Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 4

These Logos
These images fail wp:nfc, replaceable and convey little information
 * Image:Albania FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Albania.svg
 * Image:Andorra FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Andorra.svg
 * Image:Belgium urbsfa.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Belgium.svg
 * Image:Luxembourg ff.png decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg
 * Image:Scotlandfootballlogo.PNG decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Scotland.svg
 * Fasach Nua (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would contest that those logos are not decorative on their respective FA's articles. The logo of a national FA is as important as a club's logo. – PeeJay 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absoloutely there is no reason to have club logos either, the national teams are bit easier to deal with as they have an obvious replacement NFC#1, you are correct the club logos do fail NFC#8, and should also be removed, a point well raised. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you completely doolally? National teams don't have a free alternative as an identifier. If you mean the nation's flag, then that only helps to identify the nation, rather than the nation's national football team. As for club logos failing criterion #8, I don't see why that is. For most clubs, the club badge is integral to their history, and the inclusion of the logo allows a visual accompaniment to the history of the badge. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most international teams fly flags over their stadiums, the badge is just one of many ways they identify themselves, if you want a really solid way to identify the team, why not use the country code? If you were on an article, say Austria national football team, and it didnt have the logo, do you really think many readers need a corporate logo to identify it, I think including "national football team" in the name goes along way to helping people to identify the team, I cant even think what you could possibly misidentify these teams as. If the club logo is discussed, put it in the section discussing it, putting it in an infobox makes people think it is okay to abuse copyrighted materials on WP, which it isnt. However I am only interested in sorting out the international teams at this point in time Fasach Nua (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * National team crests are not the same as flags, and they convey more complex and accurate information than a simple flag would. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they are not the same as flags, flags are used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, they are free and meet the criteria for inclusion, does the use of non-free crests meet the criteria for inclusion? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairly explicitly. "Team and corporate logos: For identification." It's a team logo, quite simply. matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, there are no images anywhere in the world that could better represent these national teams than their respective logos. I'm fairly sure Fair Use policy allows the use of these logos in cases such as this, provided that we don't go overboard and start using the logos willynilly about the place. One use on the national team's article isn't going to hurt anyone. – PeeJay 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not hurt anyone, but it does hurt the wikimedia foundation, as their use pushes the goal of a free encylopedia further away. I do not accept your statement that there are no images that can better represent a team, certainly organisations like FIFA and UEFA are content to use national flags, and they have a certain ammount of experience in th world of international Soccer Fasach Nua (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * National FAs should be viewed in the same way as companies. I doubt very much that anyone would argue against the use of the McDonalds logo or the Nike logo on their respective articles, so why argue against the use of national football association logos. – PeeJay 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem removing logos from WP, I haven't come across a single one that is necessary, (although that is not to say there aren't any). There are soccer articles that dont use a logos such as Ireland, Saarland Scotish history, and they are perfectly fine articles. There is no doubt the articles look better with logos, but they are just there for decoration, and serve to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The examples you picked are dubious at best. A historical team which presumably doesn't have an easily tracked down image, a non-sanctioned regional team, and a historical article on a team, for which fair use wouldn't be applicable.  Your argument is not really strengthened by pointing that out. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that FIFA is the world governing body for soccer, and the fact Saar and Ireland are both recognised by FIFA, is generally enough sanction for most people. Ignoring your issues with FIFA, and indeed the original motivation behind not including copyrighted materials. The main thing to note with these three articles are they are about international football teams, and the reader is able to easily identify them without having to resort to copyrighted images, if it is possible to write completely free articles around these teams, it is possible with any team. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? My issues with FIFA?  I never said Ireland wasn't recognized by FIFA.  I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at.  Fair use EXPLICITLY ALLOWS team logos.  So I'm not sure how this is possibly a discussion.  The FA emblems serve as team logos.  There is absolutely no reason to delete it.  It's all well and good that you want free images, but you can't decide to suddenly go around deleting any image that you want, even if it clearly meets fair use license requirements. matt91486 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with matt. This entire discussion is completely ill-founded. – PeeJay 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This is way off base. It is a well established practise with accepted rationale here to use logos in an appropriate manner where it suits. "Defeat the purpose of Wikipedia"? C'mon. I hardly see it's impending collapse. And ultimately the purpose is to inform people and share knowledge. Why in the world should the primary virtue be to bulldoze it flat into a sterile landscape of sameness? Canada's football team. Canada's hockey team. Canada's curling team. Canada's baseball team. Canada's basketball team. Canada's basketball team. That does not inform or teach. It numbs. It causes confusion. It sucks the joy out of learning and exploration. It even smacks of a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation. The argument here is based on a narrow and close-minded interpretation of the rules that flies in the face of accepted practise. A no logos approach is extreme and while the use of logos may not suit your personal taste its been clearly demonstrated that the use of logos is accepted here through a concensus bound by its own specific rules and policies which cannot simply be ignored. Get past the wikilawyering and the copyright paranoia and adopt a common sense approach. I'm sure that if the threat to Wikipedia from logos was so serious we would see prompt and deliberate action taken. In the mean time a deeper understanding of the spirit of this place might be helpful. Wiggy! (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A "well established practice" is not a valid reason, the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and to use replaceable free images is the antethisis of the goal of the organisation. To add non-free content to avoid a "sterile landscape" is unacceptable, the use of non-free content is based on neccessity, not decorative value. As for your accusations of "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" would you also level these accusations at FIFA who demand the uses of these free images to represent the teams at every sporting event they partake in? Your final barrage of cliches, is well off topic, address the issue rather than anattempt an illthought out attempt at undermining the person that raised it. I absoloutely agree on one point, a deeper understanding of this place is essential. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos should not be removed from articles on clubs, companies, etc., period; they clearly serve as an important identifier of the respective organisation. — Nightstallion 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos here is a well-established practice "with its own rationale" that is "bound by its own specific rules and policies" - I'd think that would make it valid (and no cherry picking). The use of logos is legitimate and its unfair to ignore that and try to impose your own POV on their use, because what you've put forward amounts to little more than that. The use of non-free content is accepted here under specific conditions and that seems to escape you. You might want to go have a look at Non-free content which accommodates the use of logos and other useful bits that can legitimately add something to the landscape.

And why would I level accusations of any sort at FIFA? That's got nothing to do with anything here. It's a red herring argument you've dragged out more than once. You're not getting any takers, give it up, or go get it properly sorted out in a broader context. Wiggy! (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you quoting yourself? it is just bizare, using quotes from yourself to back your own argument is an unhelpful approach. Non-free content does not accomodate the use of non-free content that "add something to the landscape", it accommodates necessity, non-free content is only used if it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and there is "No free equivalent", these logos fail both these tests.
 * You havent addressed the issue, why is the use of flags to represent international football teams a "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" if done of wikipedia, but if FIFA does this at every' football international it is not? As for a broader context, this has been clealy dealt with, and is already documented in Non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I quoted myself because you conveniently left out relevant bits of my comments when you quoted me. Take the whole point, not just what suits you. If you do that I won't have to be repeating myself to you.


 * Non-free content accomodates the use of non-free content and specifically addresses the use of logos. Policy, guideline and consensus all support the use of logos. You appear to be deliberately ignoring that. Refer to 2.1.3.2 Acceptable use/Images/Logos. Then follow that to the guideline on the use of logos and understand that, while there is some debate about their use, it is acceptable to use them and that use is supported by concensus. That addresses the issue directly and anything else is your POV and unnecessarily pointy editing.


 * You have also misapprehended the meaning of "no free equivalent" in this context. Logos are intended for team identification. It is usual that they are owned by the team and are protected. The guideline for logo use acknowledges this and recognizes that there is no free equivalent for a logo. Given that the use of the logo is acceptable, ignoring that and trying to substitute a national flag or country code is unnecessary and insisting on it in the face of policy and guideline boils down to deliberately attempting to spread misinformation.


 * The use of sports team and other logos is clearly acceptable through policy, guideline, and consensus. If you continue to ignore that to push a POV built around a misunderstanding of the current non-free content policy your edits come down to being nothing but acts of vandalism. Either get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view of the world or leave this go.


 * Finally, this needs to be sorted out through discussion, not through inconsiderate and aggressive editing. It is inappropriate for you to stalk me through my contributions to delete images to suit your view when a discussion is still in progress. I don't particualrly appreciate the attempt to browbeat me. Wiggy! (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of logos must still comply with wp:nfc, ragardless of the additional guidelines in their use. The guidelines make no referenece to national football team. There is no blanket policy allowing a
 * As for the demand "get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view", this celarly supports my view, the prable states "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content", these logos still fail criteria #3 & #8. Neither of these issues have been addessed, and the wp:nfc is the consensus view.
 * You will have to cite how I am brow beating you over this issue. I note you have undone my cleanup of various German football articles in clear opposition to wp:nfc, for which I have issued you with warnings over your conduct. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that these articles were in full conformance with wp:nfc, notably the section explicitly addressing logos. Showing the historic logo of a team is valid and encyclopedic use.  There is no evidence of consensus to support the interpretation you're taking - in fact rather the opposite.  Wiki-etiquette is Bold-revert-discuss.  You have not followed that path.  You have been requested to take this to talk, but instead have pushed your edits again.  That looks like disruptive editing.  Fasach Nua, please don't do it again until clear consensus for your edits has been established.  Jheald (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The club logos should be kept. Else use [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|24px]] for the American company, McDonald's. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The flag is used by the sports governing body to represent the local organisations, is there a similar policy implemented by the govening body of fast food to use thaa flag to represent McDonalds? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a question up for debate here. We use logos to represent companies, sports teams, etc. That's very well accepted and not something subject to case-by-case review. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the balance of arguments I think that these logos do fall within WP:NFCC and as such they will be kept. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua. some people would acknowledge your bravery of raising such an issue. But as you can see, most people (including myself now) do NOT. It's actually the opposite. Listen to the basic and extremely important facts seeing as this is a specific encyclopedia site. '''The national flags represent the nation itself. Thats why they are used on the WP pages of the actual country. Using them to represent national football teams is not valid. They are not specific and do not completely apply to the national team. Some people (players) may want to be established as a member of the national team rather than a member of the actual nation. Thats just as well seeing as there are numerous foreigners in many teams. Be reasonable. Using the national flag causes confusion, arguments and further disparities like I just mentioned with foreigners. Its not suitable. Even if it is immediately known what the national team is and where it is from, its still necessary to have the logo. Just as it is necessary to have a picture of the subject on their WP page. People may want to simply know what the logo (or subject) looks like etc. Logo's all the way! '''

And I really hope you can oversee this when opposing to further FA candidates. No offense, but you unnecessarily raised an issue which diminished the chances of the Croatian national football team being promoted as a FA. It is legal etc to use these logos, the national flags do not count as suitable replacements. I expect this to be resolved shortly by the time I issue another nomination! Domiy (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus that images are not freely replaceable with country flags is clear. Note, however, that this discussion was limited in scope, as it only addressed the issue of flags; other alternatives, if any, may be another discussion. In the case of flags, a given country may have multiple teams and those teams may not necessarily be "officially sponsored" by the state. As such, use of a country's flag may be insufficiently specific to identify a team and may be at risk of misrepresenting affiliations/relationships. A unique brand (e.g. logo) is a distinct identifier and an important aspect of a team's public identity. Images are thusly kept. Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metro martin carrera.gif
I'm bringing this logo here to be on the safe side, because it actually does seem to fall within Non-free content criteria--more than many logos, I would image, since the content of the logo itself is discussed in the article. However, the image was listed at WP:CP on June 27th, and the IP editor who tagged the image here was quite correct in noting that "iconography and typography of Sistema de Transporte Colectivo de la Ciudad de México owns copyrights and its replica is not permitted without authorization of STC-Metro, check-it in the bottom of website http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/linea1.html". Yup, it says that at the bottom of the website. That same IP editor has requested deletion of the related image at Mexico City Metro from. Given the "whois" check on that IP, I wouldn't be surprised if the objection were not somewhat (or someone) official. Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC?". No. Part of the reason for the strict rules in WP:NFCC is to ensure that that law would allow us to use the non-freely licensed work even if its copyright holder isn't happy about our use. (Although I suspect most logo usage is on the weaker side on that point). Public discourse requires that we sometimes be able to take from some copyrighted works in order to identify and discuss things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hans Island 003.jpg
I have marked this photo for fair use review, because, i'm not sure weither it falls under Non-free_content.6:

''A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos.''

The author apprently has sold the rights to danish press-photo agency PolFoto. The use of the photo in the danish navy magazines was an part of this agreement. Since the photo is from 2002, i am not sure weither it falls into the category of "historical archives of press photos". --Hebster (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure about this, but do we really need the picture? --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lose both the Danish and the Canadian flag images -- NFCC #8. I can't see that either of them give the reader a significantly improved understanding of the subject of the article.  Jheald (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As no objections to the last two comments has been given, both Image:HansIsland.jpg and Image:Hans Island 003.jpg, has been or-fu'ed. Hebster (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed - Image in question indeed or-fu'ed, as indicated in last comment. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polkadotpuss3.jpg in Measles
There is no fair-use rationale for using this image in Measles, and I doubt that a valid one could be found. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Completely unnecessary. I removed it from Measles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed - image removed from article. Эlcobbola talk 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif in M1 carbine
Please discuss at Talk:M1 carbine.  howcheng  {chat} 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Close - Image discussion occurred elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ne me quitte pas
This section gives the entire lyrics of the song translated into English. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Ne me quitte pas as to whether including them is appropriate. Please join the discussion there. —Angr 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Close - Image discussion occurred elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hand of God goal.jpg
I realize this image has been reviewed previously, and I'm not arguing for deletion, but I believe this requires a second look, as the current rationales are based on a misinterpretation of fair use in my opinion.

This image qualifies as fair use, not because of what it illustrates, but because the photograph itself was at the center of the controversy, as this was the only image, still or moving, that conclusively showed the Hand of God goal was indeed a handball.

So clearly, it needs to be in the Hand of God goal article. However, it should not be in Argentina and England football rivalry, as the latter article does not discuss the photograph itself, and the photograph is rather irrelevant for the Argentina and England football rivalry.

It seems that the current rationales are written with using the photograph to merely illustrate the subject, which is not fair use. Fair use is permitted for discussion of the image.

