Wikipedia:Non-free content review

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media files without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page. Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law. Note that this page should be used for: Discussing a file that has both some appropriate and inappropriate uses (that is, the deletion of the file is not a desired outcome). Discussing multiple non-free images on a single page Discussing whether a non-free file should be treated as free (possibly public domain or uncopyrightable) For cases where deletion of one specific file is desired by the nominator, typically representing its only use on Wikipedia, please open discussion at WP:FFD instead. Nominations involving exactly one file where the desired outcome is deletion will be summarily closed and moved. How to nominate Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review: For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO. Before nominating a file, please first make sure that you are in the right place. If your nomination concerns exactly one file and your desired outcome is deletion, please use WP:FFD instead. For media files, such as images, sounds and movies, add the {{Non-free review}} template to the file's page. If your question is about the selection of non-free files for an article, post a message on the talk page linking here. If the file has any existing delayed deletion tags, such as {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, remove those tags so that the discussion here takes priority over those tags. Start a new section with level 2 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title. For example: ==[[:File:ImageNameHere]] == Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. How to close When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 30 days have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Closing the discussion Put a {{subst:archive top|STATE YOUR REASON. --~~~~}} template below the media's section header. Put a {{subst:archive bottom}} template under your comments. Make sure to substitute both archive templates. Closed discussions will be archived by ClueBot III. Media action Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media file page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If there is no consensus after a reasonable amount of time has passed, use the {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} tag instead. If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example: If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{subst:nsd}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{subst:nld}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{subst:frn}} template to the media page. If an article is tagged, follow the same steps individually on each offending image, and remove the Non-free review template from the page. Notes edit guidelines

File:Gabon FA.png

Image is being used in Fédération Gabonaise de Football, Gabon national football team, and Gabon women's national football team There is a separate, specific rationale provided for each use per WP:NFCC#10c, but I am wondering if the nfurs for the two team articles are valid. Each team is under the control of the Gabonaise federation, and the federation's article is linked in the first sentence of each team article. Are the teams considered to be child entities per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguably yes, though here the overall organization appears to lack notability, and if that article did not exist, the separate logos on the men's and women's team would be okay. So it's a bit iffy. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. So. I am taking that to mean the logo should be left in the team articles at least for the time being, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

File:GameChangers.png, File:GameDesignExpo logo.gif and File:Game Informer logo (2010-present).png

These three images are being licensed as non-free, but I am wondering if they are unique enough to not be covered under No. 2 of WP:LOGO#Copyright-free logos. Should these be tagged with {{trademark}}, {{PD-textlogo}} or both instead of {{non-free logo}}?

All three fail originality and can be tagged PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Do they also need to be tagged with "trademark" or would that conflict with "PD-textlogo"? What's the best way to add the PD-text logo tag? Simply replace the "non-free use" tags and rationales or is there something else that should be done as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I changed the first one [1]. I'll leave the other two for you to do as practice :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Trademark is a completely separate IP acknowledgement from copyright, and as such should not be considered a copyright license template. It's not required to add the trademark template (the default non-free logo rationale presumes logos are trademarked) but its okay to add but it will always require another copyright license to be included (in this case, PD-textlogo). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the assistance Masem and Hammersoft. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just fyi: all 3 images have been marked as "Move to Commons" as well (see Template:Copy to commons). GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

File:V jumper.png

Image is being used in North Melbourne Football Club guernseys#Gallery of designs. All of the other images are taken from Common and this is the only one licensed as non-free. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I am not sure if use is OK per WP:NFTABLES. Should the image be removed per "NFTABLES"? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the base drawing of the jersey is from a free license source (it should be) , the markings on the jersey are too simple for copyright and the image should be free. However, I do see that they reference an external website for the source - this can be recreated by a WP in a free manner so it is a candidate for free replacement. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Does this mean WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied? What is typically done for images such as this? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Veronica.svg

Image is being used in Veronica TV (SBS) and Big Brother (Dutch TV series)#Logo. A non-free use rationale has been provided for each article, but I don't think the use in the "Big Brother" article satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the TV station's logo does not improve the reader's understanding of the TV show itself in anyway and is just being used for decorative purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The logo is likely PD-USonly, being only text and a simple shape. It is not PD everywhere in countries with a lower TOO, so it can't go to commons, but here it can be treated as a free image, so the image on BB is actually likely ok. (I also note the article does attempt to justify the use of the logo to explain why the BB logo has the similar "swosh" aspect). --MASEM (t) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Should the nfurs then be removed and the image re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}} with {{trademark}} also added? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Xaverian Hawks logo.jpeg, File:Xaverian Brothers High School (emblem).png and File:Xaverian Brothers High School logo.jpeg

All three images are being used in Xaverian Brothers High School. The team logo is being used in Xaverian Brothers High School#Athletics and Xaverian Hawks but only has a non-free use rationale for the school's article. I don't think the team logo is needed in the school's article since the athletic program has its own stand-alone article and there is a hatnot directing the reader to it. I feel the image should be removed from the school's article and the nfur changed to "Xaverian Hawks".

I am not too sure about the other two. I don't think both are really needed per Wp:NFCC#3a. The school logo is just text and doesn't seem to provided any additional information to the emblem, so I think it can be removed. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sports logo image from the high school's article per WP:NFCC#8, etc. and left a note explaining why on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Watchmencovers.png

Image is currently being used in Watchmen, Modern Age of Comic Books and Graphic novel. A non-free use rationale is provided for all three, but it seems as if this image is really only needed in "Watchmen". There is some critical discussion of Watchmen in Graphic novel#Adoption of the term, but this more than sufficiently handled using text and the stand-alone article is wikilinked so I'm not sure if WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. In "Modern Age of Comic Books", image is being used in the infobox which seems totally inappropriate since the article is about a period in the history of comic books and Watchmen is only mentioned twice (once in the lede and once in Modern Age of Comic Books#The rise of anti-heroes. This usage seems problematic per No. 5 of WP:NFC#UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Both uses can likely be justified better within the prose. Watchmen is a strong example for both of the other topics, but that needs to be established better in the prose to use them as non-free examples. (this is similar to the use of non-free images to illustrate schools of paint styles, as long as the non-free example is clearly stated in the prose as a an obvious example, then that's generally good for these broader categories). --MASEM (t) 04:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Not sure if that means the images should be removed or not. Sorry, but my brain is just working a bit slower than usual today. Is the infobox use in "Modern Age of Comic Books" OK? Would you recommend posting on each article's talk page asking that the information about the images be fleshed out a bit more? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What should be done is drop a notification on the talk page of the article to point to here, or to start a new discussion on that talk page, noting that more prose about Watchmen as a prime example of a Modern Age needs to be established in the article to be able to use the non-free cover art. (For example, this google books link [2] establishes Watchmen as one of two comics considered the start of the Golden Age, so that should just be documented better). --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Van Buren High School (Van Buren, Arkansas) (logo).jpg

Image has nfurs for Van Buren High School (Van Buren, Arkansas) and Van Buren School District. Name of image implies it's for the high school, but the image itself suggests it's for the entire school district. According to its article, the only high school in the district is Van Buren High School; There are, however, elementary schools, middle schools and junior high schools in the district too so the image does not seem unique to the high school. Would No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI apply to the high school? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The logo is shown on the district website and the logotext says "School District". Thus, the image represents the district not the HS and should not be on the latter's article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have removed the image from the school's article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Google Photos icon.svg

Does this icon pass the threshold of originality? – czar 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion it does. Others will disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree too that it's just at the edge of failing to be original (The drop shadow is a standard effect). --MASEM (t) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! For that matter, what about the similar Photos (application) logo: File:Photos icon for OS X.png? @Hammersoft and Masem: – czar 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That one starts to get into a more tricky area. While it technically is just all simple shapes and a drop shadow and a gradient, there's more creativity involved in how transparency is used to create additional shapes/colors that would make it better to assume non-free here. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

More abstractly, I've always felt uncomfortable effectively voiding someone's copyright when we here are not lawyers in Intellectual Property. We don't really know, nor do we have a professional basis on which to discern, how a court would rule in regards to whether the threshold had been passed or not. There are obvious cases, and anything less than obvious should, I think, remain marked as non-free. Doing so does not inhibit us, and helps protect works that are potentially protected. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, I might have misinterpreted your first post—do you think the Google Photos logo is PD or not? – czar 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• No. I think it's too gray area of a case for us to wave a wand and remove IP rights from the rights holder. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Melogo.gif

Is the distortion of the text here and in the other currently-nondeleted version (dated 21:48, 15 December 2014) enough to nudge this over the threshold of originality? —Cryptic 00:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, at least, within PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I changed the licensing. This is {{pd-text}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:D'Elidas Picante Chombo Hot Sauce - Bottle 11.5 Oz.jpg

Image has a non-free rationale for D'Elidas, but it seem unnecessary per WP:NFCC#1 because File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg is also being used to provide essentially the same information. Granted the Commons image's licensing is questionable (I am going to ask for clarification at Commons VP), but for the time being it doesn't appear the the picture of the bottle of hot sauce is needed. There is also File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg on Commons which seems to be the essentially the same image and was uploaded by the same editor on about an hour later exactly the same day. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Image was tagged as {{di-no source}} since there was no source provided. A source has been added per this edit but it is to this wikia page, but its not clear whether the uploader of the image actually took the photo of the image or got it from somewhere else. Does that even matter? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Would this image or this image from the company's U.S. branch's official website be acceptable as a replacement for the above? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:D-8 Founding Leaders.png

Image is used in infobox of D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation. It has a nfur for the article, but it's use appears to be more decorative than contextual. There doesn't seem to be anyway of verifying who the people in the photo are and there is no real discussion of them by name in the article itself. Does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:20070624 Dubuffet - Court les rues.JPG

The file violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles in which contain the word 'painting': the picture is used in a gallery format and isn't critically discussed there. Pointing at the article about the painter should be enough, see WP:NFC#UUI §6. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Important work that is used where necessary...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-free removed from user page; for the other pages, if it is an important work, then it should be able to be sourced and discussed in that manner on the pages about the types of paintings to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not done. The only thing you seem to have done is that the painting now is mentioned in two of the articles. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the third article. There is still no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance to the kind of art discussed in the section. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Cityscape I 360.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles ending with the word 'painting': the file is not actually critically discussed in any of the articles, and WP:NFC#UUI §6 tells that you should just link to the main article (Bay Area Figurative Movement) instead. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Important work by an important artist used where it should be used...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is an "important work", then that should be able to be sourced and included in the articles about the types of paintings, as to satisfy NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I still see no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance in those articles, although the painting is now mentioned in some of them. This looks like a prime example of the situation described in WP:NFC#UUI §6 where linking to the article Bay Area Figurative Movement is the correct solution. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:USA Hockey.svg

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 or WP:NFCC#9 on all pages except USA Hockey. Stefan2 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the case where it's propigated via a userbox. Agree that only appropriate on the USA Hockey main page. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I commented out the image in all of the individual team pages per No. 17 of UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether the image is a {{PD-logo}}. It's a close call, but, given that the Copyright Office refused to register File:Best Western logo.svg, it may be the case that the Copyright Office might refuse (or might have refused) registration of the logo. (I also note that a copyright search I ran for works by USA Hockey, Inc. found a 1994 registration for "USA Hockey inline logo" [VA0000854883 / 1997-09-26] but not any other logo.) RJaguar3 | u | t 16:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's too close a call for us to call it PD-logo due to all the curvatures which clearly have some creative elements. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Homicidal.jpg

The old revision of this file is unused and therefore violates WP:NFCC#7, but the file is fully protected, so I am unable to add {{subst:orfurrev}}. Additionally, the file is in my opinion in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, but I don't think that the bot which usually reduces files would be able to reduce the resolution of the file as the bot can't edit fully protected pages.

Also: Is the poster {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? I can't see any copyright notice, but there is some fine print which is too small to be readable. Is a poster covered by the film's renewal, or does it need a separate renewal? Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The text is a valid 1961 copyright notice. I've deleted the old version. I've unprotected it as the issue is 7 years old, and both the vandal and blocking admin are long gone. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Mobile Wikipedia on iPhone's Safari.png

Isn't the Safari interface below the threshold of originality on this image, meaning that the non-free copyright tag and the fair use rationales can be removed? Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It does look that way, to be under the threshold, but that might apply to the symbols only and not the whole UI layout (not sure). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Harvest Moon Logo.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in List of Harvest Moon video games. Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think the image possible fails WP:NFLISTS. Image is also used in the stand-alone article Harvest Moon (series) which is Wikilinked in the list article, so there's really no need to use it in two articles which are essentially about the same game. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

NFLISTS doesn't prevent one or so "header" type non-free images to help provide some visual aspects, particularly if the image helps to summarize some of the elements of the list (for example, a in-show cast shot for a list of characters). However, I do agree that that logo is unnecessary here (as well as the fact that one can make a free image of just the text elements that would do the same for illustration). --MASEM (t) 15:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Zakumi.svg

Image is being used in Zakumi, FIFA World Cup mascot, and 2010 FIFA World Cup. It has non-free use rationales for each article, but I'm not sure the images are needed anywhere other than "Zakumi" per WP:NFCC#8 because the stand-alone article can be wikilinked and the mascot adequately explained using text. Use in "FIFA World Cup Mascot" also probably fails WP:NFLISTS for similar reasons. Finally, I am not sure if any of the non-free images in "FIFA World Cup Mascot" can be used per NFLISTS. Each of the World Cups are wikilinked and an image of each mascot can be seen in its respetive World Cup article. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• All of the non-free pictures in FIFA World Cup mascot should be removed per WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Waldi, Olympic logo 1972.png

Image is used in Waldi, 1972 Summer Olympics#Medals awarded and Dachsund#Symbol of Germany, but only has a non-free rationale for "Waldi" and "Dachsund". "Waldi" is the image's Wikipedia article so I can understand its use there. I am, however, not so sure that the other articles satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly fine at Waldi, and definitely not at Dachsund. I would not accept its present use at the '72 games page but there could be if more sourced discussion about it could be added. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's fine in all cases. There is discussion of the use of Waldi as the mascot in Dachshund#Symbol of Germany, and I think the reader's understanding is enhanced by seeing the picture of Waldi rather than just a text description of him. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Association des Scouts du Rwanda 1980s.png

Image is being used in Association des Scouts du Rwanda. I removed the image per WP:NFCC#8 with this edit since it wasn't being discussed at all in article other than this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one." No source was cited in support of this, so it seemed to me to be OR, at least in a Wikipedia sense. Image was re-added with this caption "The 1980s Scout emblem incorporated the color scheme of the old flag of Rwanda, and was changed to reflect the new one, as the old flag was associated with the Rwandan Genocide". This is a much stronger claim than the original caption, but still no source is cited in support or any mention is made of in the article other than a caption. If such an unsupported claim statement was made in the article's body, it could at the very least be marked with a {{ciation needed}}, but I am not sure how that works with images themselves or their captions. One more thing is that the source given for the nfur says "collection of Chris" (I posted invitation to this discussion on their talk page) which makes it hard to know if the image satisfies WP:NFCC#4 and the purpose given is "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Association des Scouts du Rwanda, a subject of public interest. " which is certainly not true in this case. I guess the nfur can be edited so that it better reflects how the image is being used, but that's on the assumption that the image is OK to use. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty confident it is not needed - one can explain that the original logo (this file) used a flag color pattern in the BG that was associated with the genocide and thus changed to the current logo that used the newer flag. It definitely should not be using the non-free logo simplified rationale and better justification would be needed to keep. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. I posted that the non-free use of the image in the article was being discussed here at NFCR at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo (the user talk page the editor who re-added the image with the new caption), but their response indicates that they are unwilling to discuss this any further. That's fine, but that doesn't resolve questions about the image's non-free use. The image still does not have a source to verify whether it has been previously published and it the "new" caption still does not seem to satisfy NFCC#8. If the image doesn't satisfy the WP:NFCCP, then it shouldn't be used and can be removed. Yet, it can also continue to be re-added without addressing these concerns. For reference, the same issues involving a similar image and the same editor were also discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Scout Association of the West Indies.png. This image has yet to be removed from any articles, even though the consensus here is that it should not be used. Removing that image, however, might simply lead to it be re-added without addressing the non-free use issues as was done with this image. The cycle of removing, re-adding, removing, re-adding, etc., can be never ending and is eventually likely lead to a violation of WP:3RR. Are there any other options available to try and resolve this type of impasse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC+9)

File:暗角拳打腳踢.png

This image is used in three articles. Are these uses suitable in Wikipedia? George Ho (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's reasonable on the actual page about the protests (the sensational language used was part of the issues discussed there) but not at the police force or the station page. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• The text on the TV screen (對他拳打腳踢) is in Chinese, but this is the English-language Wikipedia. How useful is text in Chinese to the average reader of an article on English Wikipedia? Is there also an English version, or is TVB only available in Chinese? There is extensive discussion about the statement in the section 2014 Hong Kong protests#Local media coverage, so I suppose that the image is fine there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just as we do not disregard sources in foreign languages on en.wiki, a picture that relies on foreign language text would not be excluded -- however, one does need to be to have an english-language source that has reliably translated the language for our benefit as to explain the issue (this being the misreporting by the network). I did not check the article for that, but that would definitely have to be there to justify the use. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is one of those cited near the screenshot and appears to be related to it. The incident is discussed in the article, but the article also looks as if it contains the same screenshot (a much clearer version) so I am not sure why the one in the article is needed at all. The screenshot in the article is kind of hard to make out, so I cannot see how it improves the readers understanding. One other thing, in the same section of the article there is an embedded link to a YouTube video titled "External video". I'm pretty sure embedding a link like this is no longer acceptable per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and it does not appear to be to an official YouTube page per WP:COPYLINK. I am only bringing this up here because it looks like this might be the source for the screenshot (about the 4:57 mark of the video). - Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The file information should indicate a source (WP:NFCC#10a), and the file information page should not link to copyright violations (WP:LINKVIO). It should be easy to fix the source by instead specifying the name of the TV station and when this was broadcast. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Croatia football federation.png

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It is the logo of the Croatian Football Federation, but it is also used in articles about teams (i.e. subdivisions of the federation). The picture also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think removing it from the the user sandbox is pretty straightfoward thing. I posted on the editor's talk page letting them know about NFFC#9 and giving them a chance to remove it themselves. The UUI#17 stuff is pretty clear cut to me as well, but perhaps there are some others who feel differently. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Scouts of China 1930s.png

Image is being used in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China and Scouts of China, but it only has a non-free use rationale for "Scouting and Guiding in mainland China". The "Purpose of use" that article, however, says that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. The first usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10c because it has no nfur for the article, but it is not likely that it would satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if it did. Second usage has rationale, but it is incorrect and the image does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8.

