both for the book. This section can be closed unless policy is changed in the next few hours.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sam Diane Cheers finale.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image is used in the Sam and Diane article and the "One for the Road (Cheers)" article. I added this image in the "Sam and Diane" article for visualizing their reunion after six years of separation. Also, I used it as an infobox image in the finale article. I wonder if using this image in either article is still stable and valid. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the image would qualify for usage in one article: The article about the specific episode only. -- Jayron  32  23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed from Sam and Diane; still used in the finale. --George Ho (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sam Diane I Do Adieu Wedding.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wonder if visualizing the "wedding" is necessary, especially in the main article I Do, Adieu. Also, is adding this image into the Sam and Diane article all right? To be honest, the "Sam and Diane" storyline is already done, as they break up and then make up, and they flirted and then abhorred. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the image is OK in the specific article about the episode ONLY, other uses wouldn't qualify. -- Jayron  32  23:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Stratford design.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This fails WP:NFCC in List of tallest buildings in Metro Manila and List of tallest buildings in the Philippines. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NFLISTS#4 implies that referring to the use in The Stratford Residences is preferrable over repeating the image in the list. I doubt a valid rationale for the uses in those lists could be created, since an omission of the image use (which simply is for visual identification of the building) from the list is not detrimental for a readers understanding of the list. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Duck Products logo.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NFCC Policy section - 8.Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The image was uploaded originally for a company article that no longer exists. It is now used in the generic article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This file is used to illustrate an article on a beach, but the beach is hardly visible on the picture, violating NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The subject of the picture are the three people, but the subject of the FU is the beach. Note also that the page has an incorrect FU template, "Subject of image is deceased, so creation of recent free image is impossible." isn't a valid rationale for the image of a beach. It also violates NFCC#4 for having had no previous publication. Fram (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This violates WP:NFCC since the beach still exists. Also, it is possible that it might be possible to dig up photos of the beach from around 1915 which were published at that time, if you want an old photo of the beach. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The uploader apparently is the owner of the picture? Can he release to public domain somehow?  I know RAN can be difficult to parse sometimes in these uploads.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings
Our use of several images of Andrew Wyeth paintings has been questioned by a representative of the copyrightholder. (OTRS agents can see the request at ).

I would like a review of each of these images, to determine whether we are in compliance.

In one case, File:LONGLIMB.jpg, it is my opinion that it is not compliant, as the painting isn't mentioned in the article. I have removed the image from the article, pending the results of this investigation.

Images:
 * File:LONGLIMB.jpg appeared in Andrew Wyeth
 * File:Christinasworld.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, 20th-century Western painting, Christina's World, Days of Heaven, History of painting , Western painting
 * File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
 * File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth, The Helga Pictures
 * File:Latefall.jpg appears in Andrew Wyeth

-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the copyright holder is the Wyeth estate or the closely related Brandywine River Museum - which do have a reputation for being pretty careful with copyright - which is, of course, their right. If somebody else is complaining, I'd ask why they think they have copyright standing. Our business is to check whether we are meeting our fair use standards. The "low resolution" standard is met for all the paintings. File:Christinasworld.jpg seems appropriate for the article Christina's World, but could easily be replaced in the other articles. Similarly File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg or File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg could be used in The Helga Pictures, but not both. Unless there is at least one freely licensed Andrew Wyeth painting in the world (doubtful - the general copyrightholder could tell you), then any single low-res AW painting could be used in the Andrew Wyeth article (I'd suggest a tempura painting), but multiple paintings aren't needed. Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is the estate. Thanks for your feedback. Obviously, others are welcome to chime in, but I'll provide this feedback to the person contacting us, especially to see if there are any freely licensed images.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg which is in the MoMA collection in NYC and is perhaps Wyeth's best known work; with iconic status is an important addition to all 3 of the painting history articles that it is currently in as well as the Andrew Wyeth article itself. Wyeth occupies an important place in American art of the mid 20th century and it is both respectful and informative to include an image of his remarkable paintings. Christina's World has the recognizability and quality to represent Wyeth well in the History of Painting, and Western Painting which are meaningful and historical painting surveys as well as 20th-century Western painting which focuses on more recent art; in which Wyeth should be represented...Modernist (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion File:Christinasworld.jpg is not needed in Days of Heaven and it doesn't have a fair use resolution there and I've removed it from the article...Modernist (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Christina's World was not discussed (or even mentioned) in either 20th-century Western painting or Western painting, so I've removed it from both. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the text that was omitted, thank you for catching the omission...Modernist (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smallbones about The Helga Pictures. I don't think we can justify having 2 copyrighted images in the article when neither of them are directly discussed. I would favor either removing both or keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg and removing File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg (as the text does at least mention her braids). Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well although I greatly prefer keeping File:Andrew Wyeth Braids 1979.jpg because it is a widely known painting that is associated with the The Helga Pictures, and works well here Helga paintings, much better than the File:Overflow Andrew Wyeth.jpg...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, History of painting is far too focussed on particular paintings, because the corresponding general content is just not there. If it were, the article would three times longer; it would be too long and shortened /split off, and some of the fair use images would not remain. Not sure what to do at the present juncture though, as I cannot contribute the content at this time.
 * Five non-free images for a single painter is usually excessive; File:Latefall.jpg appears to be undiscussed in the article completely, as is Overflow. THis ought to change if the images are to be retained. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed Overflow and Latefall. Neither were being properly used as fair-use illustrations in the articles. I'm still a bit concerned about our use of Christina's World in 5 different articles, though. It seems to be pushing the boundary of "minimal use". Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those removals, Christina's World is Wyeth's seminal work and he was a major force in American painting; I agree that 5 is the absolute max for that image...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with leaving it in Western painting and 20th-century Western painting. The discussion of it in History of painting was a bit gratuitous and didn't really add anything to the section. I've removed it there. At this point, I think I'm satisfied that all the uses are justified. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, apparently we aren't supposed to use non-free images in more than 4 articles, according to Database reports/Overused non-free files. Kaldari (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, good work...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bot Colony
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has unreasonably many non-free images. Most of them should be deleted per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I scaled the main image to 300px. Should we just tag the other three as copyvio?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all listed under a fair use claim, so F9 doesn't apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there another delete tag we can use then? That will clear the backlog here and they can battle to un-delete them if they find rationale to use them in the article. I assume the software isn't free license so they are copyrighted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One rationale I read says the copyright owner gave permission. Should we put a link to OTRS at commons to see if they want to upload free license images there?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright owner has decided to release the images under the creative commons licence. The images will be uploaded to Media Commons and released as free images.  The non-free versions previously uploaded can be deleted. -- Avianoutremont (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:NYSE Euronext logo.svg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently tagged as non-free and used in two articles. Use in NYSE Euronext is decorative and violates NFCC#8. Seems to be a textlogo with a simple geometric figure probably not meeting the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree it falls below ToO for copyright and could be marked free. --M ASEM (t) 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found File:NYSE Euronext logo.png, a free version of the logo on Commons. I replaced the uses of the non-free file with the Commons file and tagged this for speedy deletion. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD means that a file is available on Commons in the same file format. The file on Commons is a PNG file whereas the file on Wikipedia is an SVG file. F8 doesn't apply here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. So what should be done with this file now? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We should either decide whether it is simple enough to be in the public domain (and in that case move the SVG to Commons since that's a better format for logos), or decide that it is too complex for PD-textlogo (and in that case nominate the file on Commons for deletion). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd guess its too simple for copyright protection. Typefaces are generally excluded from US copyright protection. I don't know how much of a difference those two squares make. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:2009-2011AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A uniform, used in articles about annual event. It could be used in an article about the uniform but not in the articles about the individual annual events. This is really the same thing as repeating a logo in each annual article.

Other issues:
 * The resolution is way too high, so the image fails WP:NFCC.