For the same reason, while it should stay in the article, it should be moved down to the section discussing the media reaction, rather than at the top. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to go ahead and remove the image from the rivalry article and delete the corresponding rationale. So in effect, I'm withdrawing the review, but I would still appreciate any feedback. --Mosmof (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Nominator has removed image; no discussion for over two months. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maharaj_Ji_Holy_Family_photo_cropped.jpg
The subjects were widely photographed by people during these years, and the NFC rationale No free equivalent is inapplicable. Many such free photos could be located. This is a copyrighted image and should not be used under WP:FU ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi asserts that free images of this family are available, but he does not offer any evidence. I have done extensive research on this topic and haven't come across any other photographs of the family in this period. As stated in the fair-use rationale, the family split apart after this photo was taken and they have not been seen together in over three decades. One of the subjects is deceased. It would be impossible to recreate this photograph. It is not a random image, but is taken from the program of the event that is the topic of the article. As such it has historic value and context. The photograph adds significantly to the article by showing the appearance of the Holy Family as seen by festival attendees and is used only for informational purposes. The image itself is of such low resolution that it would not compete with any commercial use. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, the fact that Will BeBack has not found any replaceable images on the web, it does not mean that free images do not exist. In addition, the photo is not about the subject of the article which is about a festival in Houston. Not Fair use at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the image seems to have been taken in the United Kingdom and the assertion that is "showing the appearance of the Holy Family as seen by festival attendees" is nothing but speculation by BeBack. In addition, the argument that one person in the photo is deceased, means nothing as it pertains to WP:FU≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but Jossi says that such images exist and that the Holy Family were frequently photographed together. I don't know how he knows these things, but so far as I'm aware they were not photographed together often. What I do know of their travels indicates that they were rarely in the same place. The photograph appeared in the official Millennium '73 issue of the magazine, which served as the program for the event. The Holy Family members were the stars of the event. It is the picture that every Houston attendee saw. No other free photograpsha are available. The image is irreplaceable because of the the feud and the death. Those factors are revelant in determining fair use. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Where did you find that? The family lived together in Prem Nagar ashram until 1971, and then they were together in the USA for several years. Many years for family photos... Not WP:FU.  The family was not the "star of the event", where did you get that from, lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No other free photograpsha are available. Sheer speculation on Will BeBack's part. (translate: "I did not find any such photos on the web") ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other free photographs are available - sheer speculation on Jossi's part. He is the one asserting that there are other images available. As it happens, my research was not limited to the web but also included print media, but newspapers, magazine and books aren't going to have free images either. Can Jossi suggest where one might find a free image of the Holy Family together? If such images are found then we can use them instead. Regarding the role of the Holy Family at the event, the magazine article goes into detail about how important they are, about the divine roles that they played. Maharaj Ji spoke several times, of course. BBJ was one of the main organizers of the event. Another brother organized the security.  One was the band leader who played throughout the event. The other four all spoke at the event. We have a source from the event that describes how important Darshan is, and how the presence of all five family members together is like the "royal flush" of darshan - a rare and special occasion. Getting back to the fair use issues, there is no free image to replace this one, one can not be created because of the family feud and death of the mother,  this cropped, low-resolution image does not harm the commercial value of the original, the image significantly helps the article where it is used, and in summary it meets all ten requirements for fair use.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Red herring. No one as argued for "commercial value", the argument being that your "extensive research" of the subject over the few days that you took to develop that article means nothing in regard of the certain availability of free images on the subject. Now that we have made our points, let the good folks at WP:FUR let us know what they think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (BTW, you have not listed the copyright holder in the image page. Tagged accordingly) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interference with commercial use is an important factor in determining fair use. As for my research, I've been researching this topic for half a year. You assert that free images exist, but neither you nor I know of any, and between us I'm sure we've done an incredible amount of research on this topic. If such images turn up then of course we can use those instead. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please don't keep slapping tags on the image. You initated this procedure now please let it run its course. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "slapping tags" is appropriate when appropriate. You have not listed the copyright owner as required. Add that information, and you can remove the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the policy or guideline that requires this information? I believe I've filled out the FU rationale form completely. The undefined is the "license" tag. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing_sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That says: Images must include source details and a copyright tag on the image description page.  That information has been provided. If there's nothing else I'll remove the tag. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't. You are missing copyright information of the source (who owns the copyright of that photo). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is listed, as per the requirement you pointed to. I don't see where it requires posting the name of the copyright holder. Can you please quote the language you're referring to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the appropriate form is being used, and has been filled out according to the instructions, I'm going to remove the "No license" tag. The question of whether the fair use claim is correct can be resolved on this page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Copyright info is on the scan found at table of contents. But to your point, the blanket copyright tag is being used correctly. --Knulclunk (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed - Zero new comments for over a month and a half, and with one third-party independent user weighing in that the blanket copyright tag is being used correctly. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am relisting to afford other comments from more than a single editor. The Fair User rationale does not seem to apply here as the article is about a public event and the photo is unrelated to that event. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments for fair use are quite enough to justify the use of the image. However, I would prefer the original larger one, where the expressions on the faces can be seen more clearly.  Ty  01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WOAH - Jossi, this was closed, you lost. I'm no admin, but you must be making some serious WP Policy breach here. Add it lower and request a third party. (As I see it, the third and fourth parties have already ruled the pic is fair use, tho)--Knulclunk (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Timehenryford.jpg
This image was listed at WP:CP on September 21st. As images are no longer handled there, I bring it here for review. The editor who opened the report at CP did so with the rationale immediately to follow. Will notify the contributor where to find the conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Timehenryford.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) used in Henry Ford.Image:Timehenryford.jpg is used despite violation of the non-free use criteria. Another editor noted that the image is not necessary to prove the Henry Ford is notable. This image does not add to content in the article (no where is there a section about Ford being in Time Magazine). Image fails to meet all criteria for non-free use; it fails criteria #8 and possibly criteria #1, #9. The author of the image (Time, Inc.) has been contact to determine the copyright. Proponents of the image state that someone in ANI "heard" that it was no longer under copyright. Propose not having image in the article until legal question resolved. 903M (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the copyright records show no renewal of this. This image is not under copyright. I am uploading it to Commons :) -Nard 02:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference, how do you check the copyright records for renewal? —teb728 t c 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can visit for copies of the records and links to other sites presenting the records. -Nard 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Moved to Commons. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:LukasRossiByGEAPhotography-IMG 31092.jpg
This image is on Commons, but I thought I'd come here first to address my concerns. Is this release a valid one for use on Wikipedia? Full rights to posting on Wikipedia and other promotional uses granted via email and phone conversation Corvus cornix  talk  21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a no permission template which gives seven days for the uploader to provide evidence of permission through the OTRS system. Source website has All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg
This image was listed at WP:CP on September 29th. Since we do not handle images there, I am bringing it here as a courtesy to the tagger for review. The tagger's rationale was as follows. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from a package of 1952 Topps baseball cards. This image shows the packaging that this image  was cropped from. This makes it a derivative image and in violation of copyright, and Non-free content. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The images of products from this company that are from before 1979 are no longer under copyright. It is perfectly legitimate to have an image of the brand name appearing on the packaging. The images of the products contained in the very same packaging were also approved of for use on the pages on this very forum here. Libro0 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lies. The link provided by derivative image is not telling the truth again. There is no approval anywhere by anyone. The packaging is still under copyright. Nothing will change the fact that this is a derivative image. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like there was deception involved when you cite the box it was used on. However I clearly state in the image rationale that the brand name in the image was what appeared on the packaging. Libro0 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More lies. It was used on the packaging. It is not a logo, it is the part of a greater whole copyrighted design. You can't just go taking detailed bits of copyrighted designs and creating new images out of them. Nobody approved your derivative image except you,Libro0 master and commander of the baseball card articles. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Being part of a larger design does not necessarily mean this image is not a logo. Logos are frequently part of a larger design. Still perhaps the whole circular design including TOPPS | BASEBALL | PICTURE CARDS and the lacing would better be called the Topps logo. Would that be mutually acceptable? —teb728 t c 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The company did not have a logo at this time, therefore you can't have an image of a logo. Just look at  and you will see there is no logo on this product, just text. Having nothing since there is no logo is the only acceptable solution. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments here Image talk:50s Topps Logo.jpg and in the image rationale. I selected only the 'Topps' portion of the design so as not to diminish the scope of the article to only baseball cards but to have the brand name alone in order to encompass all of the company's offerings. For that matter I had refrained from uploading the 60s and 70s versions to avoid further disputes. Libro0 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a logo. The company did not have a logo until the 1960s. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that this image is derivative only prevents it from being used as free content. It does not prevent its use under U.S. fair use law. (See Derivative work.) The use of the image here clearly conforms to fair use law. And what is more significant for this forum, being derivative does not disqualify it under Wikipedia’s non-free use policy. The use of the image clearly conforms to that policy. —teb728 t c 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just more in the back and forth war between these two, both of whom should be banned for wasting peoples time with this petty nonsense. As I have said before, I would also contend that (and this will make Libro0 scream sockpuppet yet again) that what he is claiming as the Topps logo is not the logo. I have found a piece of letterhead they used in the 1960s on a contract and would suspect that they used something similar in the previous decade. They used the same logo on that letterhead on stock certificates as late at 1978   . It would appear that Libro0 used the text from a package of 1952 Topps baseball cards, which he assumed was the company logo. As you can see from this image  they did use that text for the company name on the individual packs of cards as well as the word "baseball" on the package. However, they used a different typeface for the company name on the box. This would provide strong evidence that Libro0's image is not in fact the company logo. If we look at packs of cards from 1960  and 1964   they just used the company name as stylized text. One give away should be the lack of a registered trademark symbol. It appears that by 1969, the company did put the company logo on their packs of cards  . Putting this up as the logo would be false information. Libro0 ignored taking action the compromise solution I suggested of posting an image of a typical product package  which leads me to suspect this is just another salvo in the war between him and Baseball Card Guy. These two waste people's time trying to straighten out the fallout from their battles. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I too hope that the antagonists can resolve their feud, but that feud is not a concern of this forum (as long as they remain civil here). Your argument that this image is not an official Topps logo would be more relevant on the article talk page and/or in Dispute resolution; those forums consider disagreements about article content. The scope of this forum, however, is much narrower: We consider here whether the use of an image conforms to Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content. And the use of the image does conform to the policy. The only criterion of the policy where this image’s use is at all weak is on significance. But it is generally accepted that an image such is acceptable for the purpose of “identification.” The identifying image doesn’t have to be a logo to be used for identificaion. (See for example The Godfather, The Godfather (novel), and Yellow Submarine (album).) Your suggestion of using an image of the whole package (or mine of using the circular baseball design) would be equally acceptable. My advice is to give up on saying that this image can not be used: It clearly can be used. Discuss rather what image should be used, and seek a consensus on that. I particularly urge you to assume good faith: that is not only an official guideline; I find it actually works in getting agreement. —teb728 t c 08:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I support the use of the stylized text image of the Topps brand name from 50s packaging for use in the the 1950s Topps article. Libro0 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is more of Libro0 bullying his way into what he wants no matter how many people he bothers and if the stuff he puts up is even correct. He keeps putting up things that are not logos and claiming they are. Someone will get the wrong idea. That can cause problems. He should stop. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are ingoring the image documentation as well as the captions and for that matter all of the discussion that has been made about this. There are no actual claims of it being a 'logo' or an 'official logo'. It is simply the image of the brand name and it is being used properly. People will get the wrong idea if I put the brand name or logo of a different company like fleer or donruss. Libro0 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Either it's a logo or something essentially similar to a logo. The copyright case is the same as for a logo. One question: Was this logo/symbol used on all Topps products in the 1950:s? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was used for several years on sports card packs. I chose that particular one because it would be much more recognizable since it appeared on the quite notable 1952 Topps Baseball packs. I felt it had the most merit because it is among the most celebrated sets in the hobby. I also put one up for 60s but it also got removed. I was under the assumption these were being used properly and included it as I had initially intended to. The 70s logo I had uploaded does have a copyright and is the official logo so there should be no argument there. Libro0 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes the great consensus builder ignoring consensus. Use an image of the pack of cards, as was suggested instead of your bully campaign of lies and smears. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please calm down, and if you have anything more to add to the discussion, do so without random random smears. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Libro0 is also not creating any of these images herself and is just getting them off the internet, which is a violation of policy and copyright law. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about Wikipedia policy and copyright law. Images from the internet may be used if they are in the public domain, or they are licensed a free license, or (as is the case here) the use complies with both US fair use law and Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The images come from literary sources as have all the information I use. This debate should not even be here anyway. There have been no copyright renewals by Topps. The images are free as per this. Libro0 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another dubious argument. Why do you have such a hard on for these? You have not proven that Topps has failed to renew the copyright. You have proven nothing. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Image is now tagged PD-US-not renewed; non-free fair use is no longer claimed. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 09:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

 * [See below: two images deriving from same YouTube source and blog copying from earlier Wikipedia version of YouTube; materials are unauthorized uploadings of photographs of an indoor exhibition in the Auschwitz-Birenau State Museum, which prohibits visitors from using cameras (both still and video) and photographing such exhibits from its photo archives and other holdings. U.S. copyright law, not Polish copyright law, governs uploading of images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * And as outlined below, US copyright does not grant the rights to anyone since the Nazi Party forced the photographer to take photos of forced subjects. At best (and worst) US law regarding the creation of works for an employer apply and the Nazi Party gets rights which, as it does not exist, cannot claim rights.  The museum makes no claim to owning the images and only prohibits photos to maintain a respectful atmosphere rather than out of copyright claims. Last but not least, by Polish law the images are free because there was no copyright noticed attached and they were made before 1994 and because the images were taken to be used in official documents regarding prisoners in a death camp.  Since there is no evidence to suggest anyone can claim copyright control of the images and a great deal of evidence to suggest that these images are free they should be retained as they contribute directly to the article's subject matter and no better replacement can be had. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AND