Is a caption like the one used to describe the image in particular case sufficient to satisfy NFCC#8? What rationale should used for non-free images not being used as the means for primary identification in infoboxes, but still being used in an article as the subject of critical commentary? Should {{Non-free use rationale}} be used instead of {{Non-free use rationale logo}}? Can "Non-free use rationale logo" be used if |use= is set to "other" and |Purpose= is specified? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It would have to meet the requirements for a non-free historic image, and this doesn't seem to meet that. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean the images should be removed or that the license should be changed?

In addition, the source simply says "The logo may be obtained from Scouting in Mainland China." Not sure what that means. The original title of the article was "Scouting in Mainland China". Can the source of the image be the Wikipedia article it is being used in or a Wikipedia editor's user page? I've noticed that many of these scouting-related logos have questionable source information and rationales. In fact, this image in particular appears to have been deleted once before, only to be simply re-uploaded. Is there any recourse when a non-free image which has been deleted or removed once before is simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note-the original image was speedied without discussion, both against Wiki policy, has nothing to do with "simply re-uploaded or re-added to an article because the original uploader doesn't agree that the image cannot be used". Get over yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Actually, the two sentences were meant to be completely independent of each other. The first one was about the image in question for sure, but the second sentence was really intended to be more of a general question and not a reference to you or any particular editor. In hindsight, the proximity of the diff and the tone of the second sentence connect the two in a way I failed to fully consider at the time. I certainly could have been more careful and phrased things much better (i.e., more neutrally), so I sincerely apologize for any offense I may have caused. I hope you will accept this apology and my explanation in good faith. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the image from Scouts of China because it does not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by NFCC#10c. Still not entirely clear as to whether use in Scouting and Guiding in mainland China is acceptable as historical image so would like additional feedback if possible. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Mwalk.jpg

A video game screenshot being used in Michael Jackson's Moonwalker and Moonwalker. Image has a very basic non-free use rationale for each article, but the statement "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article." is not clearly not true since the image in such a way at all. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 since the screenshot is not being discussed at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is not appropriate at the Moonwalker page since there's a separate article for the games. On the game page, the gameplay section could be expanded to describe the game from sources (in fact, this should happen per VG standards) so the image should be fine there on the reasonable presumption it can be done. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File:1998 Final Four logo.png

Image is used in the infobox of 1998 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but the image is technically not the logo for the entire tournament, but only the "Final Four" (the semi-finals and final rounds). There are similar images being used in the articles for the 1995-97 and 1999-2016 season tournaments using pretty much the same rationale. Not sure if an image specific to the final can be used for the whole tournament, but if this image cannot be used in this article, then the same most likely would be the case for the other images and other articles as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is if there is a logo for the entire tourney for each year, or if the logos have only been for the Final Four. If the latter, then the use is okay, but if the former, we should be using those logos instead. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. For the 2015 tournament it appears from this webpage that the only logo used is for the Final Four unless the entire tournament's logo is considered to be the Final Four logo plus the header "2015 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship". At least on that webpage, the combination of the two are being treated as a single file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

File:1FCFeuchtold.png

Image actually appears to be a user-created montage of two logos. It has a non-free rationale for 1. SC Feucht and is being used in the "History" section. The logos are not really being discussed in detail, so this usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Moreover, since image appears to be a combination of two images, this usage probably may also not satisfy WP:NFCC#3a. The source given for the image looks like the team's official page, but I can't find the image. This subpage looks like the team's history page, but again I can't find the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The left image would be PD-USonly as a simple-enough logo, while the right would be non-free. If the logos aren't discussed, the left image can be kept (as a new file) and the right part dropped. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both logos seem to satisfy c:COM:TOO#Germany under the old conditions, but I'm not sure if the recent birthday train case affects anything. de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst#English summary suggests that logos are affected in one way or another. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:SIXTEEN Members.jpg

Does this file have appropriate fair use rationale? It is a TV series poster, used in the article body (not infobox). I asked this question on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but didn't get any responses. Random86 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No - since they are living people it is replaceable for identifying people: as for spellings, that is what citations are for. If there is noteworthy commentary related to the poster in the article, such as explaining where it was posted, significance of poses, layout, colours or fonts, then the rationale could be updated. Otherwise delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hroðulf, that's what I thought. The uploader removed the deletion tag (disputed fair use rationale), so that's why I am asking here. Random86 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that if it was a group cast shot of the participants in a reality show (which is often done, with the group posed for promotional photos), that would not necessary be freely replaceable as to get that group gathered for a free photo is no assurance. However, this is not a cast shot but just a montage of the contestants separately so we definitely can use free images to replace this. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:2015CottonBowl.png

Image appears to be a user-created montage of File:College Football Playoff Logo.png and File:GoodyearCottonBowl.png so likely doesn't satisfy Wp:NFCC#3a. Moreover, even though the image has a nfur for 2015 Cotton Bowl Classic (December), it's not clear if this is the official image of this particular, just the image of the event's sponsor per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI, or simply just original research. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete - most likely a self-made, unusable collage. The original uploader has uploaded several of such, already removed, logos for various sports events. Official website does not show that combined logo. The upload also lacks a clear source information (no URL). GermanJoe (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrew own recommendation. I opened an analogous case here and am no longer sure, if such special collages are usable in that context or not. (I am not even sure, they count as "collage" and not simply as 2 logos displayed next to each other). This needs someone more knowledgeable to decide. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.jpg

Image is used in the infobox of 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 WP:NFC#UUI. From this webpage it looks like the logo was used for at least two different years. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png

Does this logo really need to be licensed as non-free? I believe the Coca-Cola script is already public domain and the rest of the image appears simple enough to fall below the "threshold of originality" typically required of non-free images. Isn't this OK as {{PD-because}} or {{PD-USonly}}?

FWIW, I am wondering the same thing about the following images as well:

• File:STP 500 Martinsville.jpg
• File:Kobalt Tools 400.jpg
• File:2010 Irwin Tools Night Race logo.jpg
• File:FedEx400.PNG
• File:Toyota-SaveMart 350 race logo.png
• File:2012 Quicken Loans 400 logo for MIS.jpg
• File:AutoClub400.png
• File:Duck Commander 500 logo.jpg
• File:2015 Daytona 500 Logo.png

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The only one on this list that could approach PD-USOnly would be the Kobalt Tools one. The others use elements like curved racing flags or metal finish effects or light effects beyond simple drop shadows and gradient shading to have creativity and thus non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• The Kobalt Tools one isn't, either, if for no other reason than the logo to the left of "Las Vegas". It's a bit hard to make out at this size, but it's the same as in this variant of the image. —Cryptic 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that little compressd globe with racecar in center is not simple enough to make it free, so yes, that's non-free too. (Mind you, I am probably taking a very conservative approach on some of these, but when it comes to copyright like this where case law is not well established it is better to play it safe and avoid marking copyrightable images as free. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg

It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in FC Barcelona. SLBedit (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Verizon IndyCar Series.jpg

Image is used in IndyCar Series, 2014 IndyCar Series season, 2015 IndyCar Series season, and 2016 IndyCar Series season and has a non-free rationale for each use. Use in individual season article does not seem acceptable per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI since the logo is not specific for each year and since the stand-alone main article exists and can be Wikilinked. Would appreciate clarification as to whether image can be used in the individual season articles. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We do allow the use of the logo for a series that changes over time to be used - in addition to the main page of the series if it is the current logo - on the first year that logo was adopted, on the presumption this can be noted in the text. So the main series and 2014 year pages are acceptable, but 2015 + 2016 are not. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Real Madrid CF.svg

It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Real Madrid C.F.. SLBedit (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, other uses appear inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png

It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Sporting Clube de Portugal. SLBedit (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Colorstelevision.png

Does this reach the threshold of originality? Fails WP:NFCC on quite a lot of pages if so. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Really borderline. I'd err on the side of caution because while this has images with very similar degrees of creative shapes listed as "Not copyrightable", some others also with very similar degrees did in fact receive registration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Hockey Canada.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 except in Hockey Canada. Fails WP:NFCC#9 on three pages. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg, I tend to agree with you Stefan2 about No. 17 of NFCc#UUI. However, as I asked in WP:NFCR#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, some may argue that the logo is the de-facto official logo of all of the teams under the Hockey Canada umbrella and, therefore, should be allowed to be used. Does No. 17 make any allowances for this kind of situation or is strict interpretation appropriate? -Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The teams are sub-entities of Hockey Canada, as far as I have understood. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:UCDavisFireDepartmentLogo.jpg

Is this a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:UCSCFD logo.jpg

Is this a 'state work' (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}), or is it a 'university work' (and thus non-free)? Fails WP:NFCC#9 if non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:2011-11-06-WORColorLOGO2in.jpg

Logo seems simple enough so that it doesn't need to be licensed as non-free, but rather as {{PD-logo}}. If it is, however, really non-free, then I'm not sure if it's use in WOR (AM) satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

File:2010 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png, etc.

Image is a user created montage of two non-free logos. Source links for each image are given and it has a non-free rationale for 2010 IIHF World Championship Division I. It seems that each image is for separate groups at the same championship so perhaps instead of combining them together they each should be seperate images per WP:NFCC#3a with their own specific rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.

The above also applies to the following images for their respective articles:

• File:2009 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
• File:2008 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
• File:2006 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png
• File:2005 IIHF World Championship Division I Logo.png

- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming there is no overall logo for the yearly playoffs when the A and B groups meet, this would be a reasonable acceptable use of montaging both logos which have apparently equal weight for purposes of identification (it would be improper to favor GRoup A's logo over Group B, or vice versa). It does count as two images on the page but within NFCC allowances and logo use. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Does counting as two images on the page mean that a nfur is required for each image and that the each image should be uploaded and added separately to the infoxbox? Can the same nfur be used for two or more images being used as a part of a montage as long as a source for each image is provided?

Finally, I don't think the Group A and Group B winners for each tournament meet in a final match to determine the overall winner. Each group is like independent mini-tournament playing for promotion to a higher group/division or to avoid relegation to a lower group/division. For example, those in Group A were playing for promotion to the 2009 IIHF World Championship and to avoid relegation to Division I Group B for 2009. Likewise those in Group B were playing for promotion to Division I Group A and to avoid relegation to Division II for 2009. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mechanically, I think it is okay to have one rational for a user-made image like this (which are meant as exceptions, not the rule), as long as it is clear that the two images are from separate sources and the final composite image is user-made. This has been done for the longer-running, updated image for the various roles of Doctor Who File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg, and I think is fair to only require a single rational for each use of the montage image. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul Hunter Classic 2012 Logo 2.png

Image appears to be a user-created montage. Two sources are listed in it's non-free rationale and the image is being used in European Tour 2012/2013 – Event 1. Both images might actually be simple enough to fall under the threshold of originality, but not sure. If not, however, then it seems that each image should treated independently of the other with its own non-free rationale per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The second image would qualify for PD-USOnly but for that reason we should not be using a montage. There is a page for the overall series that that top logo should go to, while the second logo (once split) can stay on the listed page. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok Masem. There is already File:Paul Hunter Classic 2012 Logo.png on Commons so I'm not sure how that affects the use of the top image "Betfair European Tour". Does this mean that the montage file should be deleted and the top image re-uploaded as a separate non-free logo. -Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:UCSY Logo.jpg

Non-free logo is be used in the infoboxes of Computer University, Magway and University of Computer Studies, Yangon. It has a non-free rationale for each use and ech rationale cites gives the same source, but different owners. If these universities are independent of each other, then each shuld not be able to claim ownership over the same logo, right? If the universities, however, are part of the same group/system, then No.17 of WP:NFC#UUI shuld apply and the logo only be used in one of the articles, right? Source given is for University of Computer Studies, Yangon so it seems as only the rationale for that article is valid. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk)

Computer Universities in Myanmar are administered by the Ministry of Science and Technology and some of these universities' logos are the same. Computer University (Magway) at the official website of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the logo of the university can be seen at the lower third photo and it is same as the logo of University of Computer Studies, Yangon. Ninja⛧Strikers ^«☎ » 13:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack for the Voices in My Head Vol. 2

Three cover arts are used. Is it excessive use or not? George Ho (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the two alt covers are not for full releases of the album and thus don't qualify as true alternate covers. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed two images. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Wish Upon a Blackstar Deluxe Edition Cover Art.jpg, File:Celldweller the complete cellout vol 01 instrumentals.jpg and File:Celldweller blackstar act one purified.jpg seem to be being used in a similar fashion in Wish Upon a Blackstar, Blackstar (novel) and The Complete Cellout respectively. Would the same rationale for removing the other two images apply to these three as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, the Deluxe Edition cover - which is the same album with additional content, would be fair in how alt. covers are used (alternate marketing of the same album); it's when one pulls companion/subset covers from the main album as the original cases, and the two other cases you mention here, and one would require the image to be in proper context (read: discussed backed by sources) to be included. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed album covers from Blackstar (novel) as identical to book covers. George Ho (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Rod Laver backhand.jpg

No free equivalent is not true; commons:Category:Rod Laver has several, some already in Rod Laver article. Uploader said "Should be removed if any verified public domain photo materializes." jnestorius^(talk) 16:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When I uploaded that poster image those photos from "Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo" did not exist. I assume those Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo photos are public domain, and if so we could certainly take this image down. It was simply the only image we had for the Rod Laver article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:New Order Movement Cover.jpg

Is the image eligible for copyright in UK? George Ho (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is not just pure text, it is best to assume that it is copyrightable in the UK. It would be PD-USonly here. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Reign of the Superman.jpg

Image is uploaded as non-free, but the same image has also been uploaded to Commons as free. Not sure why both are needed and the non-free one doesn't fail WP:NFCC#1. If, the non-free image is OK, however, then it only its used in The Reign of the Superman seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8. Its use in Zine and Superman does not seem acceptable and the image is not needed in either article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

These are the exact same image, and the Commons copyright tag appears credible to me. The current Wikipedia file should be deleted under WP:CSD#F8, I think.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Should I replace the non-free version with the Commons version in all of the articles and then nominate the non-free for deletion per F8? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The file is already tagged as F8, so when it gets deleted the Commons image (which has the same name as the enwiki file) will display instead. No action of ours needed, really (other than removing the non-free tags from the enwiki file page, maybe). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is typically little need in cleaning up the file information page on Wikipedia if a file has been tagged for F8 as the file information page will be deleted anyway (provided that the data on Commons is correct). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:212418LOGO.jpg