 * Aren't clothes defined as utilitarian objects so that they are in the public domain? If so, the image is replaceable fair use. The fair use rationale states that the image isn't replaceable because of trademark protection, but the only thing we care about is copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There already was a previous discussion about this at Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/February. What we have here is a trademark issue (the color combination of the uniform is possibly trademarked), but we don't generally care about that, since if we did, this would probably cause more problems than it would solve or avoid, ie would we then care about wordmarks as well etc. As it stands, the image violates both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:IUP. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Outrage documentary poster.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in the article Michael Rogers (activist) violates WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is labeled in the fair use as being for a section specifically about the film within that article. This individual was the main subject of the documentary, so it relates to his article.  The poster provides a visual context for the film section of the article.  I would agree if the individual were simply in the documentary, but given that they were the lead subject, I feel it adds educational value and presents no threat to the copyright holder.  --Varnent (talk)(COI) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A poster of the back of two men in front of the Capitol building does nothing to increase the reader's understanding that there was a movie whose topic touched on the subjects lifestyle and that he was the lead subject of the movie. The use of this non-free image entirely fails WP:NFCC without any critical commentary about the poster itself. However its use is entirely valid in Outrage (2009 film) to identify the movie itself in the article about the movie. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out the film is about the individuals work and not their lifestyle. Although if by lifestyle you meant about him being gay - you should know that "lifestyle" is seen as an offensive way to describe one's sexuality. Also - I still think it adds value, however, I'll respect consensus (obviously). --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also describes as unacceptable under WP:NFC. Not acceptable. --M ASEM (t) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove. The image finds its appropriate place at Outrage (2009 film), where showing how the film was promoted is relevant; and if people are particularly interested in the film they will find it there. But, as recently discussed (and put to a formal RfC) at WT:NFC, to have a rationale for use elsewhere it really needs to be saying something very strong about the subject of the article -- typically something about the image must have provoked significant public comment, that the article needs to cover. I'm not seeing that here. Jheald (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the Pink Floyd article is evidence that it is not as cut and dry as you are implying. I do not see how the artwork of Dark Side of the Man adds any more or less value to that article than the film poster adds to this article.  There is an article about that album as well, yet the cover was used in the section of the Pink Floyd article talking about that album.  Again, if there were not a section about the film in the subject's article - I would agree.  However, I feel it meets the criteria of specifically talking about the subject - in this case the film. In what ways do you see these as being different? Would you then support removal of the album covers from Pink Floyd article since they too have articles and again, the visual does not tell you anything about the band itself, but rather something they were heavily involved in the creation of. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because at Pink Floyd there is significant discussion in the prose on the iconic nature of the prism image from Dark Side relating to the band. The book cover is just a book cover, shown without comment. It's fine for that use on the book's article, but not about the person in it.  This is a standard NFC case. --M ASEM  (t) 23:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove from Michael Rogers (activist) for violating WP:NFCC. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree this belongs with the movie but not at the Michael Rogers article until sourced commentary on the image is in that article. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Hamad International Airport
This article has too many non-free images, so many of them will have to be removed. Some have been tagged as replaceable, but I'm not sure if this is correct. It says that the airport currently is under construction, so it might not yet be accessible to the general public, and in that case, the images are currently irreplaceable in my opinion. I searched for the airport on Google but didn't find a lot of images of it, which could support the idea that the airport isn't accessible to the general public. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The files used in the article were hosted by Flickr and DohaNews twitter account as well as its blog. i have credited the author in my posting. The airport is accessable to media and to people who have permits--its no secret whats inside. There are pictures from the newspaper even on its interior. I hope that you consider removing the tag. Thanks man. --Halawala (I am not sure if my comment is appropriately placed--as I am new to posting comments here. Thanks.