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg
Please see the questions already posted in the talk pages of both images and in the related article(s). If this is "FUR" (WP:FUR), I am posting them here for review. I looked for a place to post them right before seeing a ref. to "FUR" in a recent edit summ. by Piotrus; this appears to be what is intended. I welcome review of these images. If they can be kept, fine; if not, fine. --NYScholar (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not clear if the images are not in public domain. If not, than FUR is acceptable. The museum has no right to prohibit the display of those images under Polish law.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When trying to figure out if the images are free, we have to look at both US Law and what the law of the country of origin this. That is how it works on here and the sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. These images are copyrighted in Poland, since the photographer is still alive and has copyright protection of his work from the time he dies and 70 years after that. Some claim that works like these under duress are not copyrighted in Poland; no such provision exists in the copyright laws of Poland. So the uploader is correct that these images related to Czeslawa Kwoka are copyrighted. The problem I am seeing that the claim is now that these images were from videos that are from youtube (which I have never seen, so I can never vouch for it.) I think only one image of Czeslawa Kwoka should be kept, since both depict this girl in prison uniforms. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec): Sorry; but it is also not clear that these images (one is a cropped piece of the three-pose image) are in "public domain" in the U.S. [or in Poland]; U.S. copyright law governs the content of Wikipedia. There is full discussion and related links to relevant information posted in each image talk page. This review cannot take place independent of the discussion already placed on the image page; it took a lot of work and time to develop it, and it needs careful consideration with respect to both Wikipedia media/image inclusion policies and U.S. copyright law, which applies to Wikipedia's uploading of images to articles and other Wikipedia space. --NYScholar (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [added accidentally-omitted words. --NYScholar (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * Addition: Contrary to a statement made by another user above: The Museum is not prohibiting "display" of the photographs; it exhibits them (which is a display of them, for visitors to the Museum to look at); but the Museum does prohibit visitors from bringing cameras (both still and video) into its indoor exhibits and from photographing its exhibits. It also protects its indoor exhibits (Museum property) and photo archives, photographs of the exhibited photographs, and publications by the Museum from copyright violations through a clear copyright notice on its official website.  The above user confuses the matter. --NYScholar (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to US Copyright Law, works published from 1923 until 1977 without any sort of copyright notice fall into the public domain. Plus, about the US and country of origin, that is how I was told policies work on here, regardless of law. I think we are tougher than actual law. That is why we have many photos from WW2 licensed under fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping one photo under FUR sounds reasonable to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what Wikipedia policy relating to images in Wikipedia???? This is not a personal matter but a policy matter. Your statement does not seem "reasonable" at all in view of the copyright infringements and lack of licensing of the image and false fair use rationale claims of "public domain" etc. --NYScholar (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the uploader has been claiming that the images are not copyrighted in Poland and that they are, therefore, in the "public domain" in Poland, which I contest, and consider irrelevant in relation to U.S. copyright law and the sources that the uploader has actually used in copying, editing, and then uploading these 2 images to Wikipedia; please see the editing history of each image. --NYScholar (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If one hasn't seen the videos in YouTube, one is not able to comment on them. They are easily accessible via the URL cited in the image page(s) (various versions) and via any simple YouTube search or Google search for these particular photos; they are copied from YouTube and a blog--a self-published site that copied the 3-pose version w/ the Museum's exhibit captions intact from the YouTube source posted in an earlier version of Wikipedia and gives only a URL to this very Kwoka Wikipedia article (earlier version) as its source: feedback plagiarism loop. --NYScholar (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The blog image was at one point actually "hot-linked" in the fair use rationale. It may still be; I tried to change it to "nowiki" format but it was reverted at times; it may still be nowiki format, so one can just copy and paste it.  Due to its being a self-publication, it is no longer listed as a source in the article on Kwoka or Brasse or The Portraitist, and neither are the spurious YouTube videos.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disputing the inclusion in Wikipedia of both photos, not just one of them, and I am asking for review of each one; one comes from the other, but the uploader has identified them differently, even though the source is YouTube in both cases, bec. the blog took it from Wikipedia which took it from YouTube (in earlier version of this article); see the URL to Wikipedia as the "source" given in the blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article in which both images appear (one in infobox and one in section), even though they both come from same 3-pose photograph exhibited in the Museum and posted w/o permission in YouTube and other Websites and blogs and message boards: Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blog is "TACSE", self-published; blog post gives Wikipedia as source at a time when YouTube version was in Wikipedia:  : Poeticbent (the uploader) has identified this blog (which I actually had provided as a source before realizing the unreliability) as the source of the 3-pose image; but this image was originally taken from YouTube video, which took the image without license or authorization from the Museum exhibit which does not allow photography and/or from elsewhere on the internet that did that...unclear and unreliable source; lack of license to feature the photo in YouTube or in blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've provided the URL in nowiki format to this and other YouTube videos w/ the images from the Museum exhibit uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" before, but it has been continually deleted from the speedy-deletion and fair use rationale templates by the uploader et al.: e.g.,  . Please consult the talk pages of both images for this information and the editing histories of the image pages for both images.  I can't keep repeating information I've already given.  It's accessible.  The YouTube videos have been flagged, but are still online.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Caption in the TACSE self-published blog reads: "Wilhelm Brasse photos via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82awa_Kwoka ." In Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia itself is not permissible as a source. --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of these images is permissible in Wikipedia; I am aware that they duplicate each other, however, and that is more reason why the same image (1 of the 3 poses) does not belong in the same article; I've seen arguments about that before (e.g. piece of a book cover used in both an infobox image of an author and in a section in same biog. article of that same subject (person). Here the repetition is not justifiable either.  But in neither case is the image within fair use according to Wikipedia's policies on non-free images, because the images are actually copyrighted and from the Museum's photo archive (items in an exhibition which visitors to the Museum are prohibited to photograph at all), not in the public domain, and not free or out of copyright in either the U.S. or in Poland.  The photographer is living and 91 years old.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NYScholar, relax for a moment please. I am watching the video now and from what I am seeing, it is just a slideshow of pictures from the museum. I personally never been to the museum, let alone Poland itself, so I personally cannot comment on their specific policies when it comes to photos. Regardless of all of that, the original copyright holder of the photographs has been identified as Wilhelm Brasse and he is still alive. They are still copyrighted in Poland, but not in the USA. Plus, I am checking to see if we have policies about museums and photographs on one of our sister projects. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already documented the Museum's policies in Wilhelm Brasse and already done so in the image talk pages; photography (cameras, both still and video) are explicitly prohibited from use in indoor exhibits; this is indoor exhibit of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. Couldn't be clearer. Please consult the talk pages of each image.  Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The photos are credited to Brasse, who took them in either 1942 or 1943; they are not out of copyright in the U.S. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the U.S. Copyright Law and provision of fair use and Wikipedia's own policies relating to them (which are in some cases relating to images even stricter than U.S. copyright law, see: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues. --NYScholar (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the images have no copyright notice, then the images are PD in the USA, as I mentioned above. But they are still copyrighted in the country of origin, so we both know it is going to have to be used under fair use here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photographs from the same exhibit have featured copyright notices in publications of the Museum advertised and featured on the website of the Museum (I've quoted them in both the image page and in Wilhelm Brasse. There is no reliable source to prove that this particular 3-pose photograph made by Brasse has no copyright notice on it in the Museum's Photo archive materials published in books later (much later, in 2004, e.g.); in The Portraitist (2005) Brasse identifies his own photographs as such; re: public domain: see Cornell: [PDF etc.  I think too much guessing is going on here.  But I agree, it is copyright in the country of origin and proper fair use notice would be required to claim fair use, but in such a rationale in Wikipedia the actual source of the image must be given, and that is actually a blog citing Wikipedia and a YouTube video which basically infringes the Museum's intellectual property (the Museum provided the captions for its exhibit of this particular photograph (as with the others) and also in its own publications (e.g., 2004); and it does not permit visitors to photograph its indoor exhibits (which this one is).  --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube video was made after 2004, and uploaded just a few months ago, according to YouTube. In 2006, a person claimed to photograph this photograph at the Museum in 2004 in Wikipedia Commons, but the uploaded image was deleted from WC for "copyright violation." (That person created the Kwoka article too.) It's the same exhibit. --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyrighted film made in Poland, The Portraitist (Portrecista), TVP1, 2005) includes the work of Brasse; it is a commercial film, screened at film festivals and for sale via contact with its distributor's website. The photographs are part of the film's poster (see the W. article; this is copyrighted intellectual property, and Brasse is the subject of the film, intereviews with him are the content of the film as well as visual illustrations of his work in the film; copyrights pertain there as well. --NYScholar (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I already told you the photo is copyrighted in Poland, the country of origin, so that is no longer the question. The question now is should a photo from a museum be allowed to be uploaded here. I don't have the answer to that question now, and I won't have one for at least a few days. I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your post: "I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways." Someone just deleted the image from the film (the press kit photograph; featured in the distributor's press kit materials) which did have a proper fair-use rationale.  Without any clear explanation of why.  Please look into that now as well.  That fair-use rationale was entirely proper and gave all the necessary information required by Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean in the quoted portion? Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted. (See: Template:PD-Polish). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen this already; what evidence is there that this particular photograph (credited to Wilhelm Brasse was "printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994"? No source to support that cited anywhere in the articles about Brasse or Kwoka or the film about Brasse, The Portraitist; that is an assumption not a fact about this particular photograph of 3 poses of Kwoka; the image has been published since 1994 with a copyright notice attributing it to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, which exhibited Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners beginning in 1955, which is a "permanent exhibition" in the Museum, and which visitors are not allowed to photograph, because it is an "indoor" exhibit.  This is legalese without factual sources to establish its relevance to this particular photograph.  --NYScholar (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The museum published a photographic book with photographs of Auschwitz prisoners from this area of Poland, etc., in 2002 to 2004 (various editions). Not 1994.  The photographs in the book come from its Photo Archive.  The book is copyrighted.  If someone uses the book as a source of the photograph (which is possible; without acknowledgment) that is a copyright violation of the publication copyright. How do you know when this photograph first was "printed": where was it first "printed?"  And who printed it?  "Author"? "Publisher?" "Date of publication/printing?"--NYScholar (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Polish Copyright Law has been amended re: intellectual properties since 1994; I've linked to the law already in the image talk page(s). U.S. copyright law pertains, however, in relation to Wikipedia's uploading of images re: "fair use" claims, whether or not "public domain" and so on.  You need to supply evidence to support your claims.  --NYScholar (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [I'm located on the East coast of the U.S., in New York; it's too late to be up anymore re: this; I'm going to bed. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break
The legal position would appear to turn firstly on the date of first publication of the image, ie not when the work was created; nor when the work was first publicly exhibited; but when authorised copies of the image were first generally distributed so people could own them.

NYS says this first occurred in 2002 in a book by Helena Kubica. But I haven't yet seen his evidence for the claim that this was the first publication of this image. He also doesn't give a page reference that the image was published in this book. The picture subsequently appears to have been distributed to the press in the United States in 2005-6.

According to our talk pages here, the image may also be currently displayed as part of the permanent exhibit in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. This exhibition has apparently been in place since 1955; though presumably it may have been re-made a number of times since then. Now, public exhibition doesn't count as publication; and we don't know how long the image has been included in the exhibition. But prima facie it's at least possible that the image may have been published in a catalogue of that exhibit prior to 2002.

If the image was first published in 2002, then it might be copyright to Wilhelm Brasse. On the other hand, original copyright might have vested with the Nazi state, which organised and directed the work of the Erkennungsdienst at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz museum itself in 2007 was in dispute with one Dina Babbitt over copyright ownership of sketches and paintings she had been forced to make for Mengele. If the original copyright was owned by the Nazi state, it's not clear to me who that would now rest with. Another question is whether these photographs in fact attract copyright at all: the current EU requirement under Directive 93/98/EEC (enacted in Poland in 2000-2002) is that for full protection photographs must be "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality". Do standardised mug-shots qualify? Finally, note that the same directive also institutes "publication rights" for previously unpublished works in which the possibility of copyright has expired (being 70 years pma etc.). Such publication rights in the EU are granted to the first publisher, for 25 years. However, they do not apply in the United States.

So, if the work was first published in 2002, and if the work is considered sufficiently original to qualify for copyright, and if Wilhelm Brasse is considered the legal author, then it would appear to indeed be under copyright (both in Poland and the U.S.A.)

If any of those conditions aren't met then things are more questionable.

In particular, if the work was legitimately published before 1994, then things turn very closely on whether it was published with a clear copyright notice (identifying the copyright owner of the photo, not just the book it was contained in). The relevant U.S. law then becomes the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restores U.S. copyrights in non-U.S. works, if they would be copyright in their home countries as of January 1, 1996. According to Polish law,  for photos before 1994 this will be the case only if the photos were published with a clear copyright notice. Otherwise they would be public domain in Poland, and therefore also in the United States.


 * (Note added) One other thing. Under Article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, the following are excluded from copyright: "official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols".  This image looks as if it might qualify as "official documentary material", that being on the face of it the very purpose for which it was created. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some other points

You tube, etc. At least per US law (Bridgeman vs Corel), there won't be any additional copyright in the faithful reproduction of a 2d work. So the only copyright we need to consider is the copyright in the original work.

Museum photography policy. We don't have a contract with the museum. If the image is not copyright, the museum does not acquire any rights in it merely by putting up a sign saying "no photography".

Museum ownership of the copyright. On the face of it, unless anyone can add better data, there seems no reason to assume that the museum would own the copyright. If copyright exists, it might be held by Wilhelm Brasse, or by whatever body has inherited the copyright of the Nazi state; but there seems to be no a-priori reason that such copyright would be owned by the museum. In Europe, if the copyright had become extinct before first publication, then the museum might have a 25 year publication right; but such a right would not apply in the United States.

Fair use. The copyright position seems at least murky. But if the image were copyright, there seems to me a reasonable fair use case per WP:NFCC. The detail picture identifies the subject of the article, and is the picture the recent artwork has been based on, which is identified as the main source of the article's wikipedia notability. It therefore very much is right on the spine of the subject of the article. The full picture (from which the detail is taken) conveys the full context of the original picture. But before jumping to conclusions, I think we should investigate more the actual copyright situation first. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some responses
"But if the image were copyright": If? Another part of the same exhibition of photographs has already been removed from Wikipedia Commons for "copyright violation" and another photograph from the same exhibition uploaded by the same uploader to Wikipedia Commons is also currently disputed. I placed the link to it in the talk page of these images. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a whole host of unverified assumptions being made about the indoor exhibition from the Photo archive of the Museum in the post by Jheald. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum makes its position about ownership of its exhibitions very clear in its website; that position is already documented (with reliable sources from the Museum) in Wilhelm Brasse and in the talk pages of these images. The Museum states that it does not allow photography by visitors of its indoor exhibits. There is no published catalogue with the particular photograph that the uploader uploaded to Wikipedia being cited by the uploader. If there were such a catalogue, it would be a printed and copyrighted work with copyrights of the publisher of record (the Museum). (The Museum makes no reference to any such published "catalogue" of its exhibition Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners (which contains these photographs containing the 3 poses of Kwoka, and of many others.)

The Museum's copyrights for its exhibits are not in the "public domain" in the United States (as claimed by the uploader and others citing Polish copyright law w/ respect to 1994), which is not complete citation of current Polish copyright law (I provided the links to it in the image page for others' convenience a few days ago).

All "fair use rationales" in Wikipedia image pages are required to state the actual source used for the image and why uploading from it to Wikipedia is permissible in an image uploaded to Wikipedia. I dispute the description page of this image in Wikipedia.

The current image page refers to use of a YouTube video featuring still photographs from the Museum exhibit.

There is no doubt that this photograph is part of the exhibition called Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners.

"There is no reason to assume....": This is not an "assumption":
 * The captions included in the image w/ the 3 poses are clearly and undisputably photographs of the Museum's exhibition in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners, over which it claims ownership rights in its website and which it disallows visitors to photograph (still or video), as it does all its "indoor" exhibits.

Another photograph from its Photo Archive and featured in the exhibit is also posted on its official website with a clear copyright notice and credit to the Exhibition Department photographer for the Museum. (It is a photograph of a photograph, produced by the Museum's Exhibition Department photographer credited.)

The Website features a copyright notice with the dates 1999 to 2008. I have provided this information with URLs for further investigation already in the talk page of the image. Both this 3-pose photograph and the one copied and uploaded to Wikipedia taken from both YouTube and a blog are Museum archival photographs that make up the exhibition in Block no. 6. The Museum features a portion of the larger exhibition on its own copyrighted Website, and I have provided a link to the Museum's Website for verification of that. There is also the matter of the copyrighted documentary film about Brasse, made in 2005 and distributed commercially. I have provided the credit to Rekontrplan Film Group and its website location in The Portraitist; the video clip advertising the film on Rekontrplan Film Group's official Website contains stills of the photographs from the exhibition of photographs (and other items) in Block no. 6. Fair use rationales (if that is the route for any of these images) need to identify sources used to upload the images (what source[s] they were taken from by the uploader of the images). In the past (I haven't checked it again today) the fair use rationale and identification of sources used have not been presented correctly.

One of several remaining questions is: what is the source used by the uploader to copy and upload this image (3 poses) and the close up part of one of the poses (part of the same photograph) to Wikipedia. It appears to be a derivative work not original with the uploader but taken from Website content. Wikipedia has clear stipulations about the problems about uploading potential copyright infringing material from Websites to Wikipedia.

The film about Wilhelm Brasse featuring archival materials and iconography (according to its distributor) is a commercial property and has its own copyright as well; fair use rationale for the use of the image of the movie poster is provided in The Portraitist image; click on its image page in the infobox image. That is a clear situation of fair use with proper Wikipedia procedures followed in the creation of the fair use rationale and licensing information.

These images uploaded by Poeticbent do not have a proper fair use rationale and proper licensing information in the image pages.

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have yet to provide evidence that the museum claims copyright over the images. They state themselves that photography is prohibited out of respect for the material and mention nothing about copyrights.  That same respect for the material would suggest they would not agree with your opinion that the works are capable of being copyrighted.  The copyright notices on the website itself are common on all business and organization websites and apply to the website and its layouts and mention nothing about specific photos.  You've yet to address the objections raised over these photos being public works, being part of public documents, and lacking a copyright claim on them.  As for first date of publication, the Nazi's published them when they included them in their documents regarding their prisoners.  That says nothing about the host of special laws regarding Nazi works and their general ineligibility for copyright.  Until you can provide some proof of your claim that the image is under copyright, the wealth of evidence here that suggests it is a free image should prevent its deletion.  Use as a free image is the best option given that it is supported by the evidence, no evidence has been raised to suggest otherwise beyond the fact that a website has been copyrighted and work has been done on the images (as has been done on many free images made about the subject), and it contributes significantly to the article it is featured in. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Final comment
Firstly, I would like to thank User:Jheald for this professional assessment of the images in question. I can really appreciate your knowledge since copyright law is a stuff of life for me being a professional artist. By the same token, for those who might have difficulty understanding the premises of copyright law due to its complexity, I suggest you expand on your knowledge by additional reading. You can start by visiting the web site of photographer Dan Heller for his in-depth article on the subject of releases.

To put it in simple words, copyright protection notices displayed in books, in film, and in public exhibits of historic photographs and paintings refer to layout, original copy text, vision, as well as the release concept. The actual historic 2D images (unless they are transformed in a creative way) fall into a separate category. For example, the picture taken of Mona Lisa does not make one an owner of Mona Lisa copyrights. Similarly, the picture taken of Mona Lisa painting by the museum photographer does not include copyright on the image appearing in the photograph. The museum exhibits are copyrighted, the Mona Lisa painting is not. In that sense, the copyright tag by the distributor can, but doesn’t have to be honoured with a mention, in the face of law.