Is this image simple enough to be licensed as either {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-simple}} instead of as non-free? The only possibly distinctive feature is the EKG line through the call letters. -Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If uploaded or moved to Wikimedia Commons, you should use the PD-textlogo license. In my experience with similar "borderline" logos, few are even brought up for review, and even fewer are deleted. --Senator2029 “Talk” 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

File:21April1967emblem.PNG

Image is being used in Phoenix in popular culture and Georgios Papadopoulos. It has a non-free use rationale for each article but use does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either article. Use in "Phoenix in popular culture" also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 since there area a number of images at Commons which could be used to express the same idea. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:2004 Belgium 10 Euro 60 years peace Europe front.JPG and File:Uofchicagophoenix.png

Both images are being used in Phoenix in popular culture. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is being used purely for "decorative" purposes. Use of images does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 since no context is being discussed and WP:NFCC#1 since there are a number of images on Commons which could be used for the same purpose. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:21C media group logo.jpg

Image seems simple enough to be licensed as at least {{PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, too simple for copyright. And if it's an US-based company, it would actually qualify as Commons material.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:21st Century Media logo.jpg

Image seems to be simple enough so that it can be licensed as {{PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg

Image is used in multiple articles had has a non-free rationale for each. The question is whether the logo of a national federation can be used or should be used in individual team articles. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles, and that logo specific to the child entity should be used instead (ala WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg above). The national teams of many countries, however, do use the same logo for all age-levels of competition and both men and women's team. Most of the official pages linked to for these teams will all show the same logo being used, so I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such cases. I've removed some similar logos in the past per No. 17, so I would just like a little more clarification. I can re-add the logos if there use is actully considered acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:21stcenturyfilmcorporation.png

Image is being used in infobox for 21st Century Film Corporation. Image was missing a source, but the uploader has said they got the image from this Logopedia page. Company has been out of business for quite some time, so there's no official webpage or social media accounts or archived versions which can be found to source the image. Is it OK to use the Logopedia page as a source? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• The file information page seems to violate WP:LINKVIO. I'd assume that the file information page needs to be fixed so that it satisfies both WP:NFCC#10a and WP:LINKVIO... --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even consider "LINKVIO" Stefan2. Is there a way to fix the license if none the info in NFCC#10a can be found? Otherwise, I don't think a source for the image is going to be able to be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this present in films or something? Just reference one of those films. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Does a link need for the film need to be provided or is simply the name and year of the film sufficient? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If an image comes from a book, then just listing information about the book (such as author and title) would be enough. I can't imagine that it would be any different for films. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:24-7 Customer logo.png

Image is licensed as non-free, but it seems simple enough to be licensed as least {{PD-USonly}} as possibly as {{PD-logo}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clearly does not meet the US treshold of originality - just simple coloured text is not enough, from what I see on Commons. Given that it's an US-based company, I'd ship that file off to Commons and request deletion of the current file. Unless someone disagrees with my assessment, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've changed the licensing per your recommendation. Please let me know if I made any mistakes that need correction. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:2NC newcastle.png

Simple text logo being used in the infobox of 1233 ABC Newcastle that probably does not need to be licensed as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that can't even qualify under a UK sweat of the brow-type originality. Definitely PD-textlogo and can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Masem. I have updated the image's licensing. Please correct any mistake I might have made. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

File:7 Med Bn Gp Special forces Doctor Badge.jpg and File:2nd issue 7 Med Bn Gp Ops Badge.jpg

Both images are being used in 7 Medical Battalion Group#Selection and training. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it's not clear if either usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. There is some discussion of the badges in the section and how they compare to another military badge, but none of the discussion is sourced. A "citation needed" can be added to the text, but not sure how that affects the use of the images. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the text requires visual representation of the badges (it doesn't impact the reader's understanding). If necessary, one could add mention how they are based on the medical caduceus with the partol's other imagery, but that can be done in text. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

File:2SM Radio Station Logo.jpg.png

Another non-free image of a radio station logo that appears to be too simple for copyright. I think this should be at least OK to license as {{PD-USonly}}- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PD-USOnly, I don't know if the tiny shadow effect could tip it on UK-like originality. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I updated this image's licensing per above. Please correct any mistakes I might have made. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:S3 sandman punch.jpg

Screenshot from the movie Spider-Man 3. It has a non-free use rationale for Spider-Man 3 and Sandman (Marvel Comics). Use might be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 for the movie's article since it is used in part of the article where special effects are discussed. Use does not seem acceptable at all for the character article since the image itself is not being discussed and is simply being used to illustrate (rather poorly in my opinion) that Thomas Haden Church played the character in the movie. Church is still alive so WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied and you can't really identify him at all from the image so the image is not needed at all per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Amazing Spider-Man 615.jpg and File:Competition Spectacular Spider-Man.jpg

Two more images being used in Sandman (Marvel Comics). Neither image is the subject of any critical commentary within the article and each seems to have been added for decorative reasons.- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Eddiebrocktthree.jpg

Seems to be a user-created montage of three separate images. No sources are given for the images other than Wikipedia articles. Seems to be an attempt to compare and contrast how the character appears in three different TV shows/films, but this is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself so not sure if this use satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3 ring logo.jpg

Image appears to be too simple to be copyrighted and licensed as non-free. Should this be licensed as {{PD-logo}} instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have some misgivings. It contains shadows, colours and some other features that might lift it above TOO. I wonder if we can ask for permission, though - the "Other information" part of its rationale suggests that it was uploaded on behalf of the organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3 Wuppertal.png and File:Elberfeld historical.png

Both images seem to be user-created montages. Each has a non-free use rationale for Wuppertaler SV, but neither use seems to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Checked the links given for the source, but was unable to find any of the image being used anywhere on the team's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of such historical logos are already problematic as is, so as such, these are both inappropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3+ violet logo.png

Image is being used in TV3+ (Estonia) and 3+ Latvia. It has a non-free rationale for each, and from each station's official website appear to be shared by both stations. Is the use in both articles acceptable? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is not immediately clear if there's a parent company involved or the like, I would say the present use on both pages is acceptable. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3-brand.svg

Image is being used in Three Ireland, Hutchison 3G and Three UK. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article and each company is stated to be subsidiary of the Hutchison Whampoa. Image appears to be shared by all three companies, but slightly different versions of the image can be found on the relevant official websites (Three Ireland, Hutchinson 3G and Three UK). Does Nop. 17 of Wp:NFC#UUI apply here and should the website logs be used instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:30 Boxes logo.jpg

Image seems to be too simple to be copyrighted and licensed as non-free. Should this be licensed as {{PD-logo}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be PD-USonly but has enough creativity to be copyrightable in UK and others (where I think it comes from too). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this it's actually an US-based company, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:30th anniversary badge best.jpg

Image is used in Fairbairn College#30th Anniversary. Not sure if use satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the only statement regarding the image is unsourced and simply says "A special lapel badge, seen alongside, was presented to every learner and educator to be worn during the anniversary year." - Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:32 Records company logo.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free, but appears too simple to be protected by copyright. Image is used in 32 Records, an now-defunct American record company. Think this image is simple enough to qualify as {{PD-logo}}, but for sure it seems to qualify as {{PD-USonly}} - Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-logo}} in this case. It's the logo of an US-based group according to our article, so even if it is copyrightable in other countries it would qualify as "free in both the US and its origin country" and thus as {{Move to Commons}}. That font and a filled circle with text in it are not original enough by my estimate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:37 Armd Engr Sqn Noddy.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in 37 Armoured Engineer Squadron. No source is listed for the image and I tried searching online, but I was only able to find this webpage which does not look to be an official website of either the unit or the British Army. Is the above website OK to use as the source of the image or should the image be tagged as {{di-no source}}.

Are military unit logos like this generally considered non-free or do they qualify as public domain? I've come across a few similar images which lack any source information other than to say, for example, "British Army" or "44 Regiment", etc. Sometimes I am able to find an official page where the image is used, but sometimes I am only able to find blogs or forum pages where the image is used. How should such images be dealt with per Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3d world atlas icon.png

Image is being used in the infobox 3D World Atlas. Image has a non-free rationale for the article but I don't see the relevance of it per WP:NFCC#8 since it' simply shows a globe and there is another image showing essentially the same thing in the infobox. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3Dfxlogo.png

Image is used in 3dfx Interactive#Early history. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it is not the subject of any sourced commentary at all. The only purpose of the image seems to be to say the company's former logo used to be written with a capital "D". If this information is relevant, then it that text can be used to express this fact and that an image is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3news09.jpg

Image appears to be a screenshot from a 3 News newcast. It has a rationale for the article, but no source is given other that MediaWorks New Zealand. Not sure why a screenshot is needed when the logo can be found here on the station's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:3player logo.png

Use seems unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since File:3player.png is also being used in the infobox for 3Player - Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in Maia Brewton. According to the article, Brewton is still alive and was an actress active in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since she's still alive, this image seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, unless the argument is that it is used to represent how she looked when she was active as an actress. I don't think that's a valued argument in this case, but I'm not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg

Non-free image being used in Wonderbra#History. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, and the claim is that it is relevant to the discussion about the "Canadian Lady Corsette Co. Ltd." The image itself, however, is not the subject of any sourced critical discussion and the connection between "Wonderbra" and "Canadian Lady" can being sufficiently explained using text. So, image is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:400px-Survivor.borneo.logo.png

Image has non-free use rationales for Survivor: Borneo, Survivor (U.S. TV series) and Survivor (TV series). Since this is supposed the image for the first season of the show (i.e., Survivor: Borneo), its use in that article seems fine. Use in the other two is not so clear per WP:NFCC#8. "Survivor (U.S. TV series)" seems to be about all 30 seasons of the US version of the series; therefore, if a logo is needed then I think the logo from the most recent season should be used instead. "Survivor (TV series)" seems to be about the worldwide franchising of the show so not sure how the logo of the first U.S. season is needed for the reader's understanding of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that the logo changes every scene for Survivor (yes, I watch, so I know this :) , the use of a general logo on the US TV series page is fine, as otherwise we'd always be shuffling in the new logo each season. For the overall worldwide franchise, the question of which logo to use is questionable since the US series has had the most legs but the UK series was the original . I don't see it as a huge problem in this case. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:407 ETR logo.svg

Image's rationale claims that it is the official logo of Ontario Highway 407, but it is being used in combination with the free file File:Highway407crest.svg to illustrate that point. Not sure why this cropped version is needed when the original version includes the numbers "407" and seems to actually be "more" official of a logo. If the "ETR" image is really needed in addition to the free logo, then I think the original "full" version should be used instead of the cropped version. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The logo as it appears in the infobox for the article in question is the one you see driving on the route. The full logo could be used for an article on the company that owns the 407 though. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the "ETR" logo specific to this particular route or is it also used on other routes as well? The second sentence of the article says "The present highway is a privately operated tollway, which is officially known as the 407 Express Toll Route (407 ETR)". From this webpage, it does seem as if the uncropped version is the official logo of the highway and that File:Highway407crest.svg is just a generic road marker put in place by the governing body of the area. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:421px-Pallagorio-Stemma.png

Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Pallagorio, but the source given for the image is this Italian Wikipedia file. I cannot read Italian, so I am not sure about the image's copyright status. It looks like the image is not to be uploaded to Commons, so that might mean it's use is only OK on Italian Wikipedia. Typically when it comes to textual content, Wikipedia and it's non-English versions are not considered to be reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS, but I'm not sure how this applies to sources for images per WP:NFCC#10a. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Google translate is clear enough to identify that a user Lynxlynx made the image based on the heraldy of the coat of arms (which is uncopyrightable - a specific artistic version can be but not the general elements). However, it is unclear if that user uploaded it meaning it to be PD/CC or not. Arguably, someone else can remake the same coat of arms in a free version, so unless we can verify this with lynxlynx, we probably should mark this as where a certainly-free replacement can be made, if we can't verify this was meant to be free. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free and the source is given only as "Mike Tigas flickr". Since this is a photograph of a sculpture, I think it's fair to assume that it is copyrighted, right? Shouldn't there be some way to verify the licensing used by the Flickr account? Why not use an image from the park's official website instead if a suitable one can be found? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes if you follow the image, you'll see a set of circular icons on the image page, this uses the basic CC-BY. That means the photographer has given the license of his photo as free, but the work remains derivative. This is better than an "official" image from the park as that photograph is not necessarily under free terms, so we'd have to wait for the copyright of the photograph to expire before it would be free, compared to waiting for the copyright on the sculpture to be free which will come first. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Does a link directly to the Twitter page the image was taken from need to be provided? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The link to Flickr is the ideal source link because it contains the CC licensing terms (which are set by the uploader). --MASEM (t) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I mistakenly wrote "Twitter" in my above post when I should have written "Flickr" instead, so sorry if this caused confusion. Thanks again for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:473px-Vanenica.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Fraternitas Vanenica, but its source is given as this Latvian Wikipedia page. Use seems acceptable as non-free on Latvian Wikipedia, but not sure if that automatically transfers to English Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-free don't always translate between the various langauge wikis since non-free content criteria is developed separate for each one. But this is a case of a logo of a notable organization, which believe that it would be better to update the source link to [3]. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. I will update the source link per your suggestion. Thanks for finding the link. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg

Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Kingdom of Nepal. Use in article seems primarily decorative and, therefore, does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Image also has no source information other than "The logo may be obtained from the Kingdom of Nepal" so I tagged it as {{di-no source}}. This was reverted, however, by this edit. Isn't "The logo may be obtained from XXXXX" just the default text the template adds when no source is provided? Is that acceptable as a "source" for an image? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we do need an explicit source, you can't just say "Kingdom of Nepal". A non-link to a book or something comparable at minimum is necessary. Keep in mind if this is a coat of arms we should be able to make a free version based on the nature of uncopyrightable heraldy elements. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. I will continue to try and find a link and will ask the uploader if they remember where they originally found the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tineye found the source of the exact image and I have added it to the file page. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ww2censor and Tineye for providing a source for the image. However, it is still not clear how the image's use in Kingdom of Nepal#Origins satisfies WP:NFCC#8. The image is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification for the article, and it is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article so it does not seem to meet the significance criterion required by the NFC. Image's caption simply says "Royal arms", but there's no indication at all if this is the version adopted as a replacement for the image currently being used in the infobox or simply just an alternative version. There is also no mention of the image in Emblem of Nepal. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly I agree with you and as I have some Nepal books did not see anything like this there to give us any clues. It may of course be so old it will not appear online. I will look at some other literature. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:4DOS icon.png

Image is licensed as non-free, but has no source. Image looks like a screenshot of the software's desktop icon. I tried finding a version of the image on its official website, but could not. Are images, etc. of software licensed as freeware also considered to be free? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, art assets of freeware may be copyrightable, one can't make that assumption. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Masem. Does the use of the image in 4DOS, in your opinion, satisfy NFCC#8? It is only the icon for one particular version of the software so it may not be the same for all versions. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the authors of 4DOS and I designed that logo icon. I don't see any reason it can't be used but I am not technically the owner any more as I sold the business years ago. However I can check with the owner if that's useful, I doubt there would be any issue.Tr09 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

File:4CASTRIFullLogo(Wiki).png

Image has a non-free rationale for Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute. Image was lacking source and I was able to find this on the institute's official website, but it's lacking the name of the company in Chinese and English shown in the version uploaded to Wikipedia. Would a source of the image be acceptable in this case since the text is really distinct enough to be covered by copyright? -Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonablly fine, since the added text is not new copyright otherwise. It's clear the logo is from that site. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Taffyhbfn.jpg

This states that the copyright on the August 1956 edition of Harper's Bazaar was renewed. (Renewal registration for: B00000606283 / 1956-08-02 Title: Harper’s bazaar. Vol. 89 [i.e. 90], no. 2937, Aug. 1956.) The license is invalid (PD-US-not renewed), the image can likely be kept as fair use, although there are a lot of images on the Anne T. Hill page already. Deadstar (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

From a note on my talk page: "Taffy's of California commissioned and owned the 1956 image and used it in their sales campaign. It is a full page ad in Harper's Bazaar, which Taffy's paid for, not editorial material. Harper's Bazaar reciprocated by running File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, an image also owned by Taffy's. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Taffy's went out of business in 1958, and did not renew the copyright on Taffyhbfn.jpg or Bazaar57fn.jpg after 28 years. Taffyhbfn.jpg, originally and ad, is now public domain. Schmausschmaus (talk)"