 * If you can get the copyright holder to release for use by anyone, then there will not be an issue. But your claim that the site. While a particular shot from inside the buildings may not be "replaceable" there is nothing significantly lost from the article by not having any of those images present. A building is a building and its not going anywhere and so the claim that we have to use non free images does not have any legs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The current use seems to go against WP:NFG, which says that non-free images should usually not be used in a gallery. Also, those images seem to be replaceable. Normally, non-free images cannot be used if a free image conveying the same information could be created. If this is what the airport still looks like, then someone can go there, take pictures similar to those ones discussed here and upload them under a free license and in such a case, non-free images cannot be used on Wikipedia. Finally, the article can essentially be understood without them. Non-free images can only be used, if their removal would harm a readers understanding of the article, but in this case, there is no text specifically referring to those images, so they just seem to decorate the article and it still could be understood, if the images were not present. And even if there were text specifically referring to those images, they could only be used if the purpose they serve in the article cannot adequately be achieved by written text. Therefore those images cannot be used in the article (relevant Wikipedia policy here is point 8 of the non-free content criteria). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Webster collegiate 11.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is clearly not the "uploader's own work." This should have a fair-use rationale, or be deleted. --User:Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * cf. WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC --User:Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. According to this, the 11th edition was published on 12th June 2009, so the book copyright seems to apply to the cover. That means the image is subject to WP:NFCC, and the use at Webster's Dictionary is a violation of NFCC#8. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be minded to keep, with a suitable non-free rationale. Webster's Collegiate dictionary is a significant cultural touchstone, and this is the place in the encyclopedia that we cover it.  If we gave the book an article of its own, nobody would think twice about the article having an image.  In this case, it makes sense to treat Webster's Collegiate in the same place as the original Webster's.  But it seems to me the rationale that would apply if it was in its own article -- namely that showing how the book is presented and promoted adds to reader understanding of it -- is similarly relevant here.  Webster's Collegiate is a significant subject in its own right, and therefore I think this image does indeed possess the required contextual significance. Jheald (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the issues by adding rationale. Also, should this be closed? It's nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Preseren sculpture from the monument, Ljubljana - detail.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image File:Preseren sculpture from the monument, Ljubljana - detail.jpg is not necessary to understand the section 'Statue' in the article Prešeren Monument, Ljubljana. The image in the infobox suffices. --Eleassar my talk 12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The same for File:Preseren statue - the muse sculpture.jpg. --Eleassar my talk 13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one could use a crop of File:Preseren sculpture from the monument, Ljubljana - detail.jpg along the portrait by Goldenstein (available in Commons) in the section 'Creation and unveiling', as the article says that "the model for Prešeren was Prešeren's portrait by Goldenstein". The same for the muse, but the image has such a low resolution that the face is too blurred to be clearly seen. In any case, I'd certainly prefer a clear front view of both the poet and the muse instead of two separate images. I still think that the image in the infobox is good enough and suffices for this purpose. --Eleassar my talk 15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article suggests that the monument was "published" in 1905. In that case, the monument is in the public domain in the United States, so the sculpture can be listed as and doesn't need to comply with WP:NFCC. For the definition of "publication" according to USA law, see Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was not aware of this, but find it very convenient for the countries like the ours with no Commons-suitable freedom of panorama. Thanks for having pointed this out. --Eleassar my talk 17:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are three useful situations to know about for FOP cases:
 * Works typically count as published if they were installed in a public place before 1978. If the work was published before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States, and PD-US-1923-abroad. This can be used for any kind of work: buildings, statues, bridges and anything else.
 * Buildings completed before 1 December 1990 are in the public domain in the United States (see Commons:Template:PD-US-architecture). There doesn't seem to be any corresponding template on Wikipedia.
 * Other buildings are protected by copyright in the United States, but it is nevertheless permitted to take photos of them according to US law, and FoP-USonly can be used for this purpose. De facto, FoP-USonly is also used for pre-1990 buildings if photos aren't permitted on Commons.
 * Bridges and certain other kinds of works are claimed to be ineligible for copyright in the United States (according to an unsourced claim at Commons:COM:FOP), so it should be possible to take photos of them. There doesn't seem to be any tag for this purpose, though. There is PD-ineligible-USonly, but if you were to use that template for this purpose, people would probably just be confused.