To speak of You Tube anywhere around here is overly courteous already. It does not matter, who took the picture of the picture of Czesława Kwoka and where from, exactly... What is of interest to us is only the initial mug-shot of her and it’s legal status, including country of origin, the actual point in time, and all the accompanying circumstances. Nazi state was Wilhelm Brasse’s slave-labour employer (for further information see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II). The photographer was recompensed for his physical labour by being kept alive. So, is the image owned by the German Reich still, 65 years after the fact? Or, can the concentration camp photographer be perceived in relation to modern day release instead? Polish copyright law is pretty clear about that, and so is the American Fair use. With the proper tag, the images meet the bilateral criteria of display for illustration purposes regardless of where they originated from. --Poeticbent talk  17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat a comment that pertains to WP:POL, specifically to: Image use policy, particularly to Image use policy and to Image use policy; and to the Non-free use rationale guideline, linked therein as well: Non-free use rationale guideline:

Points of information
I've added an EL in the EL sec. of the article on Kwoka to the "Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Publications: Albums and Catalogues"; it provides precise publication information, including dates of publication of these photograph albums and catalogues, all of which are copyrighted by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland. [Books by Kubica already listed in References sec. of that and other related articles.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "identity pictures" of Kwoka were taken in 1942 or 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced in the article on her). She died in March 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced...). The photographs were not taken prior to 1923 (see U.S. copyright law re: "public domain"), and they appear in an indoor exhibition at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland, which visitors are not allowed to photograph. The Museum publication by Kubica, containing some (but not all) of the photographs in its archives, was published in 2002 and 2003 (in German/Polish), according to the Museum publications information (see post just above). Sources cited in the Wikipedia articles on Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist give credit to Brasse as the photographer who took these particular photographs of Kwoka. He did not publish them. The Museum exhibited some of his photographs and some of the photographs in its indoor exhibits are published in its publications, none of which were published by or before 1994, according to its Publications Webpage. It is not yet verified when (on what date) the "permanent" "indoor" Exhibition of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners began to include the photographs that include the 3 poses of Kwoka (in these images). The exhibition was first mounted in 1955. --NYScholar (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan [in Wikipedia Commons--corr. (Ed. NYS); see below], and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see listing of image below: have corrected the date, as explained there.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see below. corr. (NYS). --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * I notice a lot have been posted. Anyways, the fact they are in a book or museum doesn't prevent us from using these photos at all. Under fair use, we can use what we want, in limited circumstances, regardless of when and where it is published and/or displayed. In this case, we should have one, just one, photo of this woman and that is it. The YouTube and blog stuff are irrelevant, since neither are the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is, who holds/held the copyright? In this case, the photographer, who is still alive. Therefore, a fair use rationale is needed, which we have. End of story, problem solved. No problem in the first place, really. Taking a photo of something (or in this case, using it in a YouTube video) without significantly modifying the work to the point it is in itself unique does not give the re-user ownership of the copyright. It still remains with whoever created the original work. There is no reason to delete either of these photos. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * True, if Brasse does hold a copyright. But if the image is considered to have been created as "official documentary material" under article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, then there would appear to be no copyright to hold.
 * Equally if the photograph falls below the threshold of originality; or if it was published before 1994 without a clear copyright claim; or if the original copyright vested in the Nazi state, there might now be no copyright. Jheald (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was invested to the Nazi state, Germany still considers it copyrighted. I personally don't think we will know for sure, but we are getting close on reaching the 70 year mark of the start of the war. 2009-1939 is 70 years, and most European copyright laws have that year as a cutoff. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen no instance where Germany has claimed copyright to any Nazi works. This is especially true regarding the use of said information in articles seeking to educate individuals about the events of WWII - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Images in Wikipedia have to be consistent with copyright law in the United States and copyright law in the foreign country of the copyright owner (the current copyright owner) and also the copyright law of the country of the uploader (if uploader uploads it to Wikipedia Commons): see the links in Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia. What do the laws of Nazi Germany have to do with this current matter about images protected by the Museum's exhibits now? The Museum is in Poland and Wikipedia is in the United States.  Please see the links at top of this page that go to the pertinent non-free use policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and that link to Wikipedia's copyright policies for articles and images.  Those are the policies and guidelines that govern uploading images to Wikipedia.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has yet to be proven that the museum claims copyright over these images and evidence has been suggested that they do not. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to Wikipedia policy governing non-free content, including images: Non-free content. --NYScholar (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We haven't established this is non-free content yet. Jheald (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jheald, I personally go by the rule of "unfree unless otherwise proven." We have no proof anything was released and I didn't see anything in Polish law that would make these type of images public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the statements about Polish copyright law and "public domain" in the fair-use rationales etc.: the current Wikipedia article Polish copyright law is templated as a stub, and it lacks in-line citations; I've added a link to {{Wikisource in it a moment ago, after creating a talk page for it, and placed the missing citations template on the article; for more information about Polish copyright law, one can visit:

{{Wikisource|Polish Copyright Law}}


 * I had added the external links to the current Polish copyright law to the image page templates, but they have since been removed in at least one or both of the articles by later template changes. If one scrolls through the whole page in Wikisource, one can find current Polish copyright law sections and sources referenced. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Zscout's comment above: I was writing a similar comment earlier but got knocked off the internet and it was lost. Wikipedia in such matters favors the most cautious position: if an image or other content is not indisputably "free", Wikipedia takes the position that it is not free and that uploading the image requires a fair-use rationale; a larger version containing the 3-poses has already been deleted from Wikipedia Commons due to "copyright violation"; the "fair use rationale" in each image relates to there being a need for a fair use rationale, given Wikipedia's policy aready linked above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While foreign copyright law pertains to foreign media/images, United States copyright law is Wikipedia policy (with reference to foreign copyright law); the use of images must be in keeping with United States copyright law and other countries' laws that might apply to uploading such content; moreover, the policy statement re: these matters (linked earlier) in Wikipedia is identified in that policy as often "stricter" than U.S. copyright law. Wikipedia's aim is to protect itself from potential claims of copyright violation and any such potential can lead to deletion of an article in Wikipedia. That is my concern. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And to whom does US law give the copyright? Certainly not the museum as you've suggested above.  US law places the rights with either the Nazi Party, as the "employer" of the photographer.  If you claim that the fact that the photographer was forced to take the photos makes it his right and not the Nazis, then we can also grant the rights to the people in the photos as they did not grant permission and were also forced.  Those people are dead and the Nazi party does not exist anymore.  Either way, no one can claim copyright under US law. And it's rediculous to suggest otherwise unless you can produce a law that says photographers forced to take pictures of forced models get all rights to the image. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The insertion and re-insertion of the images with questionable licenses and dubious claims re: "public domain" in licenses and so so place the article on Kwoka (which was nominated for deletion before August 28, 2008, in jeopardy. These are the larger concerns.  The article does not need to have illustrations, especially if they put the integrity of the article in doubt.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This conversation seems to be somewhat pointless. It's my understanding that works created by the Nazi regime are in the public domain internationally and that they can not be copyrighted in either the United States, Germany, or Poland.Nrswanson (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Whatever the merits of the copyright arguements, the images are now on Commons. So their disposition is not a Wikipedia issue. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC). {{discussion bottom}}
 * See possible U.S. precedent: Talk:Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

{{discussion top}}

Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg
See listing of previous two images. Links to the problems there: See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan, and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for speedy deletion due to copyright violation. It is currently an orphan in Wikipedia [Ed. NYS): actually listed as such in Wikipedia Commons, just realized; but it is linked to articles in Wikipedia; corrected this below] and has been for some time (please see its editing history).  I notified the uploader with template as required in the template notice.  If this image requires a different nomination for speedy deletion template, please discuss here.  It is been nominated for deletion for months.  --NYScholar (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [updated this in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * Had to relog in to Wikipedia Commons to check editing history of the image; it was nominated for deletion by another user in July 2008. [Will fix date above and in prev. post as well.] --NYScholar (talk)
 * There was no article on Maria Kotarba in Wikipedia listed in Wikipedia Commons file for the image when I checked it in first posting this listing; there were no files linked to when I first posted this listing. That has since changed apparently.  I haven't time to see when precisely. --NYScholar (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked the history and, despite the nomination for deletion, the photograph appears without proper templates indicating its nomination for speedy deletion in the article; please see its editing history. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the lack of listing of the article in the Wikipedia Commons image page confusing; maybe it's been corrected since I last looked at it. That does not change the situtation re: deletion nomination of the image (since July 2008) and speedy-deletion nomination now.  --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No; it still states "Links[:] There are no pages that link to this file." [Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg"]. --NYScholar (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image on Commons only shows Commons pages that link to it, not en WP pages. For that you must look at the transclusion of it on wikipedia at Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg. The image is hosted on Commons, which is an image repository which all wikipedias can freely use, so you will have to argue it's deletion in the debate on Commons.  Ty  22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I leave that to others; I'm just giving the history here and provide the links to previous discussions and information. I've added some comments on my own talk page.--NYScholar (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)) [I had already recommended "delete" in that discussion.  Please see it directly. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Comment: if we decide to move it to fair use, please move it before deletion on Commons. Thank you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If moved, it needs valid fair-use rationales for each of its uses in Wikipedia, and it also needs valid licenses (re: copyright and sources used to make it). --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image is public domain. Period. This image does not belong on this forum. -Nard 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The validity of the claim of "public domain" is precisely what is being disputed. I don't see how that comment qualifies as definitive; it is that user's opinion, for which he provides no supporting evidence.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NYScholar, I believe that what Nard meant to say is that this image is in the public domain by the fact that a work made by the Nazi regime, even by an artist who was forced to create the work, can not be copyrighted in either Poland or the United States and is therefore obviously a public domain image.Nrswanson (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Misplaced nomination. Image has been only on Commons from the beginning, and non-free fair use was never claimed. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Image:Pinoy Idol billboard.jpg
Please review if any provisions of the Philippine copyright laws or Wikipedia Image policies were violated. GMA Network holds copyright for the reproduction whether in print or electronic of their promotional materials.--Docrx (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief trawl through Phillipine copyright law suggests that there is no freedom of panorama that would cover this. Should be tagged as fair use (Phillipine law does have that concept) - but probably wouldn't meet WP:NFCC. Megapixie (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominated at Possibly unfree files/2008 October 28 —teb728 t c 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Already deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 05:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Do_It_Jerry_Rubin.jpg
Orphaned image. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was the image deleted from Jerry Rubin? That article has a whole section devoted to the book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has a whole section devoted to him as an author, with only a statement about the book and no commentary on it. Undoubtedly that is an omission from the article, but as long as it is, there is no justification for the cover. It should not be hard to remedy. The book merits its own article as well.  Ty  01:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Deleted as orphaned. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 05:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cordite.jpg
This image, used only in Cordite, is missing specific non-free use rationale (contains only non-free fair use in), and is IMHO 1. not necessary for the article, 2. potentially replacable by a free image. --Mormegil (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as di-replaceable fair use —teb728 t c 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I don't care. Its not like i'm gonna ever read the cordite article again. I believe I put it up there was no picture in the article at the time, and I wanted to know what cordite looks like. The intro picture should cover it I guess. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Image has been deleted. Non-admin closure. —teb728 t c 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Image:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG
Uploaded image resolution is 1600 x 1200 x 24BPP. Image size is 123KB. This appears to breach WP:NFCC #3b. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've accordingly tagged it as Template:Non-free reduce. -Andrew c [talk] 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A screenshot is only a tiny part of the original work (Windows Update), so we don't need to make it smaller for NFCC reasons. Still, the important parts would be shown more clearly in a lower resolution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original image. The absolute resolution is high, sure, but that doesn't mean the image should be resized down so that the text is unreadable. I don't have Windows XP anymore so I can't create a more suitably-sized image, but I'm sure someone will get to it eventually.  Warren -talk- 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:OhioDUIplate.jpg, Image:LAplateSonsOfConfederate.jpg, Image:343 plate.jpg, and Image:Poops.jpg
Per Commons discussion on the matter, these images of state license plates excluding any plates made by the US Government are in violation of Copyright. I didn't tag articles with images that originated from Commons (a cursory exam of Vehicle registration plates of Alabama, Vehicle registration plates of Alaska, and Vehicle registration plates of Arizona shows several copyrighted images originating from Commons). Yes, I got nicked for several images in the discussion above, I rather not discuss that. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Image:LAplateSonsOfConfederate.jpg has been retagged as Non-free fair use in. Image:OhioDUIplate.jpg has been retagged correctly as PD-ineligible. The other two images in the section header are also PD-ineligible, and I have retagged them as such. —teb728 t c 06:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Deathbed Vigil 1994.jpg
Is using an image of an American flag at half-mast screengrabbed from a film about the failure of Commodore International to illustrate the failure of the company appropriate? Seems to me that it's a violation of WP:NFCC #1 (no free equivalent) and #8 (significance). --Carnildo (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I IfD'd it. —teb728 t c 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Levi strauss logo.png
The logo is for one of the products of Levi Strauss & Co. and not of the company. If the article was about the Levi's jeans, the logo would be permissible under WP:FAIR, but this is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo? Garion96 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not really. The logo could be used on an article about the Levi's brand, but it fails WP:FAIR when used on the article about the company. The logo of the company can be seen here: http://www.levistrauss.com/ (top left of page) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say it is simple non-copyrightable text and that WP:Restricted materials would apply.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never heard of that argument when discussing fair use of logos. It does not apply in this case. As I said, the logo to be featured in the Levi Strauss & Co. article, should be of the company, not of one of their brands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is the image is not fairuse, since simple text saying Levi's cannot be copyrighted. The name "Levi's" can be trademarked and probably is, but we have hundreds of free-logos, like IBM's that are trademarked free images.  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a pd-textlogo. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can the delete image be taken off, and the logo be put back on the Levi page Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk  Review Me! 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a pd-textlogo. Jossi is right that this image is not appropriate for the Levi Strauss & Co. article. But his reason is wrong: There is no fair-use issue with the image, for the image is PD. The reason it should not be used is encyclopedic: infobox logos are used for identification, and this logo does not identify the subject of the article. —teb728 t c 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Image has been deleted as a non-free orphan. —teb728 t c 06:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Florida Catholic Nov. 20, 2007.jpg
I'm in a dispute over this image (which was on the commons, but I nominated it for speedy deletion for copyvio and re-uploaded it here with a fair use rational). The dispute is two-fold. Is this image free or not? I clearly believe that because it's primary subject is a copyrighted newspaper then it clearly is "cover art" and should follow our WP:FUC. I don't believe that taking a picture of something which is copyrighted allows the photographer to release that copyrighted image into the public domain. So, is this image free or not? The second issue is, if it is not free, can it be used at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami? I can't think of a fair use rational for that instance, but I think the image is fine at Florida Catholic. What do you think?-Andrew c [talk] 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coca_Cola_Zero_02.jpg Image:Florida Catholic Nov. 20, 2007.jpg I am the person who took this picture and uploaded it. I placed it on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami because the newspaper is owned by the Archdiocese and is an important part of the organization. The picture is not a direct reproduction, it is far from the subject, does not show the entire page and even has my hand in the picture. This is not a violation of copyright laws. If I took a picture of a bottle of Coca-cola to display on the Coca-cola article, that is not a copyright violation, the same situation presents here.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Category:Fair use newspaper covers. Why does this category even exist if what Nancy did is an appropriate way to circumvent our Fair Use policy?-Andrew c [talk] 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Newspaper clippings. It is the text that is copyrighted, in addition to the layout, images, and logos.-Andrew c [talk] 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a different case from the Coke bottle. The Coca-Cola logo itself was first published before 1923, so it's public domain (though still subjected to trademark protection, as indeed are the word "Coca-Cola" and "Coke" themselves, but that's irrelevant for us). The other elements of the photo on the right do not reach the threshold of creativity required for copyright protection. The shape of the Coke bottle isn't copyrightable any more than the shape of a Toyota Corolla is. You can't copyright individual words, even when displayed in a certain font, so the word "zero" on the Coke bottle can't be copyrighted; nor can the words "Florida Catholic of Miami" at the top of the newspaper. But the photographs on the newspaper cover are copyrightable (and almost certainly copyrighted), and the running text of the headlines and columns is also copyrighted. I think Andrew is right that the image can only be tagged Non-free newspaper image and subjected to the WP:NFCC, meaning it can only be used at Florida Catholic, not at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami or User:NancyHeise (or on this page either!). —Angr 07:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The newspaper photo is a derivative work. The addition of the hand does not meet the threshold of originality to make the photo copyrightable. And it does not have the transformative value in itself to qualify as fair use; so that as a separate work it is a copyright violation. Viewed as a faithful representation of the newspaper, however, it might qualify as fair use for identifying the newspaper. But for that purpose it really should be replaced by version without the hand: The hand makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 08:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Florida Catholic. The publisher is the Archdiocese of Miami. It belongs on the Archdiocese of Miami page.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, can we agree that the image is non-free (and restore the newspaper licensing tag)? Next, if we can agree to that, then we must follow WP:FU which explains that all non-free images need a fair use rational for each article they are used in. Can we come up with a fair use rational in line with our guidelines for that image in the Archdiocese article?-Andrew c [talk] 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I pinged some very respected Wikipedia editors who are more expert than me on this subject. Can we please wait a little while to see what they have to say about this issue? I firmly believe the picture is appropriate on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. I am not the only person to believe this since the article passed FA as recently as a year ago with that picture included. The article was Dec. 9th TFA so it must have passed some more scrutiny before being selected.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, dropping by at Nancy's request. Agreeing with others that the photograph is a derivative work of the newspaper.  Commons doesn't host derivative photographs of non-free material, and our featured pictures programs don't consider non-free material, so other editors would be more suitable to advise about whether a non-free use rationale would be applicable here.  I'm pretty confident it would be acceptable at an article about the newspaper itself, less so about the diocese.  To Nancy: unfortunately Wikipedia's non-free use guidelines are stricter than legal fair use standards.  I do have a suggestion, though.  Depending on how long this paper has been in publication there may be copies of it that have entered public domain.  Anything published before 1923 would have entered public domain.  And for several decades afterward U.S. copyright law operated under a registration system that placed works that lacked copyright notice into the public domain immediately, and let works lapse into public domain after 26 years unless registration were renewed.  The details require a bit of research, but the bottom line is that the Diocese's office or historic archive probably keeps a few public domain copies of decades-old issues that marked important occsasions.  It would take a bit of research to verify which material is free from copyright, but ultimately that would be more encyclopedic and open to broader use.  The diocese probably serves a substantial Spanish speaking population, for instance, and the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't accept any copyrighted images.  Just an idea.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the image should be non-free, but the purpose detailed to explain why it belongs on the article for Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Right now the purpose is too minimal, stating To show front page of newspaper. It would be much more helpful if it could be expanded to state: "To show the front page of the primary publication of the Archdiocese of Miami, particularly the issues most important to, and priorities of, the Archdiocese of Miami. Understanding of how the Archdiocese of Miami communicates, and what it considers important, is greatly enhanced by the image." Furthermore, there should be explicit reference to the newspaper in the article, corresponding to the purpose in the image summary. --Moni3 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I called the Flordia Catholic and alerted them to this discussion. They are emailing me permission to use the picture on the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami Wikipedia page. I had to explain to them that the picture enhances the page and is a nice promotion for the Florida Catholic alerting people to its existence and importance in the Archdiocese. They corrected my article text saying it is published 26 times a year, not 38.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the traditional route of obtaining republication permission for copyrighted material isn't compatible with Wikipedia's copyleft structure: Wikipedia's content gets numerous commercial and noncommercial reuses. We can't limit or prevent those downstream uses once an image goes live on this site, so that type of permission doesn't usually fly in site discussions about image use.  (I know this is frustrating; sorry to be the bearer of bad news).  Durova Charge! 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durova that permissions for this image does not seem appropriate, but urge you to justify its purpose for inclusion, instead of its function. Why is this image included in the article? Illustration should not be the primary objective, but highlighting that the reader's understanding is significantly advanced with the image. --Moni3 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. If we are to use it by permission rather than fair use, the permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. If you think the archdiocese would grant that, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. —teb728 t c 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll send that link to the manager of Florida Catholic now.  Nancy Heise    talk  22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering why Wikipedia requires it to be completely free use. Why can't I get specific permission for it to be used on a specific Wikipedia page? I would think you would have more luck getting more decent pictures for Wikipedia articles if there were some restrictions allowed. Before sending him the request for GNU permission, Mr. Gunty of FL Catholic sent me this permission which seems like it should be enough. From: Christopher Gunty (email removed) To: (email removed) Sent: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 5:14 pm Subject: Permission to Use photograph