So from that it looks like the image was not originally owned by Harper's and as such should be free to use & we can remove the Fair Use rationale? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the fair use rationale. The images were owned by Taffy's and are now public domain. Many thanks. Schmausschmaus (talk)

A note from my talkpage (in regards to File:Bazaar57fn.jpg, but relevant here:

When I was working on the article I had access to archive materials. The image is a Taffy's of California flyer; it is not from a magazine. Harper's Bazaar did later publish the cotton in the evening image as a bonus for the full page ad. The full page ad Taffyhbfn.jpg in those days cost $5,500, about $50,000 in today's money. Taffy's then sent the cotton in the evening image and text, which they owned, to the magazine which included it in their content gratis. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2015

File:Joseph Papin drawing of himself in action.jpg

Image's description says that it was never published, but was rather a gift from the artist himself. Not sure if such a thing satisfies WP:NFCC#4. Also, the image itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, and another sketch of the artist is being used within the infobox of Joseph W. Papin as the primary means of identification so not sure if WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a are satisfied as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• NFC#4 also states:" publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor". So we can't be sure of that much. For source, it should read something like "From owner of the original, one of a kind work of the artist". But if this is just something that has been sitting in a drawer for 23 years...it may not be something our fair use criteria covers.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:4K media logo.jpg

Image seems simple enough to fall below the threshold of originality and be licensed as {{PD-logo}} since 4K Media Inc. is an American company - Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty textlogo-ey, I agree. Not seeing any particular creative style elements other than colour and font, there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Channel 4 New Logo.svg

Image is used in Channel 4 and Channel Four Television Corporation and has a non-free rationale for each article. However, it seems that "Channel 4" is a subsidiary of the corporation so No. 17 of NFC#UUI would apply here, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It isn't so much a parent/subsidiary relationship as it is a legal entity/brand identity. In any case, the stylized numeral 4 image is the official logo of both, and should be included in both articles. --Senator2029 “Talk” 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the current websites, the TV station proper uses [4] this logo, which is not the same as the corporate one (which is the one here). --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The logo that Masem mentions is for their "digital distribution platform" logo. See this press release. --Senator2029 “Talk” 07:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Senator2029: The source link you provided in the non-free use rationale you added for the article is just a wikilink to an image file that was deleted in 2008. I'm pretty sure that's not acceptable, and I think what is needed is a source that shows this is actually the logo of Channel 4. Regarding the use of the same image in both articles, the "digital distribution platform" logo does seem to be the one the channel is using exclusively on it's official website (I couldn't find the other logo at all), so that logo might be able to be used. The press release you cited above says "All 4 [the new logo] will replace the 4oD brand on all platforms from the end of Q1 2015." I assuming this means all six logos, which includes the corporate one, shown at the top of the press release. Regardless, if Channel 4 is part of the Channel 4 TV corp, then the same logo shouldn't really be used in both articles, even if it is the de-facto official logo for both, per No. 17 of the UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Music of L.A. Noire

Two album covers are used. I removed one of them, but Rhain1999 added it back. Is using both or just one adequate enough? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The second is sufficiently close to the first, and the image not the subject of criticial discussion, that it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mary Kawena Pukui.jpg

Invalid rational. The image is of a person recently deceased (non historic. 1986). The possibility of there being a free image is actually possible through family or request, but the image fails NFC#1 as most images like this of recently passed figures do. It also fails NFC#2 as it is a reversed version of the actual newspaper image and has indeed "replaced " that images market value by replacing the search results for the non free image to this reversed version. It also fails NFC#10 due to an incorrect link to the source and invalid reasoning under "Other information" and has the wrong license.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot immediately judge the NFCC#2 issue (as the source link does not lead directly to where that image is used), while #10 can be fixed if this is otherwise fine. However, the NFCC#1 issue is not appropriate. We do not make the expectation that family/friends will issue a photo under a free license (we can only expect control on volunteer wiki editors), and 1986 is way far in the past that the likelihood of other people having her picture is very low (compared to today with the world of Flickr and Instagram, etc.) This is fairly a non-free that does not have a clear possibility of a free replacement, though certainly efforts to find one would be welcome, but it is fine solely on NFCC#1 basis. But that doesn't matter if NFCC#2 fails (and there do appear to be other pictures of her out there that may not be as encumbered by #2 to be used). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5 News.svg

Image is licensed as non-free but seems to be a simple combination of text and shapes which means it might qualify as at least {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PD-USonly. It might be okay worldwide, but at least in the US it is clearly uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. I will update the licensing. Should {{trademark}} be added as well? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Woodcraft Folk

Non-free images File:Woodcraft Folk Official Logo.svg, File:50 year anniversary logo.jpg and File:Woodcraft Folk 75th Logo.jpg are all former logos being used in the article. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but there is only a minor discussion of them in the article and none of the discussion is supported by a reliable source. Images seem primarily decorative to me, but not sure if all or any satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourced discussion about logo changes should really be present to have historical logos - there's discussion but no sourcing, so yes, these logos are primarily decorative otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I will post link to this discussion on the article's talk page to see if any knows of sources which can be used to support the use of the logos. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5280 magazine logo.jpg

Logo magazine 5280 is licensed as non-free, but seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

PD-textlogo worldwide. Could be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. I will update the licensing. Would this still need to be tagged with {{tradmark}} even though it is so simple? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Trademark laws don't care about simplicity, if I understand this stuff correctly - trademarks is a very different restriction than copyright. That said, reminding users of the trademark status of an image is not as important as knowing its copyright status. I would still tag it, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5280 magazine December 2012.jpg

Image is used in infobox of 5280. It has a rationale for the article, but File:5280 magazine logo.jpg is already being used as the primary means of identification in the article, this is not needed per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Image would most likely be acceptable for an article about this particular issue, but not for the main article about the magazine.- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is standard practice for magazines and newspapers to have the standalone publication title and then an example front page/cover to show the layout. (Exceptions only seem to be if a cover is highlighted as part of the body of the article, the cover image is moved into the body, such as at Time (magazine) or Wired (magazine). So this is fine. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Would the cover of any issue of the magazine do? The one being used in the article is from December 2012 and this is the one from July 2015. They seem to me to essentially provide the same information, but not sure when or if a cover image becomes too old to be relevant any longer. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:56.com (front page - screenshot).png

Non-free screenshot being used in the infobox of 56.com. Image is not really needed because the website's logo File:56.com (website) logo.png is already being used as the primary means of identification and no relevant additional information is being provided by the screenshot per WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Websites and software appear to have the standard practice of showing the logo and the main page of the site, so this appears to be fine. (Only issue to be begged is if any of the stills should be blurred out if these are people that were unaware they were being filled, for privacy rights but that's a separate issue). --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Would the same reasoning also apply to File:4OD Screenshot.png being used in 4OD. This one appears to show images from TV programs. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo tigre negro kungfu.gif and File:5fam5logo2.jpg

Images are being used in Ng Ga Kuen/Ng Gar King. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is being used as the primary means of identification as claimed in their rationales. Use appears purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is no sourced critical commentary for either image in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One of them could be used for the identifying logo image (I would suggest the second one, perhaps trimmed away to just the circular badge part), but both are not necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5iveStarwiki.jpg

Image has a non-free rationale for TRU-SPEC and is being used as the primary means of identification for the sister brand TRU-SPEC#5IVE STAR GEAR. Rationale claims image is being used at top of article as primary means of identification which is not true. Can the image still be used since it identifies a particular brand discussed in a section of the article? -Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the image is not being used in appropriate manner in line with logo use - if the sister branding is not notable enough for its own article, we don't need a logo that is not discussed to see that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:5Rhythms Medicine Mandala.jpg and File:Gabrielle Roth & The Mirrors - Waves 1994.jpg

Images are used in 5Rhythms. Each image has a non-free rationale for article, but it is unclear WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. Album art is not being used as the primary means of identification for the article and is not the subject of a sourced critical commentary within the article so I'm pretty sure this cannot be used. Other image seems more relevant and indirectly discussed, but once again it is not sourced commentary. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically fails WP:NFC#UUI#9 in concept (we're using albums covers to illustrate a topic that is not the album cover, and where the albums are not discussed in a manner requiring visual representation). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I understand about the album cover. What about the other image? I'm not sure that it's an album cover. In addition, it's also tagged {{Non-free with permission}} so I'm not sure how or if that affects its non-free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting permission for non-free does not in any way impact how we review it, save for possibly interpretation of NFCC#2, that is that because they have given permission (hopefully documented by OTRS), there is less an issue of our impacting the commercial value of the work since the creator said we (wikipedia) could use it. This doesn't seem to be the case on that second image, and to me, that's some type of cover but not directly illustrating anything in the topic, so is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:LasVegasGladiators.png

Team logo being used in Cleveland Gladiators#Las Vegas Gladiators (2003–2007) and in article's about individual seasons from 2003-2007. Seems OK for the main article, but not acceptable for the season articles. Not sure, however, if No. 14 or No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI applies here. Perhaps both apply? Regardless, no non-free rationales are provided for the season articles per WP:NFCC#10c so images can be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The logo is also duplicative of the current logo (the font use is different but effectively compariable) so it would not be necessary on the main page. It can be used on the first season within 2003 if a proper rationale is provided. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. How about wikilinking "2003 season" in the main article to 2003 Las Vegas Gladiators season in addition to what you suggested above? Would that be a sufficient fix and help further justify removal of the image from the main article? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Completely fair solution. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the changes suggested above. Please let me know if the nfur for the season article needs some tweaking. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

File:The Many Faces of Optimus Primal.png

User created montage, violating WP:NFLISTS #1. Further, there is no sourced commentary regarding the evolution of the appearance of the character, meaning if the images were separated into a gallery, their inclusion would still violate non-free content principles. Also, the article where this image is hosted, List of Beast Wars characters, depends on a single source for every one of its 43 references...and that source appears to be a fansite, in violation of WP:FANSITE. There are some days when I just want to facepalm and walk away. Perhaps someone else wishes to tackle these problems. Today, it's not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A list of characters from a notable franchise series is actually fine though some of the details border on fan excessiveness. The image itself is likely not proper on this page but might be okay over at the franchise' main page to demonstrate the different art styles that the series has seen (which is fair game). As long as it is recognized that this image counts as 4 non-free uses in evaluating other images on the page it is one, that's okay. But it is definitely not appropriate on the list page (though we'd would accept a single non-user-created montage of a large group cast shot if such exists.) --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Considering the presence of List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters which doesn't so blatantly violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm not seeing the need for this article. Though, for this discussion page I guess such a discussion is out of place. More to the point, given the lack of sourced commentary regarding changes in character appearance, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. The caption for the image at List of Beast Wars characters makes that clear. --Hammersoft (talk)
• I've notified the author of the page and creator of the montage (one and the same person). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to do whatever, the list was actually a consolidation of the five or twelve redundant individual lists of all the characters and toys and appearances etc. that were in one thing and then the other and so on. The info was pulled from those pages, cruft and all. The image was designed to make all of the other non-free character images unnecessary. By showing the shift in art style, you can assume what the character looks like from there.I'd say that the narrative nature of the image makes it much more "fair use" than most character images, but whatevs. I have no personal attachment, but I think it'd be more productive to clean out the information that this list makes redundant. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:FSCG.gif and File:FSCG.png

Images appear to be identical other than the file type. Images are also being used in multiple team articles which seems to violate No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Are both images needed and should usage be limited limited to Football Association of Montenegro - Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The .gif can be deleted over the .png preferred version. Agree the usage should be limited to that one article. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the logo from all of the individual team articles, updated the rationale for the png version and have tagged the gif version with {{orfud}} per the instructions given at WP:FFD - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hey, this image is used by Montenegro's FA, but cannot be copyrighted because it is consisted of Official Coat of arms of Montenegro ! This is not copyright, it is a PUBLIC DOMAIN! Put this tag below it

|Permission={{PD-MNEGov}}{{insignia}}

AND do not delete those 2 images! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.121.246 (talk • contribs)

Request for comment on Finally

Please provide comment at Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Request for comment as it concerns the use of two non-free images (album covers). --Izno (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone like You (New Order song)

Are the images eligible for copyright in the UK? They don't seem eligible in the US. George Ho (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• The threshold of originality is very low in the UK, far lower than the US, but I would suspect that they may not even pass that. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not even a label on the upper-left corner can make it copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends if the label is really part of the album art or part of the packaging (stickers on the outside of the clearwrap). If the placement is really part of the art then yes, this could be copyrightable in the UK, despite all other elements being simple. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

File:A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D.gif

Non-free logo used to illustrate former logo in History of S.C. Siracusa#From Palazzolo to Sport Club Siracusa. Usage does not seem appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 since logo is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the section. The only (indirect) mention of the logo is "The team's colors were green and yellow." However, the logo has a nfur for A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D. which redirects to the current article. Maybe at one time there was a stand-alone article for the old team, but not sure how that logos current non-free usage. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Coal Miner's Daughter.jpg

I recently removed this screenshot from Coal Miner's Daughter (film) from the plot section of the article and someone questioned me about it on my talk page. It does have a fair use rationale for this article that I feel it not valid, but the image is also used in Sissy Spacek and East Texas and I felt some other opinions would be helpful. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no way it could be used at East Texas (there's nothing about the shot that relates directly to the district/area). Maybe at Spacek if one can discuss her appearance in her younger days that a free image today might not be able to capture but that does require sourced commentary. I don't think it's needed at the film article, since it's not a critically discussed scene .--MASEM (t) 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I Put a Spell on You

This article appears to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the covers of the various cover versions are inappropriate as none of them seem independently notable. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Liga I logo.png

Image is used in Liga I#Sponsorship to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 since the current text is more than sufficient to explain things.

Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the WP:NFCCP, and simply tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} or should it go to WP:FFD for a full discussion? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.jpg

Image is being used in Super Victor and UEFA Euro 2016#Mascot. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I'm not sure if the image is needed in the tournament article per WP:NFCC#8. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed.

In addition to the aforementioned article, the images was also added to UEFA European Championship mascot, but I removed that per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the stand-alone article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Iran Scout Organization.png and File:Iran Scout Organization card.jpg

The "Iran Scout Organization" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#Emblems which is nothing but a gallery of former logos. Image has a nfur for article which claims the image is being used in the infobox when it's not. Image's caption "2000s membership badge, reduced the Islamic imagery" is unsourced and the image is not discussed in the article. Use seems to fail WP:NFG.