 * All templates allow you to enter the year in which the works enter the public domain in the source country. Consider including that information if known. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Los Angeles County, California seal.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is used in lots of articles where it violates WP:NFCC and sometimes also WP:NFCC. However, I suspect that this is covered by PD-CAGov, so the non-free claim might be wrong. Any opinion? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we'd need a proof that PD-CAGov really applies. The source links in both rationales are dead, however. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings and salutations, ladies and gentlemen! If I may pitch in, PD-CAGov states:

"In brief, a ruling from the California Appellate court says "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright. "Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored."
 * If I recall correctly, the present-day Los Angeles County seal was created/adopted in September 2004, by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which is considered a "public" official/agency, so I believe PD-CAGov applies here, and thus, the image can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons under that license/rationale. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pb1253.jpg
I didn't tag this one because it is used in three articles. The article on Ms. Monroe herself actually discusses the centerfold and not the cover. Should another image of the centerfold be uploaded as fair use because that is what the text is actually discussing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC) resolved--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Pac-10-Uniform-SU-2002-2007.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 2005 Stanford Cardinal football team violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This uniform seems uncopyrightable to me. The color-scheme might be trademarked, but I don't think this specific bicolor scheme is eligible for copyright protection. The image seems to be a user created image and should be re released by the creator/uploader under a free license. Otherwise use of the image violates WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur. There is nothing that seems copyrightable in this. Buffs (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The clothes don't look copyrightable to me. However, it is a non-free drawing of public domain clothes, so I've tagged it with {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Advanced Persistent Threat Chart.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image, used in Advanced persistent threat, isn't specific enough that we couldn't easily replace it by a self-made free version. It thus fails NFCC#1. It also fails NFCC#8: The article's text does a better job than the chart at explaining the modus operandi of advanced persistent threats. Huon (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. An .svg version could be uploaded at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a little worried that that much text could be considered a copy-vio to replicate in "free" image. Certainly there is some creativity in the naming and ordering of the labels. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I think we should delete it here for reasons stated in the OP. If an editor wishes to upload one to commons then they can discuss creativity over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:This is a logo for the Juniper T Series routers.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free photo of hardware. It says that this isn't replaceable for the following reason: Juniper T Series routers are found racked in large, secure data centers. It's almost next to impossible to get a collection of the T series routers sitting together an photographed as shown in this image outside of paying Juniper Networks to do this. Is this really a valid claim? How hard would it be to visit a data centre? Would it be possible to dig up a guy who works at a data centre and ask that guy to take a photo for us? Can anyone apply for a work at a data centre? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that depends on how narrowly or broadly one interprets NFCC#1. One could argue, on one hand that if the routers are still existing at the data center, someone (e.g. an employee) could go there and take an image. On the other hand if NFCC#1 is to be read as "The average guy can walk in there and take a free picture", then it might satisfy NFCC#1, if the location of the routers is not accessible to the general public. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, can any person buy a router of this kind? By the way, this is not a logo as the filename and licence indicate. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably any person paying enough money can get one of these, so I'd think in general yes, anybody could buy it. Regarding the copyright tag, if one should be used, I'd use Non-free fair use, since none of the other tags from Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags seem to be fitting here. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just judging on the product's webpage, these may be expensive (limiting the purchase by the average member of the public) but are far from so highly limited in their application. The fact that data manuals are available online suggests that they are meant for anyone needed a router solution of that magnitude to acquire, and not, for example, limited to the NSA or akin.