Dear Ms. Heise,

The Florida Catholic Inc. grants you permission to use a photograph of the front page of the Florida Catholic newspaper for an entry regarding the Archdiocese of Miami on Wikipedia.com.

Thank you for your request.

Christopher Gunty Associate Publisher  Nancy Heise    talk  22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nancy, while it is great that they give permission, they would need to send that through WP:OTRS, so it can be verified as coming from them, but it may not be enough, per Evula above. That being said, I have to agree with those above, I fail to see how this image is integral to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami article. Keep in mind, images should be used to illustrate a subject when words are not sufficient. I think everyone would agree that when one says "The Diocese publishes a newspaper", even the youngest of readers would have absolutely no problem visualizing what a newspaper looks like. The image does nothing to "significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject" (and keep in mind, the subject of the article is the Archdiocese, not the newspaper). The newspaper itself is an very minor part of the article, so I personally don't feel an image of the paper's cover is necessary. As for the copyright issue, I think WP:FUR could be used if the image were on an article about the paper, I don't think the photo is of a quality that would violate the FUR policy, but I would defer to those who are more knowledgeable about WP:IUP and FU. Ariel  ♥  Gold  02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I contacted Raul654 who is listed as the English language contact. I think that Wikipedia could use some better instructions on getting permission, I dont remember seeing those instructions about WP:OTRS. It would be nice to have all that info in one place. Also, the picture could easily be removed and the page would be OK but that is just the point. I don't want an OK page, I want it to be a great page and the picture of the Florida Catholic Newspaper makes it all the better. Why should we settle for blah when we can have something more? Reader can still understand the subject without picture but it is so much more enjoyable to read a page with interesting and colorful photos. I dont think we should discourage picture content but do everything in our power to keep good photos that make good (featured!) articles "brilliant" (brilliant is an FA criteria!) :)   Nancy Heise    talk  04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nancy, in reply to your question a few inches up: The reason why Wikipedia prefers content with a free licence is that one of our highest priority goals is to produce reusable content. If an article contains non-free content, it hampers the reusability of the article. So Wikipedia allows non-free content only if it could not be replaced by a free equivalent and only if it is vital to understanding the article. —teb728 t c 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS permission has been received. Image is now tagged (and rightfully so this time) as free (GFDL this time, not PD), so my concerns have been addressed. Perhaps this discussion thread can be closed if no one else objects. We are lucky this time that a newspaper would release an image like that under a free license (try to get a large city daily to do that, ha!) And hopefully, while maybe not agreeing with it, Nancy has a better idea of our image use policy (and maybe she'll be more likely to trust my assessments in the future ;) Thanks everyone.-Andrew c [talk] 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed. Free status of image has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. —teb728 t c 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ainjel_Emme-Heartache_Is_Boring.jpg in Ainjel Emme
The album cover is currently being used in the artist infobox to depict the artist and not the album itself. Since the artist is still alive a free-licensed image could be reasonably be found, so it fails the first criteria at Non-free content criteria. Aspects (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ The image is removed and replaced with a comment about WP:NFCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Malaysian coats of arms
List of Malaysian coats of arms is an image issue listed at WP:CP, here. The lister indicated the following: I bring it here for review as a courtesy to the tagger and will independently list involved images below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Malaysian coats of arms ([ history] · [ last edit]) . Gallery of non-free images whose copyright is held by a foreign (non-US) government. Listed here as a legal gray area. See also Articles for deletion/List of Malaysian coats of arms.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Coat of arms of Perlis.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Kedah.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Penang.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Perak.jpg
 * Image:Kelantan.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Terengganu.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Pahang.jpg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Selangor state.svg
 * Image:Coat of arms of Negeri Sembilan.jpg
 * Image:Lambang Melaka 547x483px.png
 * Image:Coat of arms of Johor.jpg
 * Image:Coat of Arms of Sarawak.PNG
 * Image:Coat of arms of Sabah.jpg


 * Remove all except Selangor from this article. Image:Coat of arms of Selangor state.svg is on Commons. It has a dubious DB-self tag, but that doesn’t concern us here. The others are tagged non-free, and their use in the article is decorative with no pretense of critical commentary that would justify fair use. —teb728 t c 23:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to disagree that they are merely used for decorative purposes. In case one hasn't notice, all of them are used in respectable articles on the states, and 9 out of 13 of the images are used as visual references on individual articles pertaining to coats of arms:
 * Flag and coat of arms of Johor
 * Flag and coat of arms of Kedah
 * Flag and coat of arms of Kelantan
 * Coat of arms of Malacca
 * Flag and coat of arms of Negeri Sembilan
 * Flag and coat of arms of Pahang
 * Coat of arms of Penang
 * Flag and coat of arms of Perlis
 * Flag and coat of arms of Terengganu
 * Articles for the rest of the arms are in the works. - Two hundred percent (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. Is this merely regarding the removal of images from the offending gallery article? - Two hundred percent (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that was the original taggers intent, based on his note. A fair use rationale needs to be provided for each article in which these images is used. Lacking a WP:NFC-compliant FUR for a given article, the images are not supposed to be used there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And yes, that is what I meant by "Remove" in my post above. —teb728 t c 08:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed these images from the List of Malaysian coats of arms a week ago. —teb728 t c 21:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Airline liveries and logos
Most of these logos are not listed for fair use. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  05:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed all of the non-free logos from the article except for one I thought had a good case for use based on commentary in the article. —teb728 t c 22:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Robert Joseph Silveria, Jr.jpg
Image deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. A living person 2. Book cover not used on the article about the book (book is not even mentioned in the article). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the chance a free image of this individual appearing is vanishingly small, and there's always room for growth to mention the book in the article. -Nard 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Book covers can't be used in an article about a person, and since he's alive, a free photograph could theoretically be taken. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Superhero film
Images removed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The images I'm concerned with are File:ChristopherReeve Superman.jpg, File:Spiderman movie.jpg, and File:Krrish.jpg. For the first two images, the fair use rational seems very, very poor. They are "Purpose of use -- Illustration of an example within the article." Really, "Illustration of an example within the article". I just wanted to know if anyone thought that was an appropriate fair use rational. If not, does anyone think that these images actually improve the article in question, or are they simply decoration? If everyone thinks that the images do in fact help the article, perhaps we could brainstorm a better fair use rational (although I'm leaning towards thinking they aren't appropriate regardless the rational).-Andrew c [talk] 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Violates NFCC#3a for a start. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the rationale might need improvement, but their placement in the article fine. (Unless the first image could be replaced with an free content superhero film.) The spiderman one shows how superhero movies have improved over the years, so it should be there only if there's something in the text that warrants it. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt;
 * All 3 have now been removed. Obviously, before they could be reintroduced the rationales would need to be improved. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:IBT.jpg
Image deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the use of this image in Mariah Carey fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it adds much to MTV Unplugged +3 either. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it fails WP:NFCC on all uses. I have nominated it for deletion at WP:IFD —teb728 t c 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Henryk Gorecki 2nd symph 2nd Movement.ogg
This fair use sound file doesn't cite its source: we don't know which record label is the copyright holder, who directed this recording, who is playing and singing, etc. (It's not provided inside the ogg's meta-info either.) Surely just a matter of having the uploader fill in the blanks rather than a full violation. P.S.: this affects all three sound samples linked from Henryk Górecki. 62.147.39.185 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) P.P.S.: also the file is 51seconds (instead of 30) and 114kbps (instead of 64) so it should probably be reduced too. 62.147.39.185 (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:IDogLights.JPG
I originally deleted this as an orphaned fair-use image as this is considered a deriative work. Basically, is this a deriative work. As such, does this fall under fair-use rules and therefore come up for deletion as it is orphaned. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say this being a 3D object, the image is not a derivative (same as for example File:Pepsi bottle.JPG). But I admit I am absolutely not confident here. -- lucasbfr  talk 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, toys are legally considered statues in most cases, and thus is non-free. The Pepsi bottle is different because it has a utilitarian function (as a container). ViperSnake151 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Micra_k12c.jpg
Fair use, used in Nissan March. Freely licensed alternatives are available at commons:Category:Nissan Micra K12, such as this photo or this photo. Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. That image is easily replaceable with a free image. If I were you, I'd be bold and simply replace the image and tag the image page with rfu.-Andrew c [talk] 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:DanielWebster DartmouthCollegeCase.jpg
This image is used on Dartmouth College but it does not appear to be the subject of any commentary in itself; I'm a bit scratchy on NFCC these days so I'm unsure if this is sufficient or not. - Mark 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the used are needed for reader understanding. I proposed the image for deletion. —teb728 t c 05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Armedoffenderssquad.jpg
This is a photo from a news website, showing two officers in combat gear. Further down the article is a free photo of an identically dressed officer. The non-free photo is specifically referenced in the text but shows nothing special/unique to the event, just a photo of officers in gear for which there is already a free equivalent. Fails "No free equivalent" and "Significance" in my opinion. XLerate (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just though the article ( click here ) needed a couple more photos to make it a bit better and this shows the event of July 19 at the Alpha Apartments. Most photos of the Armed Offenders Squad you get nowadays show them in combat gear anyway. If you feel you want to take it off the site, that's fine. There really are no other photos that show anything 'special/unique' to this event, I just thought the article needed a bit more. Take it off if you want. --SamB135TalkContribs 04:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. —teb728 t c 04:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. --SamB135TalkContribs 06:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Georgepeterson.jpg
This appears to be a picture of a living person, but the image description page says "This photo is from the official Massachusetts legislature web site." So, is it fair use, PD, what? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it fails fair-use, living person according to the article. Images created by the Federal Government are in the public domain, but many states retain copyright (Copyright). The Massachusetts legislature website says copyright 2009, I see nothing on the site saying free use or anything similiar. XLerate (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it to be deleted as replaceable with a free image. —teb728 t c 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bernard_Madoff.jpg
I was asked for help on using a non-free image for the article Bernard Madoff, but I'm not an expert by any means. He became very famous on December 11, 2008 when he was arrested and alledgedly confessed to a $50 Billion securities fraud. All the news wires have photos on him but they appear to be copyrighted. No freely licensed photos of him appear to be available except an extremely fuzzy flicker photo which is now being used File:Madoff Leaving Courthouse.png.

Any advise or required deletion appreciated, non-required deletion of course would not be appreciated, i.e. "Help!" Smallbones (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, a non-free image wouldn't comply with the non-free policy, because it's clearly possible to obtain a free alternative. Hopefully, a higher quality image will become available. PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely not usable. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems
The use of non-free logos and emblems in this article appears to be excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I don't know what to do. With an article with that sort of scope, could it work without the images? Should the article be deleted because it is by definition an article intended for a gallery of non-free images (something generally forbidden).-Andrew c [talk] 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After a bit of thought, I decided to take this to AfD, see Articles for deletion/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems . If we removed all the images, what would be left? Where is the notability and independent sourcing?-Andrew c [talk] 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

image:UAlbany_seal_lowres.png
I submitted this image and created a Fair use rationale for it but it has been removed from the article by someone apparently employed by the copyright holder. I put the image back and wrote a new fair use rationale to respond to the complaint, but I would like to know that I'm not the only one who thinks that this is fair use. DoC352 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to use under fair use. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Herald.jpg
Image is a magazine cover that shows the drawing of a person in camouflage gear while abseiling. Fair use is claimed for Allegations of state terrorism committed by Pakistan. It is unclear how the image relates to the article. It's certainly not iconic or even well-known, and there is no recognizable connection to state-sponsored terrorism. The very short article behind the image,, talks about a militant training camp that had been shut after 9/11, but may now be reopening. There is no critical commentary on the image or the journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: image has been listed at PUI as well.-Andrew c [talk] 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The PUI has been replaced by an FFD —teb728 t c 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have just speedied it. --Carnildo (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but it's been here for a while, and at least one admin feels it has a valid fair-use rationale. So I thought it better to demonstrate community consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this image does not qualify for use and violates the Wikipedia's five pillars. According, to the ForeignPolicy.com's terms of use the content cannot be reproduced without prior permission and has exclusive copyrights.