"Iran Scout Organziation card" is being used in Iran Scout Organization#History. Its nfur claims "Images and pantings about Scouting from Iran from before 1979 are rare. Scouting was also banned several times, and existing images were deliberately/indeliberately destroyed." No source for the image is given except for a Wikipedia editor's user page, but the on the image it says "Copyright 1968, Boy Scouts of America" so I think the BSA probably could be listed at the source instead. Maybe the image has historical relevance because such images are apparently so rare, but none of this seems to be discussed in detail in the article. So it's not clear, at least to me, how the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg

Non-free image is not needed per WP:NFCC#1 because there exists File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg on Commons which is freely licensed. I've replaced the non-free versions being used in Brazilian Football Confederation, Brazil national futsal team and Brazil national football team with the free version so now the non-free is an orphan. My concern, however, is that the Commons image's licensing is incorrect and the image shouldn't be claimed as "own work", which means that the image will be eventually deleted. So, I am not sure if the image should be re-added to the confedration's article (the other uses fail No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) just in case, but this seems contrary to NFCC#1. What is typically be done when a replacement image exists on Commons, but it's licensing is questionable? Should the Commons image simply be used until it is deleted? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The uploader of the Commons image has had a number of their uploads removed, because "Mass deletion of pages added by Bastian rojas; Copyright violation; found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work.". I think the Commons image is likely a copyright violation for the same reasons (unless they are the owner of the federation or somesuch) and have nominated it for deletion; thus, we'll probably have to fall back on our local image if it gets deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. The licensing for the Commons image did seem rather questionable. If it is deleted and we have to use the non-free one the question, then is will it be acceptable for use in all of the Brazilian team articles or only the parent federation's article. UUI#17 seems to say no. Right now the non-free image is an orphan which means it will eventually be marked for deletion. Should it be at least re-added to the federation's article while the Commons image is being discussed? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The image, File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg should be reinstated and not orphaned as it is the file that is licensed appropriately. The subject of attention should be brought heavily against File:Perfil-CBF3.jpg and should be orphaned as well. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The image only has a non-free rationale for Brazilian Football Confederation. It does not have nfurs for Brazil national futsal team, Brazil women's national football team or Brazil national football team which is required per WP:NFCC#10c. A separate, specific non-free rationale is required for each usage; Multiple articles cannot "share" the same rationale, so your claim that "licensing is perfectly fine" for these other articles seems incorrect. WP:NFCCE says "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." If you want to write a nfur for each use then plaese do, but I don't believe a valid nfur can be written due to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Finally, the non-free image was not being used in the women's team article, and the Commons file has only been nominated for deletion. That deletion is still being discussed and no decision has yet been made. It may not be likely, but it is still possible that the image will not be deleted. So until it is deleted, it is still acceptable (at least for the time being) to use per WP:NFCC#1 in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The badge identifies not only the CBF but the uniforms of Senior, Youth and Women's nationale teams, therefore rationale use applies for the different articles about them. I don't see any reason to exclude the badges from those articles. - Fma12 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fma12:The reason the image should not be used in the other articles, as stated above, is No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the individual teams are considered to be sub-entities (or "child entities") of the confederation, then the logo should not be used even if each team does not have its own unique logo. This type of usage was discussed at NFCR a number of times before, such as at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg, and the opinion was that the logos of a "parent" should not be used even if the "child" does not have its own unique logo. If exceptions to No. 17 are allowed for national football teams like in this case, then the same argument could be made for other "parents" and their "children" as well, can't it? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

File:India FA.svg

Image is being used in All India Football Federation and India national football team. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but the use in the team article fails, in my opinion, No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I removed the image from the team article a few times, but it was eventually re-added. It was removed then removed by another editor with this edit, only to be re-added again here by an editor whose only edit was to re-add the image. I removed the image again, but it was quickly re-added here by an editor whose last edited almost one year ago. I am trying to assume good faith that these two edits were just coincidental and I certainly do not wish to engage in edit warring with anyone, but it would nice if usage in the team article could be clarified for once and for all. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png it isn't acceptable, but perhaps things have changed since that discussion. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling @Footydip: here - their argument appears to be that the team is not a child entity of the federation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File:US Soccer Federation.svg

Image is being used in United States Soccer Federation, United States men's national soccer team, and United States national futsal team. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article, but according to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI it should only be used it the parent entity "US States Soccer Federation". This interpretation of No. 17 is being disputed, however, at Talk:United States men's national soccer team#Use of non-free images. The argument in favor of the image's use in the team articles being put forth by Savvyjack23 is The US Soccer Federation is the "governing body" of its national team, so essentially they are one, and not separate entities. No team, no federation. If it was a sub-entity, it would (most likely) have its own logo as the MLS and its clubs do, which are governed by the league but are individual owned by its owners. This is an interesting point which I think needs further discussion because it would essentially imapct every national sports logo being used on Wikipedia. In my opinion, a national federation is indeed a seperate entity from each team just as each team is a seperate entity from the each other team at least when it comes to Wikipedia. The fact that the federation chooses not to have separate, specific branding for each team is not really relevant to the logo's non-free licensing for Wikipedia. For reference, the United States women's national soccer team is also "controlled" by the United States Soccer Federation yet its article is using File:USSF women logo.svg, which is (at least claims to be) specific to the Women's team. I am not claiming that the nfur for the women's image is valid, but since the women's team is also governed by the same federation as the men's, they should be using the same logo as the men's if Savvyjack23's argument is correct, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png

Non free logo being used in the infoboxes of Haitian Football Federation, Haiti national football team, Haiti women's national football team, Haiti national futsal team, Haiti national under-23 football team, Haiti national under-20 football team, Haiti national under-17 football team, Haiti women's national under-23 football team, Haiti women's national under-20 football team, Haiti women's national under-17 football team. Per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, usage seems acceptable in "Haitian Football Federation", but not so clear in the individual team articles. This edit sum says "The logo is indeed used by the entire organization as well as all of its subentities" so the question is whether the national teams are "subentities" (i.e., child entities) of the Federation and thus use of the logo is unacceptable per No. 17 regardless of whether each team has its own specific branding. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:NJBIA Logo.jpeg

Just recently uploaded by @Pperetzman:, this looks like a {{PD-textlogo}} to me - fairly generic font and only some colour on top of it from an US-based group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PD Text and can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunnyboys (album)

This article briefly mentions the limited edition of yellow vinyl, seen here. It looks almost identical to the standard blue cover artwork, but the background is yellow. Is uploading it an excessive use? George Ho (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. If it's being used for nothing more than to show it exists, that's excessive use. If the cover is notable in some way, then that's different, of course. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg, File:Hornets 55.jpg and File:1939-40hornetspostcard.jpg

Each image is being used in Pittsburgh Hornets. The two team photos have a nfur for the article, and the teams in question are being discussed, but none of the discussion is sourced and none of it is particularly centered around the images themselves so I'm not sure if the images are needed per WP:NFCC#8. The program's image does not seem to have the separate specific non-free use rationale it needs per Wp:NFCC#10c and how it satisfies NFCC#8 is also not clear. Image is also being used in WPXI#Local programming which also seems to fail NFCC#8 since the connection between the team and station can be sufficiently explained using only text.

In addition to the above, no specific source or copyright information other than "The Pittsburgh Hornets (defunct AHL team)" has been provided for any of the three images. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:680News 2015 Logo.png and File:CFTR-AM 680 News logo.svg

Each image is licensed as non-free, but they both appear to be nothing but simple combinations of letters and numbers. These seem at least simple enough to be licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:688 Club logo.jpg

Image seems simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" and not as "non-free". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Paradelogo.jpg and File:6abc IKEA Parade.jpg

Both non-free images are used in 6abc Dunkin' Donuts Thanksgiving Day Parade to show logos used for former sponsors. Neither image appears essential to the reader's understanding of who these former sponsors were per WP:NFCC#8 and neither image is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:ABC RTV6 official.png

Non-free image being used in WRTV#WRTV to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:6PR 882 Logo.jpg

Image appears too simple for copyright and at least OK to license as {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:6rph radio logo.png

Another radio station logo that appears simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg

Non-free image of a badge being used in the infobox of Carabiniers (6th Dragoon Guards). Website listed as source does not show the image at all and actually appears to indicate that another logo is used instead. Image actually appears to be photo taken, perhaps by uploader, and contains a watermark-like symbol in the lower-right corner. Uploader appears to have retired from editing quite some time ago, so not sure how to find original source for the image or how to verify image's copyright status. Finally, since the image appears to be some form of heraldry, I am wondering if it even satisfies WP:NFCC#1. Isn't it possible to create free equivalents of "heraldry-like" images? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The image does not come from the website given as source because the little logo in the right corner indicates this is an image from an hosting services used for many eBay lots. This image is not covered by crown copyright. As a photo of a 3D cap badge we require the permission of the author and this is clearly missing and unlikely to be found, so it should be nominated for deletion If all that is required is a logo then a drawing of the badge elements would be ok as the regiment only existed until 1922 unless you can find an existing image. The commons illustration workshop might make one. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The uploader has not retired; the image was uploaded by one of the alternative accounts of User:SonofSetanta, who was active as recently as today. The following deletion discussions for other uploads of his may be relevant:

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:UDR Service Medals.JPG
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:44acmob.jpg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Badge Comparison sketch.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 18#File:RUR.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 18#File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg

In short, most uploads of his depicting military medals, badges, and insignia have been deleted on copyright grounds, but in at least one can he was able to secure the necessary permissions. Perhaps this is another such case.

—Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ww2censor and Psychonaut for your replies. I did not realize that the original uploader was now editing under a different name. Since the image is licensed as non-free, I don't believe it requires "permission" to be used, does it? However, there is still the issues of WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. As long as the copyright status of the image can be verified and that no free-equivalent can possibly be made, the image can be licensed as non-free, right?

Finally, even if the above is resolved, there is also possibly an issue regarding WP:NFCC#8. The non-free use rationale states "There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: 'All regiments of the British army use different cap badges. This one is peculiar to the 6th Carabiniers.'" yet there is no such sourced discussion of the image at all within the article itself. Since the image is being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the unit, it's possible that such a generic statement is sufficient enough to establish the contextual significance of the image, but I'm not sure. -Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely the uploader took the original photo but we can ask. As a 3D image it absolutely does require permission of the photographer and it immediately fails WP:NFCC#1 because anyone with such a badge, or acces to one, can take a photo and release it freely. As I said, if it were a 2D logo we could probably use it as non-free for which we don't require permission. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NFCC#1 is complicated here. For the image for this section lead - a military group that was disbanded nearly a century ago - it is likely that the design itself was done well before 1922, and thus the design is public domain; this photograph on the other hand is likely copyrighted to whomever the photographer is , so we should be able to expect a free image... but, we also are talking about a artifact that a limited number of people would have had and that unlikely any of those people are surviving today (again, nearly a century). And as such, unless we are fully aware of a museum or other collection that holds one of these badges on public display, I don't think we can have expectation that a free image could be made (that is, someone to take and give a free photograph to use).

Note that, say in the case of the 1962 piece that has been deleted, the base piece was likely still copyrighted so even though a free photograph could be taken, that image would still be considered a non-free derivative work. But then the issue of finding a badge to take a photograph and get at least a free photo of a copyrighted work (as opposed to a copyrighted photo of a copyrighted work) becomes much more likely. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't we at the very least need to know where the photo came from so that its copyright status can be verified if the image is to be licensed as non-free? The source given for the image apparently is not really the "source" of the photo. The logo being used on that page looks quite different and it's not even clear if the two units are one and the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We do need the source or origin of the photo as to be able to assess whether it could be marked free (knowing the ID of the photographer) or for non-free (to demonstrated previous publication). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded the image and many others like it. There was a time when I cared about things like this but after the witch hunt of last year, which proved beyond doubt that the vast majority of the images I have provided were genuine and correctly uploaded, I gave up. My reason for that is simple: one goes to a lot of trouble to find free images, even donating a substantial amount of my own photographs, only to have them questioned by people who don't know anything about the subject matter. I was repeatedly called a liar by several members over images of which I could produce, not only the original of but also, the negatives. This didn't stop the persecution however so I just don't bother with images anymore or the fact that over zealous editors call my reputation into question. So fill your boots - I don't care. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Six-tv Logo.PNG

Combination of text and colors appears to be too simple for copyright, at least in the U.S. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, definitively {{PD-USonly}}. I don't know about UK copyrights enough to comment whether it should be {{PD-textlogo}} instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}}. Nowhere near the threshold of originality in the UK (or anywhere else) either. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and Black Kite for the clarification. I have revised the licensing per above. Let me know if it needs to be tweaked in any way. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WCNC-TV

The following non-free images are being used in the article:

• File:WCNC logo.png - Non-free rationale claims "inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because television station logos are an important part of a station's branding." , but this no longer seems to be the case here since the image is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article and is not used as the primary means of identification in the infobox. Usage appears to be mainly decorative and thus fails WP:NFCC#8.
• File:WCNC-logo-Apr07.png - Same claim of significance is made for this image as for the one above, but once again usage seems to fail NFCC#8 for the same reasons.
• File:NewsChannel36.png - Non-free rationale claims image is being used in infobox which is no longer true. This usage also seems to fail NFCC#8.
• File:WPCQ 36.png - Licensed as non-free, but appears simple enough to be tagged as at least {{PD-USonly}} instead. Like the other non-free logos, I don't think this non-free usage satisfies the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8.
• File:WCNC DTV transition test commercial (screen capture).jpg - A screen shot used to illustrate the stations switch from analog to digital programming. This can be more than sufficiently explained using text so an image like this is not needed at all per NFCC#8.

-Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I believe we treat the flat/simple gradient NBC peacock logo as uncopyrightable (compared to the present NBC logo that has a jelly-button look, making it non-free), the first 2 images and the 4th image should all be treated as PD-textlogo. The third image is non-free (the metal sheen gradients are more than simple) and yes, is an inappropriate old logo use. And same with the final image, not necessary to include. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK Masem. Just to clarify things, the licensing for the first, second and fourth images should be changed from "non-free" to "PD-textlogo" with a "trademark" tag added, while the licensing of the third and last image should be left as is, but the images should be removed from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my take on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply Masem. I have changed the licensing for images 1, 2 and 4 per above. Please let me know if they need any tweaking. I have also removed the other two images from the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Socceraustralia.png

Image has non-free use rationale for Football Federation Australia#History, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion so the image should be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

File:YCFC1950.jpg

Hi, could some advise me if this image does actually qualify for fair use? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't immediately fail any NFC issues in that its not freely replaceable, little commercial value, etc. Exactly how needed it is per NFCC#8 is a question that is hard to answer - it was a famous year in the club's history but also one of those images that doesn't necessarily aid the reader's understanding. I would not say it needs to deleted but I would work to make its inclusion case a stronger one. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Soumission cover.jpg

Is this eligible for copyright in France? George Ho (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

France has a low bar for originality (it is based on the work bearing the imprint of the personality of the person that created the work), so I would assume it could be copyrightable. Definitely falls under PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Image from Khamenei twitter of a what appears to be Obama pointing a gun at his head

Original source for this appears to be here: [5]. Lots of media have apparently concluded they can use it, e.g. CNN[6], USA Today [7], New York Daily News[8]; googling will turn up others. Can Wikipedia use it? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, the lack of a copyright agreement between Iran and the US means that an image made there is effectively PD in the US. However, practice on Wikipedia is that Iranian copyrights are still respected for our NFC policies, so that image would be a non-free image unless it's freely licensed or PD even in Iran. <Not a lawyer disclaimer>. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Also consider that the Twitter account is only claimed to be associated with Khamenei, not proven, so we are clear enough on the origin to meet the sourcing requirements for NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, Twitter has methods to mark accounts that are proven but I can't see it there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Film of the 1937 Fox vault fire

No Wikipedia file link, as this is not currently uploaded to the project. In 2007, historical video of the 1937 Fox vault fire was uploaded to YouTube here. So far as I am able to determine, this footage was not previously published; however the title cards suggest that it may have been included in a period newsreel. If so, pretty much all the subsequent problems go away, but as far as I can tell, that will be completely possible to determine.

• I assume that film of a specific historical event, even one involving public buildings, and taken from public space, does not constitute public domain footage, even considering freedom of panorama. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm fairly sure this remains copyrighted work.
• This video stridently meets most NFCC requirements, but I have a concern about NFCC #4. The film is identified as having been created by one "W. Zabransky", very likely William Zabransky Jr., then-former chief of the Little Ferry Fire Department, who died in the early 1990s. The film was digitized and uploaded by Frank Fuchs, also of the Little Ferry Fire Department, after having received the physical copy of the film from an unspecified family member. It is functionally impossible to determine who the legal rightsholder would have been in 2007 (possibly Zabransky's son, if copyright had not been assigned to a third party), much less currently in 2015 (Zabransky III has since also died).
  • If we take the 2007 YouTube upload to be the first publication, can we assume that adequate permissions were granted to satisfy NFCC#4?
  • Alternatively, does the possibility of a contemporary newsreel (or any other period publication) affect NFCC #4? If such a use existed, then the rights status of the 2007 upload would no longer be relevant for NFCC #4 purposes. Is there an obligation to show that such a publication did happen?
• If a worst-case scenario where NFCC#4 cannot be adequately satisfied, is it acceptable to link to the YouTube video, or does the uncertain copyright status make such a link fall under WP:ELNEVER?

This is a striking piece of film history: unique, irreplaceable, and with considerable encyclopedic value. I want nothing more than to be able to include it in our article, which I'll beat my own drum by saying is among the most comprehensive treatments of the event available. But I want to make sure I have my ducks in a row before boldly doing so. Assistance is greatly appreciated! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this basically has two end results: worst case that it is copyrighted until 70 yr after Zabransky's death (read: 2060s) if the YouTube publication was the first, or its in the PD now. Taking the worst case of it being copyrighted, you've shown what are likely reasonable steps to assure a line of ownership authority that "previous publication" is fine, the YT link would not be considered a copyvio and could be used as a EL. But I could also see the use of screencaps from the film or a short segment of the film to illustrate the article on the fire which the film captures under NFCC without too much concern as long as you include this rigorous analysis of the situation.