 * I do note that the image file rationale attempts to say that this collection of rotuers cannot be freely replaced, since one would need access to each of the router types shown. That is somewhat of a fair statement (its justification for using non-free images of ensemble musical groups that no longer tour together or the like), however, at the same time, a router is a router, and these look like generic hardware cabinets with fancy faceplating to me. I'd argue that the picture of the units - unless can be obtained for free, is absolutely unnecessary.  Instead, the Juniper logo could be used (it's PD-text) as an infobox picture. --M ASEM  (t) 23:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it per CSD F7, as having a clearly invalid FUR (about as close to the example they give as I've ever seen). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this. Looking around, does File:Mseries family.jpg not suffer from the same issues? Prolixium (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SA Navy Badge.png
Fails WP:NFCC in South African National Defence Force and South African military ranks. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the uses in South African military ranks are purely decorative, so no justification is possible there. Same goes for South African National Defence Force, where it is simply used as an icon. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Beijing 2008 Olympic bid logo.svg
Used twice in Bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics but it only has one fair use rationale for that article. Per WP:NFCC, there should be one fair use rationale for each use of the image. Besides, the image fails WP:NFG at one of the places in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All those "Bids for YYYY Olympics" articles need to remove the logos from the table, likely fixing all the duplicate use issue. (See the 2004 athens bit above). --M ASEM  (t) 13:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Some images were deleted (see Files for deletion/2012 August 21) and more images are up for deletion (see Files for deletion/2012 September 2). Would it be OK to move these sections further up on the page so that they are all next to each other? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, though I would group them under a new h2 header so that individual cases can be closed out. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Athens 2004 Olympic bid logo.png
This file is used twice in the article Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Per WP:NFCC, non-free files should have a fair use rationale for each use of the image. This means that a file used twice in an article should have two fair use rationales for that article. However, this file only has one fair use rationale. Besides, one of the uses of this image fails WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just spot-checked other articles in the "Bids for the YYYY Olympics" series, and they all suffer the same problem in that they have tables of non-free logos. I am pretty confident that nearly every major contemporary bid for being an Olympic city could be a notable topic on its own, allowing the logos to be used there, but certainly not the table of logos as given now on each of those pages. --M ASEM  (t) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Within the topic of Olympic bids, these table lists help readers to compare the different bidding cities. Assuming that, their logos are better located in those tables than in thumbnails outside them. These two distinct forms of content display (table and thumbnail), are basically the same regarding the purpose of use, therefore, in a table or not, it actually does not change anything. The location of the logo is pointless, WP:NFTABLE should not be applicable here. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The location doesn't change anything, which is exactly why they would also fail WP:NFCC if placed as thumbnails outside the tables. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)But it does. Without any discussion in depth about the image of the logo itself from sources (who drew it, what was the inspiration, etc?) the logos are simply identifying the bid attempt, and fail WP:NFCC (the article is understandable without the images in use).  If each bid had its own separate article - again, something I believe could happen with more recent ones - the logo would be appropriate on those articles, but non-free logo use is not appropriate in tables nor when the page is not about the entity the logo represents. --M ASEM  (t) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is an article about five entities—Candidate cities—represented by logos, and the descriptions of which logo would be not understandable without the images. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 22:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the article is about the bidding process for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Because the 5 city efforts are reduced to a table, the article is not about those but the overall bidding process. Non-free logos are not appropriate here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is irrelevant. The bidding process only exists because of the entities that constitute it. That is why the article is called Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics, not 2004 Summer Olympics bid process. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is not the name of an entity. Thus, the article isn't an article about an entity, but an article about something different. The images would be suitable in the separate articles Greek bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, Italian bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, South African bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, Swedish bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics and Argentinian bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, but they are not suitable in this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is an article about five entities, and I don't see why those entities need a separate article—which would characterize a WP: CFORK—to be represented by their logos. File:Athens 2004 Olympic bid logo.png has been there for more than five years now, representing a defunct entity and does not offer any commercial risk. Same for the other logos. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is an article about a process and not about an entity. The logos would only be acceptable in those five individual articles. If those individual articles don't exist, then the images will be taken care of by WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics" is primarily an article about the bids (entities), the bidding process is a consequence. And they are already taken care of by WP:NFCC. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For purposes of using NFCC, that's not how this is. And the point that I'm making is that I think for all these cases, the individual bid attempts by each city are notable themselves.  For example, considering the Vancouver bid (I live in the region so it was all the news here) was definitely  well covered by news sources, so it is completely reasonable to have an article on Vancouver's bid, giving more space to discuss the facets of it, as well as the other cities involved. The logo would be find on those pages. But per all the reasonings above and consensus for other use of non-free images, just putting the non-free image in a table is not acceptable. We dont allow it for discographies or episode lists even if there are no articles for the individual elements, and we would certainly not allow it here. --M ASEM  (t) 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * However, there is no extensive news sources for the Olympic bids prior to 2008. It will not be reasonable to have five separate stubs or poorly written articles for the 2004 bids. Nevertheless, this should not make the 2004 logos inapplicable for use in the article "Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics". WP:NFTABLE prohibition is usually applied, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Candidate cities table is essential for comparison between the Candidate cities, and the visual identity of the represented campaigns helps the readers to easily identify the bid. It is not an extensive list and does not represent the same entity in several items, like in the cases you've mentioned. It is a totally different situation. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember that there was an awful lot of writing about the Swedish Olympic bid here in Stockholm. It should be very easy to find information in it in Swedish newspapers from that time. What you are saying about no extensive news sources for the pre-2008 bids is obviously not correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No bid before 2008 have extensive news sources as the ones after 2008. The campaigns to host the 2008 Games were made between 1999 and 2001, and since then, internet has played a major role as news source. Olympic bids are mainly covered by news articles, not books, and this type of news articles, prior to the internet era, are very hard to find. As a Swedish and citizen of Stockholm, maybe you can provide some of these sources? <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Newspapers have existed for a much longer time than the Internet. All you need to do is to visit a library in the country where the newspapers were published. Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So that's it? I have to travel to Sweden, make a research of old newspapers about the Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid and write a separate, comprehensive article about it in order to maintain the use of File:Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg? Seems reasonable... <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember, we are a free content encyclopedia first and foremost, and only use non-free images wehre they significant help the reader and their omission would be harmful. So putting that in the form that you're trying the justify the use of non-free images is not really a good approach, because non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, not routine.
 * That said, all you need at the moment is to show that there was some type of coverage of that event. You don't need a fully complete article, just that it likely can be met. --M ASEM  (t) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that WP:NFCC doesn't take into account the effort needed to make the images compatible. For example, living people (such as Kim Jong-un) are not allowed to have non-free images since someone can visit the person and take a freely licensed photo of him. Going to a foreign country to take a photo of a random living person may be comparable in terms of effort to going to a library in a foreign country to find information about something. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Felipe Menegaz. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red;">Talk</b> Contributions   01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between having the logo on a separate article or in the Bids for YYYY Olympics article. In matter of effect, it is the same thing. Not just would be the images be deleted, but also the articles under WP:CFORK. That's the point. WP:NFCC or WP:LOGOS do not prohibits the display of more than one entity's logo within the same article. In the discussed topic, these logos are relevant to the article, which is about the bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The use of this logos is exceptional, not routine. For the record, I do not support the maintenance of Olympic pictograms such as File:Athletics 2008.png. And I've already explained how these logos and tables help readers... <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The existence of a separate article or not is irrelevant. Regardless of whether a separate article exists or not, the images are not suitable in the table in the article Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics. If the removal of the images from that table means that the images become orphaned, then the images should be deleted from Wikipedia since non-free images have to be used at least once per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant? This issue was raised by yourself (The images would be suitable in the separate articles "Greek bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics", "Italian...), and since that is the only way to maintain these logos according to you, this is totally relevant. Saying that the images are not suitable in the table in the articles Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics is your interpretation of WP:NFTABLE. I do not agree with that interpretation and that is why I am arguing about that these logos are equally suitable to both articles and also to the discussed tables. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this discussion over? <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 21:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The other images were deleted (since they only appear in the table). Can we also delete this image from the table now so that the discussion can be closed? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The images should not be deleted without consensus. Therefore, I think that this discussion cannot be closed. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)