 * Qoute from ForeignPolicy.com disclaimer:


 * "FOREIGN POLICY, ForeignPolicy.com, and all the text and images contained in each as well as other FP products are protected by United States and international copyright and trademark laws, and are the sole property of the Slate Group, except as otherwise noted. All copyrights and trademarks used or contained in the Site or FP and the Slate Group products and not owned by the Slate Group are the sole property of their respective owners. Usage of ForeignPolicy.com shall in no way authorize, grant, or imply a license to reuse or republish in any format for any purpose anywhere in the world content, images, or other copyrighted or trademarked material found on ForeignPolicy.com or in any of its products. No part of FOREIGN POLICY, ForeignPolicy.com, or its products may be reproduced in any format anywhere in the world without express written permission from FOREIGN POLICY or its publisher."


 * Further more, the rationale provided along with the image is purely speculative and based on personal opinion not in accordance to Wikipedia NPOV policy.


 * Dawn.com the parent company of Herald also prohibits use of any material without prior permission


 * Quote from REPRODUCTION AND COPYRIGHTS:


 * "Copyright © 2008 Pakistan Herald Publication (Pvt) Limited. All rights reserved. The reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or republication of any material from http://www.dawn.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of DAWN. You may print out a copy of an article for your personal, noncommercial use."


 * Therefore, this image qualifies for immediate deletion. Faraz (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That misses the point a bit. No-one argues that the image is free. Scary claims by the publisher(s) are hence irrelevant. The (wrong, in my opinion) claim is that the image can be used under a fair use exemption. The argument for deletion should be made at FFD, but that's essentially automatic if no valid use of the image under fair use exists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree. I would like to add that the image in question is not related to the subject/article that it is displayed upon. As I previously mentioned the rationale is based on personal opinion and purely speculative. Faraz (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Spotlight richard-darbonne.jpg
I don't think this image is really CC licensed. Should be deleted. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it npd —teb728 t c 08:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has removed that tag, and added a non-free license. I have since removed the CC license and tagged it has having no rationale (though now I think I should have tagged it as non-free replaceable). This image appears to be of a living person, and therefore fails WP:NFCC #1.-Andrew c [talk] 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; I added an rfu tag. —teb728 t c 19:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Just a Minute.jpg
Image is listed for fair use as "Identification of the radio programme Just a Minute. As the article is about a radio show, it is hard to find other images.". There is now GDFL licensed image of the show being recorded on Wikimedia Commons. I think the CD cover should be removed from Wikipedia as it is no longer needed to illustrate Just a Minute. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, by PhilKnight. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:China H-bomb 1967.jpg in Teller–Ulam design
In the Teller–Ulam design article, there are other images showing mushroom clouds, so in my humble opinion, the use of File:China H-bomb 1967.jpg doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%.  howcheng  {chat} 04:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Horikita_Maki_04_small.jpg
As an image of a living person, I believe that a free equivalent could potentially surface in the future. As such, this image could be replaced. --Remy Suen (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and tagged it as replaceable non-free use. Thank you for pointing this out. —teb728 t c 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:U1302291INP.jpg
Hi: This 480-pixel tall portrait is a signed, copyrighted work that's clearly from the Corbis archive. Corbis is in the business of selling images, so the "fair use" claim is weak.. this is potentially a copyright violation. I do not think it can be acceptably used on Wikipedia to illustrate an article about a person. Otherwise, the Corbis archive is just being used to "harvest" portraits so Wikipedians don't have to bother locating free works. (For example, there may be a photo of this celebrity created by a U.S. government employee.) If someone would like to make the claim that 480 pixels tall (the height of a classic VGA monitor) is "low-resolution", can anyone point me to the Wikipedia page recommending a threshold for what constitutes low resolution? Thanks! Blackplate (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this as it is a Corbis image. There is past precedent of deleting Corbis/Getty and other stock photography images on sight because these companies are in the business of selling images. Fails NFCC#2. I believe some of these stock photography companies have sent bills to webmasters if they find their images in use.-Andrew c [talk] 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Blackplate (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Davessetup1.gif
The image was tagged with, but the image says "Copyright". I've commented out the "public domain" template on the image page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine speedy deleting it as a copy violation. At the very least, we could tag it with npd as the image lacks permission from paparoach.com -Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of scope; this page is for images which are tagged as non-free but may not meet our non-free content criteria. Images tagged as free which are believed to be non-free should be listed at [[WP:PUF.
 * As for this particular image, I've speedied it as a copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Dolguldur2.gif
Despite the template, this is not a poster, nor a low-resolution image, and I don't think it counts as fair use. &mdash; Itai (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedied per F7 (non-free tag which is completely unrelated to the actual image). Stifle (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball cards in 1950s Topps
1950s Topps is an article about cards made by the Topps company in the 1950s. Currently it has one (non-free) card image for each year, shown in the list together with the size and the number of cards released that year. I think there should only be one example card at the top of the article. I added a card at the top, but did not remove the images from the list yet. Comments? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had considered not using any baseball card images since I provided the reader and external link to a gallery of images. Instead of any one card image I thought that the company logo from that era would be best. Libro0 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a logo of the company makes no sense when you are talking about the product they are producing. It would be like having an article about a Boeing 737 and instead of photos of airplanes you just have the Boeing logo. It is a bad idea. Most other articles that show a company's products show images of the company's product. You would expect that in an article about the company's products! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They vary fairly widely in style and approach (photos vs. drawings, portraits vs. action shots, etc.) and I think complement the article. It makes it clear that baseball cards and the like have their own fashion or style and evolve over the years. Especially if you can see and compare them in an even broader time context. Wiggy! (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we keep time card images, but also put the 1950:s Topps logo at the top. The logo is good especially if the article grows to cover everything about Topps in the 1950:s. I'm not sure if the use of so many non-free images is ok, but it's not obviously wrong either. Maybe some image-deletionist will come along and tag them all for deletion, but that's a later problem. I suggest that we either keep the images small like now, how put them horizontally over or under the list. Two questions: 1) Are the images we have good representatives for each year? 2) Can somebody find the 1950:s logo? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If the images are kept in the table they need to be small. I have also tried but failed to make a nice row of the images horizontally below the table. I have also tried a montage image but those were deleted. I think that the best representative images are ones that are the 'most basic' form. By that I mean not an all-star card, manager, checklist, or other subset card. As for the logo, I have a 1950s version of it. My only question is, what does this do for the external link, which is very representative of each era? Libro0 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the external link, I say. it looks good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To Wiggy: You make a good point. I stated some concerns here however. But also my concern was about getting carried away with the images. Where do we draw the line? The points you bring up are ideas covered in the sources that I have, except that the subject is treated in text. I was hoping these articles could reach GA or even A status despite a Low importance. Which states 'Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting'. I wasn't sure if a list/gallery article could accomplish that. Libro0 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The extra cards should be removed as failing WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Roni browers.JPG
I'm not sure the rationale is valid here. It's true that she has died, but is the image for anything other than decorative use? Corvus cornix talk  02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were in the infobox (which the article lacks), I wouldn't blink. The fact that the daugther is mentioned in the article adds to the utility of the image, somewhat. I think specifying that the purpose is to identify the subject would work, until a new image comes along, if it does - and there'd have to be a better one somewhere. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original uploader and I have expanded the rationale to specify that the image is used to identify the subject. Please doublecheck the new rationale, but I'm hopeful that it works. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Image:Ramones album cover.jpg in Punk rock
An archived discussion in this forum considered the use of Image:Ramones album cover.jpg in Punk rock and determined that its use in that article was not in accord with WP:NFCC. Now an editor insists here on using the cover in the article, saying “Text of article has changed and image--including proper rationale--is now clearly within parameters of WP:NFCC.” I find no change in the article that justifies the use of the cover. The article mentions the cover saying, “The cover of the Ramones' 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk.” But this statement is understandable without actually showing the cover—as is illustrated by the fact that the cover is placed in the article two sections above the text. Furthermore, the same text was in the article at the time of the previous decision.

Should we reconsider the previous decision? If not what can be done to make the removal stick? —teb728 t c 08:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. I've removed the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, this is one of the more confounding arguments for an image deletion I've ever seen. The idea that the quoted statement "The cover of the Ramones' 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk" somehow does not require the support of the image itself makes little sense. How are readers to understand what this highly significant image looked like without..yes...the image? How are they to fully grasp the "basic elements of a style"--a visual style--without the visual illustration of that style? In only the most minimal sense is the sentence "understandable" without visual support--it's a grammatically sound, coherent sentence, but to eliminate the image is to eliminate the majority of the encyclopedic information that is conveyed by the combination of text and illustration.


 * The positioning of the image at the beginning of the section (please, editors, learn the difference, the meaningful difference, between a section and a subsection) instead of immediately next to the quoted text hardly "illustrate[s]" that it is not an important element of the article--rather it increases the image's utility, per the language and spirit of our NFC policy. Not only does the image now support and explain the quoted statement, its placement near the article's beginning also supports the entire article content, which in broad terms describes the progression of punk rock from New York City--and the Ramones, in particular, and this album, most particularly--to London and around the world. If an image can do more than one productive thing in an article, we are obliged to place it so it can do so.


 * Not only is the old discussion outdated, I see it was ill-advertised (if at all) and did not include the views of a single one of the several editors who have contributed extensively to the article, bringing it to Featured Article status, nor the views of any readers who seem particularly conversant in the subject matter and could address the question of the image's significance within the context of this specific article.DocKino (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * NFCC requires more than critical commentary on the image: By WP:NFCC “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.” If the the cover appeared opposite the commentary it would slightly increase readers’ understanding. But its omission is not detrimental to that understanding, for it is effectively omitted now, being more than a full screen away from the commentary. If readers want to see the cover, they have to go to another screen; if the article provided them with a link, they could as well see the cover at Ramones (album).
 * There is no critical commentary at the place where the image appears; its use there is basically decorative. Whatever you may say about its significance to the later commentary, NFCC doesn’t permit it being where it is.
 * I can’t figure out what you mean about the old discussion being “outdated.” Nothing has changed since then: The cover is in the same place, and the commentary has not changed. (Well, maybe the cover is a little further now from the commentary.) —teb728 t c 08:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with DocKino that this is a legitimate use. As he points out you can't properly understand what something looks like, unless you can see it. Words alone are always liable to create a misleading impression otherwise. I don't see any need for the image to be next to the words referring to it. Placed where it is at the start of the section, it is hardly going to be overlooked and gains a significance which prepares the reader for the subsequent explanation. This is an example of the "historically important photographs and significant modern artworks" that the Foundation indicated fair use would be necessary for. I am surprised the article doesn't also include the iconic Image:Never Mind the Bollocks.jpg, which had massive impact. The fact it is not in the Sex Pistols article either is a failure to meet the highest standard of providing necessary information, without which wikipedia cannot attain the primacy which is its potential. Those over-keen to oppose fair use should consider this aspect seriously.  Ty  08:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Otto Felix Kanitz.jpg
Hi, I urgently felt the desire to improve on this article, today, and did my best to fill out the rationale for this probably best photograph of this person which can be found on the internet. I'd however want to
 * 1) have feedback whether this is a valuable "Fair-Use" (if I-for-myself would not have been convinced, I would not have taken the effort of down- and upload thisone, but I'd like to have more than my opinion on this, for possibly more similar cases).
 * 2) (off-topic, but I'm sure that there are a few native en-speakers&writers around ;): Please could someone a) "proofread" my edits in the article and pics and mainly please b) tell or show me how I'd have to apply for similar, in future cases. I think I saw some template for such, a while ago, but I do not find it again. Thanks, Wolfgang (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Another off-topic, which might be "supervised" by someone who is "around" here, and is more competent: In Wilhelm Jerusalem I recently improved on a link, to "Max Winter" which is not at all the person in question. How to deal with such? I created an (up-to-now-empty) en-lemma with brackets, but really feel uncertain whether this was the best way to procede. Please address me on the article's talk page, on my talk page (preferably the COM-one) or per mail on this issue. For sure, en:Max Winter and de:Max Winter are not same persons. And that wrong link happens more than once on enWP. Wolfgang (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Alabama Governor Benjamin Miller
This is a link to a photo of a portait of Governor Benjamin Meek Miller, who was Alabama Governor in the early 1930s. He was a public figure and I could not find any copyright notice anywhere on this web site. There is an article on him in Wikipedia without a picture. Is there any way this picture can be uploaded and used?

http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/g_miller.html

Springfieldohio (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the original work didn't have a copyright attached to it, according to US Law, the image is public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When I upload it, which tag do I insert to justify it?

Springfieldohio (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:PD-Pre1978 User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The portrait is now uploaded and posted in the article on Governor Miller.

Springfieldohio (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoffa faces McClellan Comte 1957.jpg
It seems to me that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoffa_faces_McClellan_Comte_1957.jpg is being used here in a way which conflicts with the policy that "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." In this article, the image itself is not being discussed, just the event it depicts.
 * But historical archive press photos are acceptable. Wikipedia's "Unacceptable Non-Free Image" guideline makes this clear (see #6 in the list): "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." (emphasis mine) - Tim1965 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So in that case, change the tag to say so. At the moment the tag itself says that "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts", which is clearly not the case here. MJD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.246.35 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't change this tag template. Tag templates are determined by Wikipedia legal teams and contributor consensus. They also are not supposed to be utterly determinative of all Wikipedia policy. If there were a more appropriate non-free-media license to use, I'd use it. I'm not aware of one, however. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mozart,_K._448,_Allegro_con_spirito.ogg
The sample, used on the Steinway & Sons page, appears to be the entire first movement of K448, running to some 8 mins 31 secs, which would appear to violate the guidance here. Alexrexpvt (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On top of that, there is NO reason for us to be using non-free content here. It fails NFCC #1. It is entirely plausible that someone could create a recording on a Steinway piano and publish it themselves under a free license (or, as is the case with one of the sound clips, be old enough to be in the PD). If free content which illustrates the topic can plausibly be created or obtained, then we cannot use non-free content in lieu. -Andrew c [talk] 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominated for FFD Stifle (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Joe DiMaggio.jpg
While the use of this image for is probably appropriate (though one wonders if there isn't a copyright free archive with old baseball player photos), the use in  is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC. There is no discussion of the image itself, nor does the image provide any encyclopedic information.

Also, the "source" is just a hyperlink to an Encarta image; no information on who made/owns the image or its copyright status. --Mosmof (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not wondering whether the image even meets WP:NFCC, considering the infobox image can be easily be replaced by a free license photo from Commons. --Mosmof (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. I tagged it with rfu. —teb728 t c 23:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg
This image, despite being under copyright, is being used all over the place, and I wonder if having it in nine separate articles is within the spirit of our non-free content policy.

I cannot argue with its inclusion in Guernica (painting), of course, nor in Pablo Picasso, as it is perhaps his seminal work. What concerns me are the other seven. Two days ago, it appeared in eleven articles but had FURs for only four. I removed the image from the other seven articles; five have since been restored with rationales. However, these new rationales are largely copied from the previous ones, and thus may not apply. In particular, the rationale for use in the article Spain says "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s)," but it doesn't really, and there are plenty of free images of Spain available.

I would like a review of this image's use in Wikipedia and whether the claimed fair uses are appropriate.

-- Powers T 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I do agree that Guernica is used more often than usual and more often than other works of art; I disagree that it appears in inappropriate places - it isn't being used in any inessential or trivial articles.