I think we do need to presume it non-free - yes the likelihood of a prior newsreel publication seems strong and would be great if it were PD, but we'd rather have proof-positive this is the case. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, and is pretty much what I'd considered. I'm likely away from useful computers on business for a few days, but afterward I'll see what I can do about excerpting the useful parts of the film (although it's already only about 1m in length, there's no real need for the black frames). I'd much rather readers of the article be able to see the footage directly rather than point them at YouTube via EL. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

File:WMGC1051-082012.png and File:WMGC1051.png

Images are licensed as non-free. They were being used in a gallery of former station logos in WMGC-FM, but I removed them per WP:NFG. Is it possible, however, that the combinations of text and shapes are too simple for copyright protection and that the images can be licensed as {{PD-USonly}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would agree both are PD-text logo , US only. The curves are simple, and the first one has a standard drop-shadow, below threshold of originality in US. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

These logos are created in the US, yes? In this case if they don't meet the TOO they should be moved to Commons. And their deletion tags removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Per above, I changed the licensing to {{PD-logo}} and also added {{Trademark}} and {{Move to Commons}}. Let me know whether the new licensing is acceptable, so I can fix it if it's not or re-add the images to the article if it is. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:University of London.svg

This is marked as a non-free, non-replaceable logo. However, it is an armorial shield, not a logo. It is replaceable with a free graphic based on the blazon from the University's 1838 grant of arms. http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html (unfortunately the image at that page is too low a resolution to read) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That graphic and the current logo look almost identical, albeit not completely so (the book is narrower in the older). Unfortunately I can't find any larger version of that older logo. I also notice that the current image is used in three pages but has a NFUR only for one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have found a black-and-white one whose original is public domain, but not a colour one. (I think I used the wrong deletion process here. I should have used delayed speedy deletion as it is certainly old enough to be replaceable with a public domain version. As Jo-Jo already replied, I guess it is too late to switch to delayed-speedy.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the graphics in question is to depict what is effectively being used as LU's logotype, not some historical version. As the image uploader, I was not sure whether the graphics was in public domain (unlike the historical drawing, which has narrower arms, etc.), hence I tagged it as fair use. I tend to believe that there was a degree of creativity put in creating the current offical logo based on the historical coat of arms. Whether it crossed the threshold of originality, I don't know. It is thought that the threshold is lower in the UK than in the US, hence the image might be protected. But no, this current logotype cannot be replaced by a historical coat of arms: the two are different things, both materially and functionally. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We should also review the use of File:UofLondon logo.png.

I agree with you that the vector art may cross the threshold of originality so you were right to tag it as fair use.

However I do not agree that because the University currently uses that particular version, that we need to display that particular version in Wikipedia's article about the university. It is shown in the infobox as a coat of arms, and for most old universities, we use an old or re-drawn coat of arms, not a modern non-free version.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree re. vector art vs. raster art. Copyright protection extends to the work of art irrespective of what file format it has been rendered in.

I also quickly scanned Oxford University, University of Cambridge, and University of Sheffield - and did not see us using anything else than the official coat of arms. Actually, I am not even sure there would be different versions of the official coat of arms.

Of interest, an old coat of arms does not mean it is in public domain in the UK - see here: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/about/arms.

Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question (and a very useful link). It is possible that Sheffield meant that it is restricted by trademark law or heraldic law, or they meant that their own coat of arms artwork is restricted by copyright. None of which would affect most educational uses of a free version of Sheffield's or London's shield

As a counter-example, we have this free shield on Commons, that is used on numerous Wikipedia articles: File:Cambridge shield.png

There is a long article about this at Commons:Coats of arms

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To demonstrate that the official shield has been redrawn many times, I just found one on an official UL document in a fuzzy grayscale scan that is probably free (pre-1890 original) and has the same heraldic elements as the logo, but a different shaped book. It is on the first page of this large (13 MB) PDF http://www.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/resources/gr.pt1.pdf

Better to ask an artist to draw a fresh one (such as at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ultimate Play the Game

Multiple, contested non-free content issues.

1. File:Knight lore 3.gif (used in another article) The game may have been important and its isometric style may have been copied, but the useful image would be how other games have copied it, not that it uses an isometric view. (NFCC#8) And is there really no free-use replacement for isometric projection in all of those piles of open source games?
2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: The text says they used full page ads that did not describe the product. The image does not add any additional significance to that understanding (NFCC#8)
3. File:Sabre wulf box.jpg is decorative, does not illustrate anything that can't be adequately explained through text
4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif I'm less concerned about this one because the image's significance is discussed in the article, but I don't think the blurry shot adds anything over what the text adequately explains on its own. – czar 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The two images that you removed and I didn't revert (Image:Jetpac.gif and Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg) are the only ones that can be said to be used for decorative purposes; and I have doubts abour the Sabre wulf box, since the high-end "luxury" packaging is discussed as part of the company's strategy to deter copyright infringement.

As for the images currently in the article, they are textbook applications of WP:NFCI acceptable use:

1. File:Knight lore 3.gif. WP:NFCI#6, screenshots from software products for critical commentary. It's used to illustrate the Filmation engine technique as used by Ultimate. A free image would not illustrate its usage by that company on that very game, which is the one that influenced all the others. A free replacement should be included at the Isometric projection article, but it's important to show what the players who bought the game got from the company as state-of-the-art graphics at the time - (which is important for the topic; as this is the article of Ultimate Play the Game, not of isometric projection in general, the image should illustrate how they did it).
2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. The text says they used full page ads without screenshots of the game, explaining how this fueled speculation by the specialized gaming press; and the image shows how those full page ads looked like. Without the image you would not have an idea of what the press saw and how it prompted them to pump anticipation up. To what degree this improves understanding of the topic is a matter of personal taste to be agreed upon here, but the contextual significance is there.
3. Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg (currently not in the article): Again WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. As said above, the image illustrates the following passage. "This coincided with the introduction of the distinctive Ultimate "big box" packaging [...], which the company felt might also help justify the price increase and encourage gamers to buy the game rather than copy it. The strategy paid off as Sabre Wulf went on to sell over 350,000 copies on the Spectrum alone." Text alone can't display the quality of the box and printed art for the readers to judge it by themselves.
4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif: Both WP:NFCI#6 and WP:NFCI#4, screenshot and promotional material with critical commentary ("CRASH magazine published a reader's photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer.The possible existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen) had been speculated on since the game's release). The blurriness of the image was there in the original, this is exactly what readers got and prompted them to enquire about its genuineness. Diego (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Knight Lore image is unnecessary on the page about the developer, as we have a separate page for the game itself, where it is appropriate. There is no need for showing an image of an ad that does not use screenshots - this is readily explained by text. The box packaging - of just the cover alone - does not help to aid in explaining the "big box" aspect - here, instead, we should be using a picture of one of their "Big box"es next to a typical boxed release at the time as to demonstrate the physical difference that the cover alone cannot (this also possibly can be done with simple 3D boxes of the right size without art, or by a photo taken at such an angle to make the cover art unusable and meeting de minimus use). There's no need to show a screenshot of a unreleased game to demonstrate that a magazine provide such an images, or the impact of the blurriness factor. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion about the images. However, third party reliable sources have considered relevant to comment upon such images, and our policy on non-free content is that such usage is allowed when there is critical commentary provided by reliable sources, not merely when editors think it's a good idea to include them (or not).

Oh, and the File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif is also an instance of WP:NFCI#9 acceptable use, "Images that are themselves subject of commentary". (The Stampers shrugged off questions about whether this screen shot was genuine, but stopped short of actually denying it. There have even been suggestions that Ultimate themselves may have created the screen shot to generate more interest in the game.) Diego (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"NFCI" is not some kind of kind of panacea—it explicitly says that the image needs to meet all of the non-free content criteria. NFCI are just suggestions. It's still an issue of NFCC#8: it's nice to have images but the screenshot isn't necessary for understanding the article. There is nothing about the image that makes the prose more understandable. – czar 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the level of understanding that readers get from a description of the image without the image itself, will be the same as the description plus the image accompanying it? The editors of the reliable sources that included the image in their articles begged to disagree.

Now that we are at it, what is the criteria that you use, to consider some prose more understandable with an accompanying image than without it? Is there a situation where you don't think that a prose description of an image is enough to understand the image? Because if the criteria stated in policy to establish NFCC#8 (critical commentary in RSs) is not enough for you to consider it significant, there must be some other alternative, objective criteria that we could agree upon and doesn't reduce to "I think it's needed" or "I don't think it's needed"; so what is it? Diego (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Two keys are NFCC#1 - the free replacement (which can include no image but text) and NFCC#8. Of the three last cases:

• The ad image is presently being used to say that unlike other print ads at the time, this company opted to forgo screenshots. This can be described in text and does not need an image to show this (per NFCC#1); if anything, one would have to show a competiting ad to demonstrate the lack of screenshots, making that 2 non-free images would be even more problematic. And it is readily described by text, making the contextual significance weak.
• The box image to say the box was bigger than others as to convince people to buy it can be replaced with a free photograph of that box next to a regular retain box to make that a much stronger point.
• That they released a blurry photo of a game they were developing can be stated in text - there's no specific discussion of the features of the blurry photo to require it and failing NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• The ad image also serves to identify the visual style of that company's advertising -i.e. the topic of the section where the ad is placed, which is the other recognized valid purpose at WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, and is something you can't do without having seen at least one ad from the company. Why would you need a competing image from other companies? Other ads are not mentioned in the text for critical analysis, but this series of ads is. And why do you need an image with screenshots to show that this one does not have screnshots?
• Fine, we can replace the current photo of the box with the one you suggest when someone provides it (but how do you achieve a free photograph of the copyrighted cover art, without at the same time making it impossible to assess the quality of such art?).
• There is specific discussion of the features of the photo, I've provided it above. It discusses specific parts of the image ("photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer"), a comparison of that feature with the same feature in other images from the company ("existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen)")-which prompts readers to compare the similarity of this image with those others-, and the possibility that the image itself may have been manipulated ("questions about whether this screen shot was genuine","It has since been proven that Lunar Jetman's 48K of code does not contain graphics for a trailer.")-which requires the image for readers to assess by themselves whether it might be a fake. (BTW, the image being blurry may be one contributing factor for why people gave it credibility as it makes it harder to spot any possible tampering, but there I'm just speculating - that's not part of my argument). Diego (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ELO 2

Four album covers are used. Which ones shall be retained? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arguable the original cover and the first of the 30 year anniversary one would be best suited. The original alt cover has nothing, and if you use the first 30yr one, the second one of those is nearly duplicative. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:7th Magnitude logo.jpeg

Image is licensed as non-free, but in seems simply enough to at least qualify for {{PD-USonly}}. Source of image is given as a French Wikipedia, but fr:Fichier:Logo 7th Magnitude.jpeg appears to have been deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitively not copyrightable in the US - just text on a black background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerous. I changed the licensing from "non-free" to "PD-USonly" per the above discussion. I also added a source for the image. If I messed up the licensing, let me know and I'll correct it as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Shichinin choushou promo.png

Image has a non-free use rationale for Shin SD Sengokuden Shichinin no Choushougun Hen, but use seem to be primarily decorative and not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:7de laan new title card.jpg

Image is being used in infobox of 7de laan. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I can't seem to find the image on the show's official website. Could this be a screenshot? Does it need {{Non-free television screenshot}} if it is? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The logo was sourced from 7de Laan's official Facebook page on the day of its adoption (23 June 2015). The logo could not be obtained from the official website as the site had not yet been updated with the new logo. Knyzna1 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Knyzna1. I believe it's OK to use the show's official Facebook page as the source of the image so I will add that information to the image's non-free use rationale.- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:75th-logo-bhm.png

Image is being used in Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport#History. Image is not discussed at all and usage appears primarily decorative. I don't think the image is needed per WP:NFCC#8 for the reader to understand the sentence "In 2006 Birmingham International Airport celebrated its 75th year." - Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WSVN

Non-free images File:WSVNlogo.jpg, File:Wcktlogo.png, File:7 HD Open.jpg and File:WSVN HD.JPG all have a non-free rationales for the article, but usage in each case seems purely decorative and not needed per Wp:NFCC#8 - Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:7 Med Bn Gp Flash plus Logo.jpg

No source is provided for the image. Is the information given in |Description= sufficient to satisfy Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no real reason to doubt that it came from the group mentioned and would be overly nit-picky to delete it for lack of a valid previously published source. It would be highly recommended if this could be found, however even if it is a print work (as it might be). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lowry, Huddersfield.jpg

Replaced on L.S. Lowry by a PD image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Dwelling.jpg being used in the same article should also be removed in my opinion. There's no sourced discussion of the painting at all anywhere in the article, so usage does not show the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and is, therefore, purely decorative in my opinion. If the image is simply being used to show what a Lowery painting looks, then a non-free image is not needed since a free image could provide the same information per WP:NFCC#1. -Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png

Image has a non-free use rationale and is being used in New York Cosmos (1970-85)#Colors and crest. Image is briefly discussed in the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged.", but the statement is unsourced. Moreover, File:New York Cosmos 77.png is provides essentially the same information (minus the "New York"), so I'm not sure per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 if we really need to see the older logo to understand that "New York" was dropped. In my opinion, this is more than adequately being explained using text alone. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a significant enough change (the removal of text) to require the image to be seen, particularly that it's not sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Rajkumar in Sri Krishnadevaraya (1970).JPG

There's no discussion of the image or the film within the article where it's used. I don't believe it meets our non-free criteria. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have a non-free of the actor out of costume/make-up serving for the infobox (good), and that the comparison between the two images shows little difference in the person's appearance (the film costume does not involve excessive makeup/etc.) and that there's no discussion, it definite is a problem to keep this image. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Colombo Centrak Bank bomb attack.jpg

This non-free image is used in two articles - Colombo Central Bank bombing and Terrorism in Sri Lanka - and the purpose of use is given as "To illustrate the magnitude of the destruction caused by this attack" for both articles. Whilst this may qualify for under criteria 8 of WP:NFCI for Colombo Central Bank bombing I don't believe it does for Terrorism in Sri Lanka. I would welcome your views.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable in the attack article (a historical image of the resultant blast), but not acceptable in the overall terrorism article, since the attack article is linked from that, and merely serving to illustrate. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Icpsymbol.PNG

Non-free image is being used in Iraqi Communist Party. A similar free version (File:Icpsymbol.svg) is being used in the infobox of Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) to identify the same organization. The images appear to be the same, except the free version has the additional text on the flag. Is this additional text important enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#1 or should the non-free image be replaced by it's free counterpart? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I must ask, is that SVG really free? It's marked as "own work", which would only work if the uploader was the artist that made the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically, within the US, there is no recognized copyright for works from Iraq entities (among about 10 other non-recipical countries) - eg it would be copyright by Iraq's laws, but US does not recognize that. That said, Jimmy Wales has asked that despite these types of non-recognizition that we still respect country copyrights. So the SVG image as a derivative work of the ICP would not be considered free despite the user creating it themselves, and should be deleted, with the existing PNG acceptable to use. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could the Commons image be used as a replacement for the non-free one per NFCC#1 if (a big "if" perhaps) its licensing is acceptable?

Regarding the Commons image, there are plenty of similar flag/logo images being used in articles about conflicts/organizations in the Middle East, etc. like List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive. Most of these are .svg files uploaded to Commons as "own work". I've found some which have been nominated for deletion such as c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syrian Resistance Flag.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syria Armed Forces Emblem.svg for the reasons Jo-Jo gives above, but they have been kept. I once asked about a different .svg flag at the Village Pump, and the answer I got wasn't very clear. "Delete" or "keep" seems to depend upon whether the uploader drew the .svg image themselves or simply uploaded a copy. Honestly, it's all a bit confusing to me since many of the images I've seen used on Wikipedia (for example, File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Kata'ib Hezbollah logo.svg) licensed as "own work" are fairly detailed and professional looking so they do not look as if they were redrawn. I also asked about the PD-USonly use for Iraqi images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/July#Use of PD-USonly for images created by Iraqi citizens, but even after reading through that RfC I am still not sure what the final consensus was. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked about validity of the licensing of the Commons version at c:COM:VPC#File:Icpsymbol.svg just to see what they say. If Commons feels the licensing is OK, then I think we can safely replace the non-free version with it. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Commons keeping such files has something to do with SVG files not being derivative works of the files they are made to resemble - that appears to be the thrust of the keep arguments in these deletion requests. I find it odd but it might be true. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the flags, logos, etc. I've seen on Commons which look non-free to me do seem to be .svg files and I have really no idea as to why that makes a difference. How can something like File:Asaib-ahl-alhaq logo.jpg be non-free, but File:Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq flag.svg be non-free? To me it's exactly the same image only in .svg format with a white background added. Moreover, if the .svg version is OK as "free", then I'm not really sure how the non-free version still satisfies WP:NFCC#1 because both provide essentially the same information. There are many other examples of the type of thing thing. Infoboxes in articles about wars/battles happening in the Middle East, etc. are filled with them. Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File:West Dunbs arms.png

Image of coat of arms appears to be licensed as non-free for use in West Dunbartonshire, but only a very bare bones non-free use rationale is provided. Source is simply given as "council document" and nothing about the coat of arms can be found on the Council's official website. This photo, however, from the Council's official Flick'r account does show the CoA so I'm pretty sure it is actually used. I also found two versions of the CoA online at Heraldry of the World and The Heraldry Society of Scotland and the former more resembles the one shown in the Flick'r photo. I have two questions about this usage:

1. Is it acceptable per WP:NFCC#1?
2. Can a combination of the Flick'r photo and the "Heraldry of the World" links be used as the source of the image if the image is OK to be uploaded as non-free?