Guernica is an essential and pivotal work of mid-20th century art; it graphically depicts and represents both history and the history of art. The painting is one of the most important paintings by one of the most important painters of the 20th century. It conveys powerful and historical information beyond the ordinary information conveyed by a work of visual art. It has become a symbol of Spanish heritage and culture; as well as a symbol of Western art and culture.

It was a politically charged message against Fascism at a crucial moment in history. Consequently it appears in a few important and historical articles including Spain, Spanish art and The Spanish Civil War. It appears in Guernica (painting), Pablo Picasso, the History of painting, (the history of) Western painting, as well it should and in Goya's The Third of May 1808 (FA) and in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) the place that exhibited the painting in the first place in 1937.

This is a crucible of Modernist art, and while it probably should not appear in any other articles beyond where it is now, I don't think the painting is overextended. Modernist (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is potentially valid in those articles, but this depends on the text in the article. Where there is no text about it, but just the image and caption, as in for example Spain and Spanish Civil War it isn't justified. In fact there should be text about it in the articles, as it played a significant role and had an international repercussion.  Ty  01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with Ty that the text in Spain probably doesn't justify its inclusion there; the caption in Spanish Civil War which reads - was painted as a representation of the bombing of Guernica, serves as a link to the article on the bombing. The image appears as a thumb in the section Atrocities during the war - seems apropos...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as justified in its current use in that article. There's hardly anything on the bombing itself.  Ty  01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is more on it below in the "The war: 1937" section, to which the image should be moved (the article is hugely under-illustrated, but has two pictures left & right together). I'll do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Powers point about the Fair Use Rationales is valid several can be reworded better, I'll change them. Most seem fine to me...Modernist (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the wording wasn't the best in some of the rationales, but it can be difficult to understand what rationales are acceptable and what some of the wording that seems to be acceptable actually means. In the article Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) where the painting was first shown, there is definitely wording in the article that specifically refers to the painting, and it is a central part of the article (and Exhibition) with a parallel to the artistic (and soon to be real) conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia at the Exhibition.  With the central themes of the exhibit (and article) best illustrated by artwork produced by 3 states which later collapsed it is impossible to illustrate the article without using some of this work.  If Fair Use doesn't apply here, where does it?  But how does all that fit into our pre-packaged rationale boxes?  Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B.: The two articles that currently have not had the image restored are Biscay and Around the World in 80 Treasures. Powers T 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. They weren't restored because they weren't essential or necessary IMHO. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter what the reason was; I just thought it important to mention for the historical record. =)  Powers T 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guernica painting can only be used where it is required. In most places, it's not, because we have an entire article about the painting itself, and most uses can be satisfied with just a link to the article. This image is definitely used in far far far far far too many locations. 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from two more articles, where there is scant mention of it. In other articles there is justification. This is an iconic image, world renowned and occupies a key place in relevant articles, where there is specific text relating to it.  Ty  18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thoughts:
 * The painting should not appear in more than one of these: Western painting, History_of_painting, Art. Using it in all three ignores the "minimal use" principle. Just because a painting is well known cannot justify using it in every overview article.
 * The use in Spain is not necessary; a link could be used equally well, since the actual appearance of the painting does not convey information about Spain.
 * The use in The Third of May 1808 is not necessary; the mention of Guernica there is fleeting and a link is sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose. This one seems like a clear example of using an image because the name of the painting was mentioned, when a link would do.
 * &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are more than enough artistic masterpieces in the world to make possible a more diverse and thus more informative selection of images for the three overview articles. Guernica appearing in one is sufficient.
 * Agreed. There should really be no need for any fair-use images to appear in any country article. While Guernica does convey significant information about the arts in Spain (a topical section of the country article), so would one of an endless number of free images.
 * Disagree. The relationship between The Third of May 1808 and Guernica is a very significant one, and the latter's appearance in the featured article on the former adds substantially to the reader's understanding.—DCGeist (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree the image isn't needed for the Spain article. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Third of May article has the strongest case. I was giving more weight to the freestanding Guernica article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to be in an 1RR/month revert war in the Spain article over this image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The image available here is too low resolution for use in college-level art-history classes; is constantly reverting to the lowest-available resolution really the best thing to do here? With the amount of stuff going on in the image plus the hidden images, it's barely high enough resolution to make out the obvious and do we really expect to impact the sale of the original painting by including anything of greater than VGA resolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.143.183 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of hosting the image here is to increase reader's understanding of one or more Wikipedia articles and not for use in college-level art-history classes. —teb728 t c 07:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this use, File:GuernicaGernikara.jpg, constitute copyright free use of image? would this be a better version for some articles? 76.252.222.251 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I challenge here the concept of "non free image". Guernica was donated by Picasso himself to the people of Spain should the country become a democratic one again. That is clearly sourced, search the references in the painting's article. I wonder WHO and WHY uploaded this low-res reproduction as a copyrighted material. Normally all contemporary art is copyrighted, because authors have not died more than 100 years ago, but this is not the case as property of the painting was explicitly transferred to the Spanish sovereign government (that is "the one who commisioned the work"). I wonder again... do you think that the Spanish government is REALLY going to sue Wikipedia for this? Do you understand the meaning of the painting for Spain? Do you understand anything of this? David (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When I introduced the Guernica painting into the Spain article's introduction to the country's history it was for the same reasons that I placed the 2nd of May and galleon images - as these were aesthetically pleasing images that were also historically related to the period being introduced. Because the section is just an introduction to Spain's history the aesthetic quality of its presentation is every bit as important as the historical connection in deciding which images to employ. In this regard, the interesting (from a scholarly point of view) images of the Polish International Brigade volunteers and Franco's head, fail to pass muster. On the other hand, Picasso's "Guernica" is an internationally recognised icon of both Spain and that troubled time (as was surely Picasso's intention!), and given its highest of aesthetic values, its use in the Spain article is legitimate (given Picasso's intentions), and provided that the legal obstacles can be overcome, which I believe (naively) they can be in this instance. Provocateur (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed as no action. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:SenatorJamesRhoadesPortrait.jpg
This is a promotional portrait of a recently deceased Pennsylvania State Senator. As such, I believe that it qualifies under the NFCC. I would like this reviewed now, just to head off any future challenges ot its validity in the future. Thanks!--HoboJones (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Official senate portraits should be public domain as a work of the government. Check the pictures of other senators for examples. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not PD. This is a picture of a Pennsylvania State Senator, not a United States Senator from Pennsylvania.  That means it's a work of the state government, or possibly an individual.  Only federal works are PD.  I would rather not use a fair use image here, as it should still be possible to request an existing one be freed. Superm401 - Talk 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a publicity photo of a politician, so there was already an expectation that the photo would receive widespread distribution. I checked for a free alternative for this person on flickr and cc search, but found nothing. The realistic chances of finding someone with a pre-existing photo (remember, he is deceased) that is willing to release it in GFDL are slim. He was a State Senator from Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania--so there's not the kind of media and public attention that one would expect to follow a Congressman or even a more prominent State Senator. Herculean efforts to find a free photo are not required by the law or wikipedia policy. --HoboJones (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since he is deceased, the photo is not presumed replaceable, so it now falls to those wishing to remove the picture to rebut that. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed as no action. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Too_Beautiful_to_Live-Podcast_Logo.JPG‎
This is clearly not simply a logo. It is an image which includes a logo overlay. This file really either needs to be cropped so that only the logo is included or the entire image deleted.Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there may be a better non-free tag than non-free logo. —teb728 t c 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what would be a better one? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as the “Other information” field of the rationale suggests, the image may be more like cover art than a logo. (Of course a podcast doesn’t have a “cover.”) I can’t tell whether the image belongs to the program or to iTunes. If the former, it could reasonably be used for identification, and the question of exactly what tag is really a technicality. —teb728 t c 04:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per iTunes TOS, podcasters retain ownership of their work which, presumably, includes both the graphics they upload as well as the audio. I think it's fair to assume the image is property of the program and is in violation. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are right that the image is the property of the program, then its use for identification in an article about the program would conform to both fair use law and Wikipedia's non-free content policy—just as DVD cover art can be used for identification on an article about the DVD. —teb728 t c 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed as no action. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bokassa.jpg and File:Boganda.jpg in Central African Republic
I've already removed them, but see. Both these photos are of deceased individuals, but they both have their own articles and are not necessary for understanding in this particular article. File:Bokassa.jpg was also being used in Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état in a purely decorative role, as [htt p://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint-Sylvestre_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=277459324 seen in this version] before I removed it.  howcheng  {chat} 04:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clueing others in to where you were discussing this! I disagree Howcheng's assessment, most especially that of the image of Barthélemy Boganda, the "founding father" of the nation, and an iconic figure in the history of Africa of whom Central Africans are justly very proud. He's been dead since 1959, was politically active only after 1923, and so will be impossible to find a free image of.  That his image here is "decorative", especially in a section which discusses him in detail, I something with which I disagree.  Even if I am wrong, this is surely a point of debate which should be raised on the talk pages of the articles before the removal, not done unilaterally and -- when called on it -- dismissed with acronym usage.
 * I also note the sudden upsurge in previously uninterested editors after I called this user on this edit, followed by his immediate reversion. May I suggest that however the community decides on this case, a more politic strategy might be taken in the future? T L Miles (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing as no action since the images have already been removed from the subject articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Firebug_extension_screenshot.png
Contains the Firefox logo. I think the template has been misinterpreted; Wikipedia indeed does have a license to use the logo (it is low resolution), but it fails Wikipedia non-free policy. A suitable replacement exists (the IceCat logo), as explained in commons:Commons:Screenshots. Hence the screenshot is non-free and should be either deleted or something done to remove the Firefox logo. I think. This whole Firefox logo issue is a mess. Please enlighten me :) --SLi (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, actually now that I look closely, are those Windows widgets/decorations/whatever they are called in the Windows world (title bar, close button etc.)? --SLi (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever the status of the Firefox logo, the Wikipedia logo is non-free, and its presence makes the image a replaceable non-free image. —teb728 t c 08:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While that makes this particular image non-free, I'd also appreciate a clarification (if there is some consensus in en-wikipedia) on whether I should hunt for and tag screenshots that have Windows UI elements or the Firefox logo. For a more detailed view, along with a reference to discussion in commons, please see Template talk:Non-free software screenshot. And if that's a wrong place for the discussion, feel free to direct it to a proper place. --SLi (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed with no action with a parting shot that the incidental inclusion doctrine may make this all moot. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Pius Ncube.jpg
Fair use for photograph of living person (former archbishop of Bulawayo). The fair use rationale states under replaceable that "no, he's dead" but actually he's still alive (see Pius Ncube). 78.32.103.197 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as replaceable. —teb728 t c 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AmitabhAnand.jpg
The image is being used in a biography of a alive person and the image is replaceable (Fails WP:NFC). 09:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The image should be deleted as replaceable. This is an easy one. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We cannot find any free images from these times. This image does fulfill however WP:NFCC by increasing the understanding of the subject. You tagged an image as being possibly unfree when no one said it was free. There's a fair use rationale. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I proposed it at WP:FFD. Unlike this forum, that will get a conclusion. —teb728 t c 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Amitabh and Rekha in Silsila.jpg
The image is being used in a biography of an alive person and the image is replaceable (Fails WP:NFC). 09:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as above, I agree. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We cannot find any free images from these times. This image does fulfill however WP:NFCC by increasing the understanding of the subject. You tagged an image as being possibly unfree when no one said it was free. There's a fair use rationale. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise FFD'd. —teb728 t c 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Geeta.jpg
Unsure if this falls into free content or not. The picture is taken from a site listed as copyrighted 2009; however, the person that uploaded it has indicated, "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Attribution: ICRW". If I am reading the use of this image incorrectly as not being free content please forgive my ignorance and close this issue. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged with di-no permission —teb728 t c 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Carminebuffy.jpg
Usage in Carmine Giovinazzo is for how he looked in the Buffy pilot Welcome to the Hellmouth. It wouldn't be appropriate at Welcome to the Hellmouth to show the first victim and it seems decorative at the Giovinazzo article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it rfu —teb728 t c 06:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

MSN-02 Zeong
This page has two fair-use issues. The first is with File:MSN-02.PNG and File:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg, which both illustrate the same thing, one without legs and one with. The caption for the latter is even "Never seen in the original series, this is the complete form of the Zeong." The second is sourced to "Permission given at MAHQ. Image copyright Sotsu Agency/Sunrise and Bandai Entertainment, Inc. ©1979-2007)" but is pretty clearly a scan from a book or publication of some sort. It's been speedied by two admins (myself one of them) in years past, but has been pretty determined to reupload it every time it's deleted. This seems to me to be a clear NFCC #3a violation, with the second image also failing NFCC #8 (as a design only appearing in a couple of ancilliary works).

The other issue is with File:Gundambattleroyale.png. It's a cover of a game being used in an article that has no significant commentary on that game, as an example of licensed work that uses that character design. I think this one fails NFCC #8.


 * Once again we find ourselves at a content dispute, except now every image is on the chopping block. I can't help but thinking every argument we've had over this article has been said before multiple times, but here we go again:


 * NFCC#3a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.


 * Satisfied - it's a different instance whose notability has been demonstrated and contributes significantly to the quality of the article. I can't imagine how there's any sourcing problems whatsoever, but if it would satisfy the powers that be I could procure an image from the official English-language Gundam website and change the copyright attribution accordingly. If that's also inadequate, I own an artbook which I could personally scan and crop to meet size restrictions and attribute the Japanese publisher. I believe that NFCC#3a is not a secret code for "one image" as previous comments seem to have suggested.


 * NFCC#8. 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.


 * Satisfied - The appearance of the article's subject in question is precipitously changed in the version that A Man In Black suggests is superfluous to the extent that I and other WP:Gundam members believe should qualify for inclusion in the project. This disagreement has not been settled since A Man In Black and I edit warred over the article in 2007 and I imagine is only coming up now due to the Arbitration thing going on.


 * The usage of the cover image of Gundam Battle Royale is used to underscore the notability of the thing described in the second instance and to give the article a greater range of coverage. I understand that fair-use images must make individual claims of use on different articles, so removing the image from the Zeong page might not be out of the question - it could be replaced by a textual reference to the Gundam Battle article and a reader would then be able to see the image accordingly.


 * If I'm reading correctly, the image itself is being accused of failing significance to the Gundam Battle article as well. I believe this to be patently false as it is an article that deals with multiple items (e.g. three, or now apparently four, different PSP video games) which are depressingly short at the moment. I believe a merge was undertaken as each game would only have a stub article on its own; in this regard the article itself isn't considered a stub, though the sections in it are or should be. Regardless of which, it is my understanding that it is both common practice and considered good form in the case of media, e.g. a movie, video game, television program, etc, to have a title image in its infobox (WP:Video Games seems to agree), which would be fair use in any imagination as a title image, cover scan, etc, would invariably be the intellectual property of the publisher and I highly doubt any sort of free license could ever be procured.


 * I'm not really sure how else to go about defending what, to me, seems like a perfectly valid usage of our NFCC policies aside from pointing fingers about the ongoing Arbitration thing, but I do what I can. MalikCarr (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two images illustrating the same thing. That's the most basic example of what NFCC #3a is meant to prevent. The NFCC #8 point is secondary.
 * As for the game cover, it's fine in the game's article. If you're fine with dropping it from the Zeong article, there's no dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same thing by your judgment, friend. MalikCarr (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, currently the only people who have offered their judgement are you and me, hence the post on a general noticeboard. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that there is a dispute over whether these files should be deleted. This is not a forum that will get a decision. (See the discussion on Guenrnica, which has gone nowhere in almost a year.) I recommend taking it to WP:FFD. That will get a keep/delete decision in about a week, and a file is deleted and re-uploaded, it is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. —teb728 t c 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg
Dubious claims of "fair use" and other reasons given for uploading this non-free copyright-protected property in the "fair use rationale"; please see editing history for links to further comments and debate (not going anywhere) in Talk:Harold Pinter. An administrator removed the template that I bot asked me to add; originally I posted a "puic" notice. --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is clearly visible via the source citation(s) directing to the official website of the subject. It is from the personal archive of the subject, now held in The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library and I do not see how claims of "fair use" pertain; the estate of Harold Pinter is the copyright holder (as Harold Pinter died on 24 Dec. 2008); his agent consults his widow for permission to use material protected by Harold Pinter's copyrights for all material held in that Archive, including all his photographs (this one included) in his photograph albums and scrapbooks in the Archive. British Library notices make that very clear.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is not "unique" as stated in the fair use rationale; it comes from a section of Pinter's official website linking to a number of other photographs of him from the same 5 year period, in which one can easily see what he "looked like" at the time. It is used here as an embellishment in Harold Pinter; it is not a necessity as the fair use rationale states.  One can see many photographs of what HP looked like in the 1950s by clicking on his official website listed in his infobox and by clicking on the source citation links right in the section where this photograph has been placed.  It is taken from his official website to adorn this section; but it is not necessary to do so.  It appears a gratuitous illustration to me and not within fair use. --NYScholar (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This file is not replaceable as the subject is deceased. It illustrates Pinter as an actor in the early part of his career. It is of a low resolution and so does not impinge on the creator's ability to use it for commercial purposes.It clearly illustrates his appearance at the commencement of of his career and should by regarded as fair use under US copyright law. [posted by Jezhotwells]

[left]The image is a posed photo of Pinter from the 1950s. It accompanies the section of the Harold Pinter article that discusses his acting career at the time the photo was taken. It is one of only two photos of Pinter in the entire article (and one of only three images in this lengthy article), and there do not appear to be any free images of Pinter available. As another editor noted at Talk:Harold Pinter:
 * "The criteria for 'free use' would make the image a no-no whilst the subject was still alive. However, now Mr Pinter is deceased, a claim of 'WP:fair use' is germane within the article - as no free equivalent image is available. Should the estate wish to make a 'free use' image available, then we should be very grateful. The issue of copyright is not germane, as this article is for the purposes of scholarship or review; the image is a low-resolution copy of an art work, and does not seriously detract from the rights of the copyright holder to exploit the original work's commercial value. As an administator - and a resident of Hackney - I would wish to respect the family's wishes, and if an alternate image is indicated, or provided I would support it's use. I hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)"

-- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no issue as to whether this image is copyrighted: the copyright was acknowledged from the initial upload. And no license was ever claimed for the use; rather it is used without permission, as U.S. fair use law permits, and the use clearly conforms with that law. It is less clear, however, whether the use conforms with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. In particular the use may not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article, as is required by WP:NFCC. The admin was absolutely correct to decline your speedy deletion request, for the image does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. As he pointed out on the image talk page, if you wants to pursue the issue further, you should bring it to WP:FFD. If you do so, however, do not belabor the uncontested fact that the image is copyrighted and unlicensed; doing so would only detract from any legitimate points you might make. —teb728 t c 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:William Irvine Book Cover.JPG
I'm not sure exactly what's going on here but it looks like a legitimate fair use of an image, but its inclusion in the article where the uploaded intended for it to be used is contested resulting in an editing dispute. Rather than delete it pending the outcome of the editing dispute, or remove the deletion tag entirely, I thought it best to list it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A non-free file may not be hosted on Wikipedia unless it is used in at least one article. And for each article it must have a non-free use rationale naming the article and explaining why the use conforms with Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content policy. In particular, the rationale must explain why the use significantly increases readers’ understanding of the article and why it could not be replaced (with, for example, plain text stating that the website uses the word “founder”).
 * Sorry, but this file is not used in any article. It has no non-free use rationale for any article. No valid fair use rationale is possible since the image could be replaced by plain text describing the relevant content. Since (as the uploader says on the talk page) this file is never going to be used in an article, it may not be hosted on Wikipedia. For the purpose of the content dispute, disputants could simply link to the source page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:MerkelMax.jpg
I know this may seem a bit odd, my bringing these here, since I wrote their FUR. I encountered both of them working at the copyright problem board and believed that since the subjects were dead a fair use could be made. I based my FUR on Image:Paul Hill.jpg. Since that image had been around a while, I presumed it was properly done. Now, however, one that I questioned at has been nominated for IfD, and a responder there indicates of that image (a similar situation, with same rationale): **Allow me to point you to which discusses the famous JonBenet Ramsey photo which was widely distributed, mainly this quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press: If that's correct, then these aren't fair use, either. Since that contributor is an admin at commons, I don't doubt he knows quite a lot more about fair use allowances than I do. :) Other than these, the vast majority of my image experience has been with album covers, which are relatively uncomplicated. Most others issues I've broached at MCQ. I bring them here for review, because it seems a bit odd for me to write a FUR for them and then delete them because of an inadequate FUR. I am also going to separately list one that I uploaded myself, because I suspect is may have a stronger claim to presence than these, though I don't know that for sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:ADM Mike Hudson, RAN.jpg
 * The fair use arguments for ignoring ZUMA's [the copyright holder of the JonBenet photo] assertion of rights to control the image are very weak. Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news.
 * Our usage of this is not even close to fair use by U.S. standards at all.  howcheng  {chat} 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)}}
 * Check out Fair use. A small image used for educational purposes by a non-profit organisation has a very strong claim to fair use.  Ty  00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be true if Wikipedia weren't one of the top ten visited sites in the world (i.e., our usage of the material reaches a wide audience, as opposed to a teacher reprinting copyrighted work for use in a classroom of 20 students). Additionally, our non-free content criteria are intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. laws allow because it is inconsistent with our mission of providing free (as in unrestricted) content to everyone.  howcheng  {chat} 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any consensus here that this is inappropriate. I'd suggest closing the dead discussion in honor of the New Year, but won't take the initiative myself since I am (a) the person who wrote the FUR, and (b) the person who requested review. A very odd dual role to fill. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg
This was tagged as replaceable. One of the subjects is deceased, so it seems like it may not be replaceable in that article, but the use in List of Dutch consorts and Beatrix of the Netherlands is questionable. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be kept in the article on Queen Beatrix as well. The marriage between Beatrix and Claus was highly controversial at the time and the subject of much discussion. During the marriage, Claus was never far from the public's eye and his popularity increased dramatically through the years. Claus was a major part of Beatrix' life and reign both private and in the eye of the public. I don't think it's replacable since Claus is deceased. Rpvdk (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the purpose is merely to show Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus, there is a free image at File:DN-ST-82-08158.jpg. Unless there is a need to show them dancing, this image is replaceable. There can be no objection that the free image is not a portrait of Prince Claus, for neither image is a portrait of him. If a portrait of him is needed, I would be amazed if (possibly non-free) portrait is not available.
 * As for the argument that the non-free image should be used on Queen Beatrix's page, that would have been a valid argument for using the image if it were free. But in order to use a non-free image on Wikipedia the use must substantially increase readers' understanding of the topic. This use certainly does not do that. —teb728 t c 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it does. Claus was German and had served in the HitlerYouth, and with the war still fresh on people's minds there were massive protests against the marriage. Over the years that followed, he became much more popular and loved. The article really needs to have an image of them together, as their marriage was probably the single most controversial event in Beatrix' history. Rpvdk (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can say that in text (as it does); seeing the photo doesn't make it significantly more understandable, as is required for a non-free image. If you really think the article needs an image of them together, it has to be a free photo like the one I cited above. —teb728 t c 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a really old picture not to mention you can't even see Claus' face. I don't think that makes a quality substition. I do feel that an image of them together adds a lot to the article for the reasons listed above. It might not appear that way to someone not familiar with Beatrix and Claus, but as someone who grew up in the Netherlands it almost goes without saying. I'll see if I can get some more of the article's editors involved and get their views so maybe we can get a consensus. Rpvdk (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say it would be nice to have a picture of them together, but it would not significantly increase readers' understanding as required by WP:NFCC; so only a free picture could be used. —teb728 t c 08:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it does add to the understanding, for all the reasons listed before. The marriage is a very important part of Beatrix' life and deserves more than just text. Rpvdk (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is is another (free?) photo of the royal couple, showing the prince's face, at nl:Bestand:BeaClaus.jpg. It is the photo used for identification at nl:Claus van Amsberg. —teb728 t c 01:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good find, but that image appears to be using a fair use tag as well. Rpvdk (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from List of Dutch consorts and Prince Claus of the Netherlands. Rubenescio (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

All uploads by User:Boxing245
Moved to here from Possibly unfree files/2009 May 26 - 58.8.4.175 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Possibly unfree files/2009 May 24
 * See also User talk:Boxing245 for previous history of image copyright problems
 * See also deletion of tag by uploader - 21:59, 26 May 2009
 * File:Boxing Match.jpg - see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/73132017/Bongarts
 * File:DanielCraigOO7.jpg
 * File:Christian Bale Tuxedo.jpg
 * File:Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent.jpg
 * File:The Penguin in Lego.jpg
 * File:Catwoman in Lego.jpg
 * File:Bane in Lego.jpg
 * File:Clayface in Lego.jpg
 * File:Harley Quinn in Lego.jpg
 * File:Joker in Lego.jpg
 * File:Mad Hatter in Lego.jpg
 * File:Poison Ivy in Lego.jpg
 * File:Two-Face in Lego.jpg
 * File:Scarecrow in Lego.jpg
 * File:Man-Bat in Lego.jpg
 * File:Ridler in Lego.jpg
 * File:Tomasz Adamek's Defence.jpg
 * File:Hush in lego.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.11.41 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:WiiSportsResortAthletes.jpg
 * File:Danilo Gallinari In Action.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.10.135 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Missingno-ny.png
Image used in MissingNo. to illustrate different forms of a glitch that shows up in a Pokemon game (you can skim the article for more context). I put a comment on the article talk page saying that the non-free image is not needed because a) the reader doesn't need to see exactly what all forms of the glitch look like, only needs to know that there is a glitch; b) three of the forms of the glitch are images that are already used elsewhere in the game, and the fourth form is already showed in another non-free image in the article; and c) the whole image could be replaced by a simple text description (already present in the article, ''When viewed, it will commonly appear as a scrambled "d" shaped rectangle, though certain encounter values will result in a MissingNo. with the appearance of one of three 64×64 pixel sprites used elsewhere in the game.[9]''). There has been no consensus at the talk page, there's about the same number of arguments for and against.

My proposal was to remove this image (and therefore delete it, since it would be orphaned). Another proposal was to remove the other non-free image in the article and make this the lede image. The arguments against removing the image have mostly been 1) the text description is confusing to people who haven't played Pokemon, and 2) it's important to show what the glitches look like. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait wait. People weren't proposing that The article replace the one in the infobox. They were proposing to remove the "d"-shaped MissingNo. form from the image.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people were. I may have misinterpreted the message "I think I'll add my opinion that the lede image should be removed with this image to replace it" from User:Izno, but there's also "the four scrolling forms shows the context that MissingNo has several forms" from User:Hurricane Angel Saki. I guess another proposal is to remove both images (and delete them) and include only an image of the d-shaped form; if I am understanding your above message correctly, your other proposal is to keep both images but crop the d-shaped form off of this one. In either case, the original question remains, of whether images of all these sprites are necessary. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It occurred to me earlier today that the 4-type image could be deleted as a gallery per non-minimal use, which was sparked by your comment, Rjanag... --Izno (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the images are non-free, then you have to consider not just a deletion, but how you go about explaining all its forms. While I support just being mentioning (at least a note) at least, try to make said note without breaking the prose too much, because leaving bits about the museum and the fact that ghosts appear without the Silph Scope will make the section they're in seem too clunky. And finally, I must ask, why does MissingNo.'s d form being non-free strike me as downright hilarious? Are you implying that somebody may need to pay or ask Nintendo to use the visual form of one of their glitches? In general, my primary position (which I've changed since my last post) is to use the current infobox pic, but if the four-image survives deletion, keep it in the article. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The explanation wouldn't break up the prose at all; as I said numerous times at Talk:MissingNo., my suggestion was to put the details in a footnote. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<Sorry, I didn't notice them. That works well for the article. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I commented earlier, a picture of anything besides the box of static that is MissingNo's "true form" is unnecessary. This is because the sprites look the same whether they are indeed "possessed" by MissingNo or actual Pokemon in the game. If they looked different, it might be arguable, but as it is, it's not.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A side bit for this discussion...because I missed the fact I hadn't made it obvious, but there is no actual copyright on the normal sprite of MissingNo. (the "d" shape) which is the whole complaint regarding using this image alongside the infobox image. The remaining three sprites, however, are copyright Nintendo.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have had this image deleted (looks like it was just a couple hours ago). Does that mean this thread can be marked resolved? Or are you planning on uploading something else? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot to comment here, mark it as resolved. Most people familiar with the FAC process agreed it was unnecessary and there isn't any other image I could use in its place. The infobox image is fine for the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Stewart Wyatt TDS.jpg
Non-free image, not clear how the fair use rationale applies to the article (Wyatt Cenac), all it does is show the appearance of a living person. —Noisalt (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article also has a free photo already, so this photo can be safely deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I FFD'd it. —teb728 t c 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ty_and_Renee_Ziegel.jpg
Unknown fair use defense-I302342 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eva martin-media.jpg
Fails criterion 8, this image does not contribute to readers' understanding of the topic in any way. It is not used in an article about the subject, it is used in the Ulster Defence Regiment article and is purely decorative. 2 lines of K 303  13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and FFD'd it. —teb728 t c 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Miley Cyrus TCA 2.jpg & File:Miley Cyrus TCA.jpg
The rationale for using this non-free image is that a free alternative image of this specific event cannot be created, as the event happened in the past. However, if I read Template:Non-free historic image correctly, illustrating an event being commented on is not considered a sufficient justification for using a non-free image, because such use violates criterion 2. Hopefully someone can clarify if my reading of the guidelines is right here.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I also fixed the copyright status for File:Miley Cyrus TCA.jpg] to the correct copyright status from Getty images... They should stay. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't just that we've correctly identified their copyright status, though, but whether this is an appropriate use of a non-free image; as I understand it, we can't use, say, a non-free image just to show what Cyrus looks like. What I was unsure about was in what circumstances we can use non-free images of an event to illustrate the features of the event that we are commenting on. However, I believe this image (and the other Getty image of this performance we're using) are promotional images, and it turns out the policy does allow us to use promotional images to illustrate events that are commented on, so it looks like the use is OK in this case.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Serious problems with NFCC#2. I have removed them- this is not an acceptable use. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarification - the problem here is that the image has not, in fact, been released as a promotional image, is that right? (I checked the getty page again and it's actually perfectly clear that it isn't a promotional image, I'd completely misinterpreted it before.) The point being that, as an agency image, it's commercial role is precisely to illustrate the event in question, so using it like that doesn't come under fair use.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. What we're doing here is taking an image someone else has produced to show the event for themselves/those they give permission to, and using it to show the event here. Note that, as well, as a recent event, the image has an incredibly high commercial value. This usage is exactly what non-free content criterion 2 is about. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this image, as a high quality image of a past event and basically a paparazzi goldmine, is of high commercial value, current interest, and is not available under any acceptable fair-use rationale to my understanding. Therefore, this picture should be deleted. That said,


 * E! Online has videos of the performance, both the actual Fox broadcast and their own edited version for their television coverage, which is slightly higher quality. Either way, if someone took a screencap of this it would qualify as a screencap of a television broadcast and would qualify as fair-use, as I understand it (since the same rationale is used for articles on episodes and television characters, many of which are FA class or GA class). HERE is the link. The video opens to the Fox broadcast; click the video directly to the right for the Entertainment Television clip. Hope it helps. Liquidluck (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple images on Minimed Paradigm article
File:Minimed Paradigm RT 522-722 on torso.jpg

File:Minimed Paradigm RT 522-722 PC upload.jpg

File:Minimed Paradigm RT 522-722 sensor.jpg

File:Minimed Paradigm RT 522-722 with onetouch.jpg

These images, although extracted from a press release, does not meet the "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it" criteria and therefore does not qualify under Wikipedia's Fair-Use policy. Any number of people who own these devices could take photos and submit them to the public domain. -Sme3 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rfu'd them and also File:Minimed Paradigm RT 522-722.jpg. —teb728 t c 07:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)