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have the textual heraldry of a coat of arms, a free version can always be recreated (it will not look exactly the same, but heraldry only describes the necessary elements that the free image can be developed from). --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Fédération internationale de ski (logo).svg

Used in 79 articles: fails WP:NFCCP#3 (Minimal usage). Rationale is provided only for article International Ski Federation: fails WP:NFCCP#10 (Image description page). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The only way this logo's use in so many articles could be justified would be if it is deemed to be too simple to be protected by copyright and re-tagged as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. Otherwise, only its use in International Ski Federation is acceptable per WP:NFC and the image should should be removed from all the other articles for not satisfying WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8 as well as No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. How are we going to remove this from 78 articles - I hope not manually? Is it possible to delete the file, let bots remove the broken links, and upload it under another name so as to use it at International Ski Federation? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a easy near-automated task for an AWB user; I can't immediately access right now but its readily doable. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the image from all of the articles except International Ski Federation per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. My edit sums included a link to this discussion for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:STWhomGods Destroy.jpg

Non-free screenshot currently being used in Whom Gods Destroy (Star Trek) and Steve Ihnat. A non-free use rationale is provided each article, but use in the actor's article does not seem warranted. Ihnat seems to have appeared in many well-known series so singling out an appearance in a Star Trek episode seems like close to WP:UNDUE. Also, there is no sourced discussion of the appearance in the article (His connection to Star Trek is only mentioned twice and one of them is the screenshot's caption) so the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is non-existent. The same screenshot can be seen in the episode's article, so it's use in actor's article is not needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If I expand the article and explain the picture, would that help? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question Kiraroshi1976 is pretty much the same as the one I gave above for the screeshot used in Yvonne Craig. I think the screeshot is probably OK for the Star Trek episode because it is being used as the primary means of identification of two of the main guest characters in the episode, Garth and Marta. Using the screenshot in "Steve Inhat" is much harder to justify per NFCC#8. "Garth" was only one role that Inhat played througout his career, so if the purpose is to simply show how Inhet looked, then any screenshot/photo could do the same. It would be better to try and find an image (photo) of Inhat as "Steve Inhat" and use that instead at the top of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Broun.jpg

The page it links as source says "Photos for News Media Use Only"

Attributed to the Smithsonian with government free use rationale. The Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the U.S. government, but separate from the government's federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

I havent used FFD before so I apologize if this shouldve been a speedy. Savonneux (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The language you quote suggests that works of the Smithsonian employees are PD works, but we have no idea whom the photographer is here, if it was a work for hire or not. The language of "news media only" suggests the copyright belongs to the photographer who is not necessarily a US gov't employee and thus this would not be free. And this should be a NFCC#1 if it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"Works prepared by officers or employees of the Smithsonian Institution are not considered works of the U.S. government if the author-employee was paid from the Smithsonian trust fund."--Copyright Office Compendium 3rd ed. §313.6(C)(1) RJaguar3 | u | t 02:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So yes, it's probably best to assume that with both the language on the site and this, we aren't looking at a free image here. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png

Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in Rhondda Cynon Taf, but I am not sure if the amount of information provided about it is sufficient to constitute a non-free use rationale or if it should be tagged with {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. I am also not sure if WP:NFCC#1 is satisfied. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The non-template rationale is reasonably fine to prevent an immediate di deletion, but it definitely would benefit from a more accurate source bit, and fleshing the rationale out more can't hurt. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Masem. I've tried to flesh out the nfur as best as I could, but please correct any mistakes I might have made. Still not sure if this satisfies WP:NFCC#1 though since it includes heraldry elements. Also, from this webpage it appears that this is not really the coat of arms of the borough per se, but rather the coat of arms of the borough's mayor. I'm not sure how that affects the image's use in the article or if the image would be better suited for Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. Perhaps this logo from the borough's official website should be used instead of the COA? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be better in terms of which image is used where. On whether that COA can be replaced, I don't know if "modern" elements come into play or not for that determination. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Liv Tyler as Arwen.jpg

Non-free image used in Arwen. Image has a non-free use rationale for article, but usage appears to be purely decorative. Not sure how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since Tyler is only mentioned in the image's caption and two other times in the article. A non-free image is not needed to help the reader understand a statement such as "In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Arwen is played by Liv Tyler." Is there some kind of allowance made for non free images used to identify fictional characters? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was the only identifying image of the character available then yes it would be okay, but as a secondary one and where there is no discussion of the appearance or the like it does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. Not sure of the meaning of "secondary one" since there is only one image being used in the article. Are you by chance referring to any of these free images found on Commons? While Tyler's portrayal of the character may be the most recent and well-known, I believe something such as File:Arwen Undómiel.jpg should be OK as a replacement, right? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:ORCID logo.png

This logo is tagged as non-free logo, but it appears to be solely coloured text with a dot. Is that really copyrightable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Easily PD-USonly, but I would suspect it should be PD everywhere as just switching colors on a font is not "sweat of the brow". --MASEM (t) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:80-20 initiative Asian American voters.PNG

Does this qualify as {{PD-USonly}} or is the flag imagery copyrightable? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reasonably PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Understand. Do you think this is OK to tag for a move to Commons since this group using the logo is based out of the US? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Commons requires images to be free in their origin country and in the US, not in the whole world. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg

Logo licensed as non-free, but I am wondering if this should be changed to {{PD-Textlogo}} and tagged for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo and should be able to be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Will re-tag it per above. Do you think it needs {{trademark}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WPTK

File:850 buzz logo.jpg and File:WKIX850.png are former logos licensed as non-free for use in WPTK. Neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article itself, so usage appears to be purely decorative and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am, however, wondering if these can be re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. The "Buzz" logo seems be just a combination of text which is too simple for copyright protection, but I am not sure about the record image used in the "All Time Favorites" logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either qualify. The first one has additional glossy text that gives it a general 3d appearance that is above and beyond standard filters, so there's some creativity in that. The second has more hand-drawn elements so it is beyond just simple geometries. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Masem. OK, they should stay non-free, but then I'm not sure if they satisfy NFCC#8. Do you think they should stay or go? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Old logos that aren't the subject of discussion should go. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:850th Horizontal Company.jpg

Shoulder sleeve insignia of 850th Horizontal Engineer Company. Image appears to be too simple to be licensed as non-free and likely does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. Should the licensing be changed to {{PD-logo}} or something similar and tagged for a move to Commons? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Should be PD-USOnly, and could be moved to commons since it originates in US. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:8664.org (logo).png

Licensed as non-free but seems simple enough for at least {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Should be PD-USonly. I believe the US Interstate badge is PD-USgov if not simple enough on its own. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Do you think this is a candidate for a move to Commons since the organization is based out of the United States? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally yes - if the logo originated in a US company and meets US's TOO, but would have unlikely met the UK one, it still remains under the fact that it likely cannot be copyrighted in the originating country so it remains uncopyrightable everywhere, and thus fine at commons. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:888poker logo.jpg

Licensed as non-free but seems simple enough for {{PD-USonly}}. Image is also tagged with {{Non-free with permission}}, but not sure if permission is actually needed or relevant in this case. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly PD-USOnly. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Masem. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:891 ABC Adelaide.png

Should this be re-licensed as {{PD-Textlogo}} and tagged for a move to Commons? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That one would not be copyrightable in the US, being only slightly modified text. I dunno about Australia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:8flavahzcrew.jpg

Image has a non-free use rationale for use in 8 Flavahz, but not sure if this kind of group shot satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since seems possible for someone to take a photo of the group in concert, etc. and license it for free use. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think NFCC#1 is met. Unless the group owns the copyright to photos of it, which I don't know any examples of. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thanks for taking a look. If NFCC#1 is not satisfied, then I understand the image shouldn't be being used. I don't quite, however, get what difference the group owning the copyright makes when it comes to NFCC#1. The "no free equivalent" requirement is satisfied if the group itself owns the copyright? I guess if the group owns the copyright they could donate the image themselves, so that means a "free equivalent" could be created, but that seems also to say that a "non-free version" is not needed. If I'm getting this all backwards or otherwise mixed up then please forgive me. I'm still learning new things all the time. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a situation where the copyright for a photography of someone by default belongs to that somebody, even if they aren't the photographer (when they didn't photography themselves). That is not how copyright law works to my understanding; one does not own copyrights to one's own image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is correct: the subject of a photograph does not automatically hold the copyright; that is the photographer. There can be a transfer of rights (such as work-for-hire where the photographer is paid for that, and the rights go to the subject) but that would need to be proven for us to assume that the subject has the rights to make the image freely licensed. There is the idea of personality rights in that if I take a photo of a famous person in public (eg all legal) but try to make money by selling that photo as to capitalize on the image of that person, then I may be afoul of the person's personality rights, but as we are talking Wikipedia and free content with no money involved, that doesn't come up for us (reusers are warned of this). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the clarification Jo-Jo Eumerus and Masem. 8 Flavahz is the only article the image is currently being used in. If it is removed, the image will be marked as an orphan. Would it be better instead to nominate the image for deletion via FFD instead and give NFCC#1 as the reason? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg

Isn't this file awfully big for it to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b and be considered non-free? Maybe it should be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}? Also, I'm not sure if attribution to the artist(s) who drew the map needs to be given in the image's caption, does it? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably should be reduced or a section of the vector file used instead to showcase the color-codings (which are a thing of note per the article). The work will be non-free (the person that vectored from the photo is not the original creator, this should be made clearer). And no, we don't require credit in the caption, though in this case, an explanation that the viewer is looking at a modern remake of the map would be good. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:90broad.png

Image has a non-free use rationale for Pi Kappa Phi. The building pictured is referred to by it's address in the article, but that's about it. Usage seems purely decorative and does not satisfy NFCC#8 in my opinion. Also, the source provided for the image is just to the fraternity's national website so there's no way to verify when it was taken or by whom, and whether it is even the building in question. Is there some other way to verify how old the image is to see whether it is still protected by copyright? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a possibility this may be free by age. The larger version of this photo appears to be here [9], which you can see the people in front are dressed in the same period of clothing as other photos (that are licensed as free) on the Phi Kappa Phi page, and seems to be related to meetings at the start of this organization's history pre 1910. As such, if we can presume that data is correct, this should be out of copyright, but I would get second opinions on that. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I did try to trace this image back but didn't get farther than here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:875 caricia.png

Came across this one while running through Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files - the page it was used on is now redirected to another article that uses a different non-free picture. Does this one meet the TOO and thus eligible for deletion under F5? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely PD-USonly at minimum. (and arguably worldwide since XM is US-owned). --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So which is the better option: (1) {{PD-USonly}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; (2) {{PD-logo}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; or (3) something else? For reference, I had removed this from Caricia (XM) since, in my opinion, its non-free usage clearly failed (and still fails) WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. That is why it became an orphan. It was argued in WP:NFCR#File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG, however, that old radio logos are OK to be used in gallery-like way in such articles per the guidelines of WP:WPRS, so I readded the image until that discussion could be resolved. If this is PD, then there are no issues other than perhaps adding a section titled "Former logos" and tweaking the caption to include the years of use really left to fix. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

PD-USOnly means that it can't be moved to Commons. Commons accepts images if they are free images in both the US and the country of their origin. If it's US-made then it should be PD-logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that Jo-Jo. I meant to delete that before I hit "save", but forgot. I originally had option (2) as (1). Anyway, I struck that part out. Sorry for the confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple files related to Amanjiwo and Aman Resorts

File:Amanjiwo logo.gif, File:Amanjiwo Logo.jpg and File:Amankila logo.gif. Are these really original enough to be copyrightable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

They are all text strings in the same font (within each case) , so this universally fails copyright thresholds and can be treated as free and uploadable to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought so. They are now tagged for deletion as orphaned non-free files; any objections to changing the tags now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the tags, given the lack of objections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG

Former logo of radio station being used in WWLB. Image has non-free use for the article, but the image is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the the article and use appears purely decorative (WWLB#Previous logo). I removed the image per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8, but it was re-added so just asking for opinions as to whether this kind of usage is acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image has a valid FUR, so non-free use is out the window. "Sourced discussion" of an image is the silliest thing I have heard. Please show me an image that has a sourced discussion and I'll show you oceanfront property in Kansas...it doesn't exist. The image has existed just fine, under the current and valid FUR, since it was moved a few months ago. I'm not sure why this has become an issue for this user, as he has commented out other images under NFCC#8 on hundreds other pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourced discussion (that is, references that talk specifically about the image or concepts it relates) implies NFCC#8, that there is contextual context for the image's use. If there is sourced discussion about an image, that means removing the image will impair the reader's understanding of the article. If there is no sourced discussion, then the image is simply being decorative and its removal will not impact the reader's understanding. Old logos run afoul of this all the time - if the logo changes but there's no explanation given for this change, then for the encyclopedia, it is not necessary to show the old logo, and is standard practice to remove such logos in these cases. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that images used in this way are not allowed for the reasons given by Masem above, and why non-free images are not generally considered accpetable for use in galleries or in a gallery like way per WP:NFG or in lists per WP:NFLISTS. Remove the image and no significant information is lost to the reader, so it seems that the image is purely there for visual reasons. As for an example of a image being discussed within an article itself where said discussion is supported by a reliable source, I think there are some that can be found. It's not a radio station logo, but I think Real Madrid C.F.#Emblem evolution is not too bad of an example. The four images being discussed there are not non-free, so they don't need a non-free use rationale, but even so they are the subject of sourced commentary so it could be argued that removing them would be detrimental to the reader's understanding if they were non-free. File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png is used in the infobox of Rhondda Cynon Taf, but if it was being used somewhere else (say in a section titled "Coat of Arms"), then discussion about it could be supported by this source. Maybe it's harder to do this for old radio/TV station logos, but I just don't see how a reader needs to see this particular former logo to understand the sentence "WLFV changed their format from country (as 'The Wolf', which moved to sister station WWLB 98.9 FM) to classic country, branded as '93.1 Hank FM'". Would the understanding of that sentence be affected in anyway if there was no former logo used in the article?- Marchjuly (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Have you actually seen a sourced discussion for an image? I haven't either. I believe that rule unnecessarily limits previously used images. There isn't a newspaper article or other source for the change of a radio, TV or other logo. That would just be silly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually I have: see Guitar Hero (series) where we include the old logo and the new, because we have two sources that talk about the change in the logo to reflect the series' new direction (the last paragraph under "Sale to Activision and development by Neversoft (2006-2009)"). Another example is several of the logos at PBS logos (please note, this is not a perfect page as the # of non-frees that aren't discussed are still too high); applicable of discussion of logos are those under the "Public Broadcasting Service IDs" describe how they came to using the "human" "P" to be inclusive of such. So logos can be the subject of sourced commentary, so that's a metric we use. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

To add that a google search of "best logo changes" shows many many hits from RSes, so people in marketing are very much aware and track this too. Sourced discussion of logo changes do readily exist, just likely not for every logo on the planet. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, while you can say alot about the Guitar Hero logo, you can only say so much about the change from one logo to another when it comes to radio stations. The logos are different, different branding, used during diffrent times with different formats. I could write something up, but it would be unsourced (it's a radio logo, no one cares about those) and there would be more about the logo than the actual station. Again, unnecessary limits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No they are necessary limits. It's within the mission to minimize non-free and to avoid indiscriminate information. Radio stations go through format and ownership changes all the time, and as you note, the logo often changes without note by anyone else. The fact that this goes unnoticed for the most part tells us that holding onto all of our non-free radio logos is indiscriminate information and because they are non-free we should only keep the one that is current (as for marketing and branding aspects per WP:LOGO) and any that are the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One additional point to add is that radio station logos can be the subject of discussion, its just that the majority aren't. WMMS, specifically the Buzzard aspect, comes to mind. But's an iconic symbol of the station (and of the city at the time) so it definitely falls within allowable use. Demonstration of iconic nature of a logo would be a point towards keeping it. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK. Six years later and we're still having this debate? I note also that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Logos disagrees with policy (2nd to last sentence of that section). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. Granted it was six years ago. :) Being a member of WP:WPRS, and knowing more in the six years since, I still disagree with the policy (like the rest of WPRS). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I wasn't trying to "break" the encyclopedia. I was editing in good faith and only removing images whose usage, which I believed (and still believe), did (does) not comply with WP:NFC based upon discussions I've seen and been a part of at NFCR and my reading of the NFC. I wasn't, however, aware of the KOTK case or the WPRS guideline cited above by Hammersoft, though in the latter's case I don't believe a WikiProject's guidelines take precedence over a community-wide policy/guideline like WP:NFC. Since there does seem to be strong disagreement about whether the use of non-free images in this manner is acceptable, I decided to go back a self-revert my edits per WP:STATUSQUO. I believe I got all of the pertinent ones, but a couple may have slipped through the cracks so I'll check again later on. At least in this way, any clean up will be minimized and images will not be incorrectly deleted if it turns out the edits were wrong. On the other hand, if it turns out the images should not be used, then they can always be removed again. Hopefully, this is acceptable to all involved in this discussion and this issue can be resolved in an amicable way. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Works for me. Let the image people and the policy people rangle with one out. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's we are trying to do here. Aren't we as editors also considered to be "image and policy people"? WP:NFC is community-wide guideline and thus takes precedence over any consensus achieved at the project or article level, doesn't it? I believe all editors are free to participate in discussions such as these and try and make their case either way. Masem makes some good points above regarding using images in such a way which seem consistent with the current NFCCP. Tacking on former logos to the end of articles like this just seems purely decorative: the image is just sitting there and not being discussed. If the former logo is needed because it will significantly increase the reader's understanding in such a way that removing it would hurt that understanding, then the image should be incorporated into the article in such a way that makes this more evident. There is already an image in the infobox representing the station's current branding so another non-free image is not really needed for identification purposes. I think that once we get outside of the infobox more developed and specific commentary is needed to satisfy NFCC#8. Simply writing one or two lines (or adding a caption) describing what the logo represents and why it is contextually significant is likely to be considered to be OR, unless it's supported by a reliable source. WP:LOGO#Copyright concerns says that it's the responsibiltiy (i.e., the burden) of the person wanting to include a non-free logo to prove that its use complies with WP:NFCC. I don't see how this is all that different from an editor adding unsourced statements to an article being asked to WP:PROVEIT. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there are editors, then there are people who specialize in image rules and creating and revising policy. BIG difference! It's like apples and squids...it's not even close. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the editors who specialize in (non-free) image rules and policy are also the ones who have been heavily involved in hammering out the concerned parts of WP:Logo, WP:NFC, WP:NFCC and other relevant community policy/guideline pages over the years. I'm not totally sure, but I think a few of them still readily particpate in the discussions taking place on this page or at WP:MCQ. Wouldn't the respective wording of those policy/guideline pages have been revised accordingly if the majority of those involved in the process felt it was "unnecessary limiting"? These pages do seem to currently say/imply that using a non-free logo/image in such a way (i.e., a purely decorative way) is not acceptable. Is there anything specifically written on any of the community-wide pages which leads you to believe this type of usage is OK? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. FWIW, I am not interested in imposing "my will" upon the community and will happily defer to any consensus it reaches or has reached regarding this. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I for one gave up. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC apply project wide...except where they don't. There are quite a few special, if unwritten, exemptions to the policy. Currency articles and broadcast stations are two such examples. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

File:QNET logo official.jpg

Another logo that appears to be {{PD-textlogo}} suitable (Also, is .jpg the right file format?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely PDtextlogo. And while nothing wrong with the JPEG this is one of those logos that we can recreate as an SVG (WP:GL might be able to help. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Sirius.svg

Image is used as primary means of identification in Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada. Usage in SSR seems fine, but I don't think usage in the SC article is allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the company is a subsidiary or "child entity" of SSM, then using the logo is not something typically allowed. I removed the logo, but it was re-added with this edit by Bearcat. The fact that "Sirius Canada never had a separate logo; it just used the same one, and no 'specific to Canada' alternate version ever existed." seems to be convered by No. 17 and still usage is not allowed. Anyway, just interested in other opens here. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirius Canada must be allowed to contain a logo — it is absolutely, uncondtionally unacceptable for there to ever be any rule which has the effect of permanently prohibiting it from ever containing any logo at all. If you can figure out some alternative solution which enables the article to contain the logo it used, then by all means go right ahead with it — but it cannot and will not be left permanently unable to ever have any logo in its infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why it "must" contain a logo. WP:NFCCP says that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Why is Sirius Canada an exception to the requirements of WP:NFC? Moreover, per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." If the image should not be being used per No. 17 of the UUI, then a valid non-free use rationale cannot really be written. Just for reference, I looked www.siriuscanada.ca to see if an alternative existed. The logo being discussed here does not even seem to be the one being used any more so using it as the primary means of identification no longer seems warranted. The logo used on the company's official Facebook page, [ or this one might be too simple to be covered by copyright. If they are, then I believe they could be used instead of the non-free logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

#17 is not a feature of any external copyright law that inherently binds Wikipedia content, but is a rule Wikipedia made up for itself that's considerably stricter than any actual law actually governing what is or isn't actually fair use. Sirius Canada was not a subsidiary of the US company, but was a completely separate, independently incorporated company in its own right — but any rule which makes it impossible for an independent company to ever have any logo in its infobox at all just because it happened to share a logo with another company by fully legal agreement between those two companies, and thus prevents the former company's article from ever being able to include exactly the same "visual identification of the company's branding" that would apply to any other company on earth, is quite simply a patently unreasonable rule that deserves nothing but unyielding pushback.

There's something extremely wrong with any rule which sets up two different classes of content rights, whereby some companies are eligible to have their logos in their infoboxes while others aren't, for reasons which have nothing to do with any clause in any actual copyright law but are purely crap we invented all on our own.

As for the matter of the "current" logo, what you're missing is that Sirius Canada and SiriusXM Canada aren't the same thing. In exactly the same way as the US versions of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio were formerly two separate companies that merged to create the contemporary SiriusXM as a third new thing, there used to be separate Sirius Canada and XM Canada companies in Canada as well — which merged into a new Sirius XM Canada, almost three years after the US companies did. So the "current" logo would be incorrect in the Sirius Canada article, because it was never used by any entity that was incorporated as Sirius Canada — it's the logo of a separate successor company, which was formed by a merger with another company, and not the logo of the defunct company that was the subject of the article under discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The url I provided above was listed in the infobox of Sirius Canada as the company's official website. If it is for a different company, then it probably should be removed. Did Sirius Canada have its own official website which may be used to verify the logo was used?

Regarding the "strictness" of WP:NFC, it clearly says that they were purposely designed to be more strict than US copyright law with respect to the usage of non-free content on Wikipedia. Any discussion about whether the NFC is too strict or unreasonable should probably take place at that talk page since it involves issues that go beyond the use of this one particular in the article.

Regarding this particular image, it doesn't seem to be the one even being used by Sirius Satellite Radio anymore. Maybe the current logo SSR is using could be used in that article and this older one could be used in the Sirius Canada article. I say "could" because once again usage of non-free content is not guaranteed and it must be supported by a valid non-free use rationale.

Finally, pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been created with Wikipedia specifically in mind and not to necessarily reflect the common practice of the outside world, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirius Satellite Radio isn't "using" a different logo than this either; it's also a defunct company, and the "current" logo is the logo of a successor company that was formed after it merged with a competitor to form a new third company with a different logo than either of the predecessor companies ever used when they were separate companies. The old Sirius logo is the only correct one on Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada, and the old XM logo is the only correct one on XM Satellite Radio and XM Canada — the new one belongs on Sirius XM Holdings and Sirius XM Canada, but not on any of the four predecessor companies.

And frankly, I care not a whit about how much "stricter than US copyright law" the NFC rules were designed to be; if they create a patently unfair situation where the Canadian companies are permanently unable to ever have any logo in their infobox at all while the American ones are allowed to have them, then they're unreasonable rules which deserve to be opposed and exploded. If there's a conflict between "NFC policy as currently written" and the principle that companies should be able to have their logo in their infobox, then the latter principle is the one that matters more. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the "latter principle" you are referring to above WP:LOGO? If it is, then WP:LOGO#Uploading non-free logos says "Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." There is also a hatnote for the same section which clearly says "This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos." Wikipedia's image use policy (WP:IUP#Fair use images) says bascially the same thing. The application of the NFC in this case has nothing to do with the "nationality" of Sirius Canada, so I'm not sure how this is being biased against Canadian companies. The NFC would apply and has been applied to companies/organizations whose parent and child entities are located within the same country, even those located solely within the United States. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not preventing logos of Canadian companies from being used, only when the Canadian company is a child company of a US company, which does appear to be the case for Sirius Canada. If there was a case of a US company being a child of a Canadian one, and both used the same logo and both were separately notable, then we'd not use the logo on the US page for the same reasons here. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

File:New England Patriots wordmark 2013.gif

This is the current wordmark logo for the New England Patriots. It is the only National Football League team that incorporates the team's copyrighted logo into its wordmark. Thus, it makes the entire image a non-free logo instead of a {{pd-textlogo}}, correct? If that is the case, then under WP:NFCCP rules #8 and 10C, it would be rather questionable to post it into the infoboxes of the following articles (as it is currently is now), right?

• Bills–Patriots rivalry
• Colts–Patriots rivalry
• Jets–Patriots rivalry

We do not have such WP:NFC problems with the other National Football League rivalry articles because the other teams' wordmark logos are just text and can be classified as {{pd-textlogo}}. However, does the use of the New England Patriots wordmark logo in this manner on those three above articles violate WP:NFCCP rule #8? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the workmark does not meet PD-textlogo or even PD-USonly. As such, its use on those rivalry pages is inappropriate. That said, if the "head" figure was removed and leaving the curved letters (as it done at the top of [http://www.patriots.com/ the official team website), that would be a text logo and that would be fine to use there. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I thought. I'm now trying to find a good source to get just the text logo as a replacement. As soon as that happens, we can probably tag this one as a CSD#F7. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[10] is a direct link to the one on the Patroits' website. You are allowed to crop out the head and leave the rest as free image (at least, PD-USonly). You might want to ask the graphics lab if they can recreate that as an SVG. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

People (Microsoft service)

This page consists of merely 596 words but has five non-free files. Two of which, File:Windows Live Mail Contacts.png and File:Windows Live People.png are questionably too large. I have linked here from the article's talk page, as I feel we're going a little too far with the non-free media — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A logo and a identifying screenshot is generally acceptable in the infobox for software, but none of the interface aspects of the previous versions are subject of discussion so they should be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Made in chelsea logo.png

File is being used in 12 articles but only has a non-free use rationale for Made in Chelsea. Is this logo is considered simple enough to be {{PD-USonly}}? If it is, then WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI are no longer an issue for the other articles. If it is non-free, then it needs to be decided if a valid nfur can be written for the other articles. If the consensus is that it can, then I am happy to go and do that. I am just not sure which is why I am asking for clarification. Finally, image is also tagged as a "screenshot", but that doesn't seem to be the case so I am just wondering why. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The crown image is creative enough so that this must be treated as NFC. It is a title card for a show, so being a screenshot is legit. With TV shows, the usage that we generally allow is the main series (which should only use the most recent title card unless other title cards have clear NFCC#8 contextual significant), and the first season that uses that new titlecard. Here, because it appears all seasons use the same logo, none of the season articles should have this titlecard. For the two special series (the LA and NYC ones) as the NYC did not appear to adapt a special titlecard for that, and likely the LA one will not, it is also inappropriate on those two (they aren't a different show for all purposes). So the only valid use is on the main show page. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the crown image and just use the text? I am not saying that would be acceptable in terms of content since the crown may be essential to the image, but I've seen copyrighted items removed from images before on Commons to allow the image itself to be kept on Commons (c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg) so I am wondering if something similar is allowed in a case like this. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, yes, at least for the other seasons where I outlined non-free would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. How would one do that? Download the image, crop out crown, and then upload it as {{PD-textlogo}} to Commons or as {{PD-USonly}} to Wikipedia?

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose it is argued that the "crown" element is essential to the logo and removing it is something that should not be done especially since the logo being used in the main article would still have the crown. Is there some sort of valid nfur rationale which could possibly be written for current version for use in the infoboxes of the individual season articles, etc.? Is there no wiggle room? I've been down this road before only to have those wanting to keep the image say No. 17 of NFC#UUI and NFCC#8 are not applicable or are already satisfied. I am thinking about adding a post to each article's talk page suggesting the crown element be removed and want to base this suggestion on accepted policy as much as possible, so any suggestions that anyone has on how to best do this would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure the crown is not just a derivative work of a freely licenced crown or is the UK threshold of originality too high for this logo? It looks rather close to being a Prince of Wales crown with simple stars replacing several elements. ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that I'm not sure. Clearly the title card is based on File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg which itself is marked PD everywhere, and if the crown is essentially the same, I would find it hard to claim that this titlecard it a novel copyright atop that , even in the UK. We may want to check at commons where there's people better versed in how this would apply. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a closer look at it Ww2censor and Masem. I don't know anything about the show, but the logo did seem familiar to me. I've seen the "Keep Calm" imagery used on all kinds of different things so maybe as you say the "crown" is protected by copyright as well. I ask at the Commons VP if the logo is a candidate for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean like one of these c:Category:Keep calm and carry on. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VPCOPY#en:File:Made in chelsea logo.png. I may have phrased my question badly, so please feel free to correct me as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer given there is correct: it is not the same crown shape as "Keep Calm", and should be considered novel, which means that for us, we'll treat the whole title card as non-free. But as noted above, just the text along would not be so that could be used on all season pages. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice the differences between the two crowns, but can understand the reasoning given in Commons. I'm not sure, however, whether the "crown" used in the titlecard is taken from a different free image. As stated above, the safe bet seems to be to remove it from the logo, and use the crown-less version for all articles besides "Made in Chelsea". Technically that is probably fairly easy to do, but I'm not sure if contextually it's the right thing to do. Is this the type of thing that should be discussed on each respective article's talk page? Perhaps something like "The non-free logo for the series cannot be used here per WP:NFC, so it should removed. A non-free logo specific to this particular season (if one can be found) or a freely licensed 'crown-less' version of the main logo may be used instead. Is there a preference?" - Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the logo from every article without an an nfur. I also did some googling and found that at least some and possibly all of the individual seasons have been released on DVD. Would it be possible to use the cover for an individual season's DVD (like this one for Season 3) in the infobox of its Wikipedia article? A non-free rationale could be added and the image tagged with {{Non-free video cover}}. Could an Amazon page be used as the |source= if these images are OK as non-free? - Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Villegas

The following files are affected by this NFCR:

• File:Antonio and Lydia Villegas and family at Manila Airport headed to USA in 1971.jpg
• File:Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas with President Diosdado Macapagal in 1963.jpg
• File:Antonio_and_Lydia_Villegas_campaigning_during_the_1971_local_election.jpg
• File:San Francisco Manila Sister City Commission visit to Manila in 2006.jpg

These four images seemingly belong to the owner, who released them here non-free. As such, they may fail NFCC#4, and more likely NFCC#8. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I have to agree here; we generally require all user-created contributed content to be in CC or PD licensing, and if these are photos that were not published yet, that makes it more difficult. We should encourage the user if they can use a CC license in which case all such issues go away. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian Riflemen's Union

This page contains a fair amount of material tagged as "fair use" which is rather vaguely sourced - somewhere http://www.voruta.lt/v-putvinskis-%E2%80%93-reformatorius-svietejas-kovotojas/ here apparently. I wonder what should be kept and what should be removed, and whether any of these images may be old enough for its copyright to have expired by now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives for File:Football Federation Australia logo.svg

Federation logo is being used in the articles for individual teams. Just wondering if the following would be acceptable non-free alternatives for use in Australia national soccer team and Australia women's national soccer team respectively:

• This logo from the men's team's official Twitter and Facebook accounts; and
• This logo from the women's team's official Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Are each of the above logos distinct enough from the federation's logo to satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI? The only real differences I can see are in the text, and the coloring inside the globe. I think the text for the women's logo is enough to distinguish it from the federation's logo, but I'm not entirely sure about the men's logo. If these are acceptable replacements, then they can be uploaded using {{non-free use rationale logo}} and {{non-free logo}} and used in the individual team articles, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)