Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 20 September 2014

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/guidelines

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

File:Vodafone logo.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, excessive use. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:RPN9-9TV 2014 logo.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Misplaced Pages only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Syd.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a failure there. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:One More Try.jpg

If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png

See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There was a "C" too much. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SL Benfica logo.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FC Porto.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Viasat Sport (Sweden)

Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FedEx Cup.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:England, Half English.jpg

Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

University of Sydney logos

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Monster (song)

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is zero mention of the "Monster Under My Bed" clip in the article, so there's no contextual significance for that clip. The other clip is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Henderson's Boys

There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the common series logo is appropriate here. The individual covers are not. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mothers Talk

There are two covers; is the USA cover relevant? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, the US cover being just the wordmark part of the original cover. Fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Basque Country national football team

All non-free images except for the main infobox one should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like this has been dealt with, but agreed that previous versions used excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is essentially the same logo as File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg, but there are slight differences. We should keep the correct one and delete the other one. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pale Shelter

Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Because of two different recordings? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:UCF Seal.svg

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg

The image was deleted at commons for lack of evidence of permission. My limited understanding of WP:NFC#UUI makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use? Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this image is a violation of both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. While the mugshot itself is the subject of commentary in Indictment of Rick Perry#Mugshot photo, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.- MrX 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is nothing about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like a NOT#NEWS improper split. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • To add, while there is discussion of the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the focus) and would be a free image. (For example, this free image File:Trayvon_Martin_shooting_protest_2012_Shankbone_11.JPG includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- MrX 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
            • The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years. He has a pretty good public campaign going on right now dismissing the indictment and this mugshot photo is an important aspect of his perspective. There are an overwhelming number of sources connecting his mugshot to his feelings about the indictment and his mugshot is unique. To try to explain in words his appearance and how it represents his feelings would be inadequate.--v/r - TP 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for information purposes, an email (ticket:2014082810013198) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? Green Giant (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the sheriffs office photos are priced at $0.00 - so this photo is unlikely to ever be freely-licensed. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Misplaced Pages for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Misplaced Pages thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a 💕 if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article about the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use images are not free content for a 💕, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say smugshot, is a matter of widespread commentary in reliable sources.- MrX 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The image is not "iconic" or of "historical importance", but there is commentary about the image. Is that commentary sufficient to overcome copyright and BLP concerns? Not in my opinion, but others certainly disagree. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by sources not presently in the article, I can follow the line of the term "Smugshot" to describe exactly how he looks in that photo, and how it relates to how he is taking this otherwise serious charge; these are sources that are now there as opposed to when this NFCR was first opened. As such, as long as sourcing beyond what is there presently (about the viral nature of the image) specifically about how people see Perry's attitude towards this charge, then this should be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I had meant to add those sources a week ago - but it's been a tough week at work and I just got over a head cold.--v/r - TP 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it should be okay (by my assessment, that is) as long as you get these in at some point, and make sure the rationale for use is focused on how people have called this a "smugshot" to show what I mentioned that have come up during this week. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, I just helped by increasing the rationale strength on the image page. You'll still need to add the sourcing for the article, but I am in no doubt they exist. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just so much ado about nothing; and the fact that the mugshot image was removed from Commons represents nothing more than a sad win for the POV pushers over common sense and the law. In Texas, there is something called the "Public Information Act" which: "applies to information of every “governmental body.” “Governmental body” is defined in section 552.003(1)(A) of the Government Code to mean: (see page 7):

(i) a board, commission, department, committee, institution, agency, or office that is

within or is created by the executive or legislative branch of state government and

that is directed by one or more elected or appointed members;

(ii) a county commissioners court in the state;

(iii) a municipal governing body in the state;

(iv) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and that is classified

as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or municipality"

The mugshot image is the public record. It was released, for public use, by the local agency which released it. Therefore, the question isn't whether WP must obtain permission for it's use. That's a desperate reach; and little more than "reasonable sounding" nonsense. That legal question is already settled, given that the agency in question has already released its public record (the image).

The only plausible objection would be IF that agency had requested the withholding of it's release (see page 8). But again, as the agency has already self-released the image, that question is already answered. Any opposing argument would have to make the nonsensical (and unproven) claim that the local agency had voluntarily self-released the image - only to then appeal to the Attorney General to rule that it does not have to release the image - after it had already released it. Effectively, asking the AG to reverse time:

The Public Information Act provides that a governmental body must request an Attorney General

open records ruling if the governmental body wishes to withhold requested information unless

there has been a previous determination about that particular information.

So no legal impediment whatsoever exists to WP using the image: either according to State of Texas law, or U.S. copyright law. That question is settled. Fair use doesn't even apply here, as the image is already entirely within the public domain and a public record not subject to copyright by an Texas, or federal, government agency. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "public record" and "public domain", from the terms of a free license. Material on public record means that the public cannot be restricted from accessing the material but the state can still maintain copyright on that material. That is not the same as public domain, where the state has relinquished all copyrights on the material so that all users can use, share, and modify the work (as is the case in California). --MASEM (t) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is, of course, a clear distinction between "public record" and "public domain." However, your definition of "public domain," which you assert is when: "the state has relinquished all copyrights," is incorrect and misstates the legal principle. When certain government-produced work is excluded from copyright law, that is not the same as relinquishing its copyright. Something must first exist, before it can be relinquished. If it does not exist, it cannot be relinquished. Per the US Copyright Office: "A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. (Also:) Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner." This entirely comports with the response provided on the OTRS (ticket:2014082810013198): "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." That is the practical definition of public domain. The producing/releasing agency has explicitly stated that it has no interest in the re-use purposes of the released material. That is as clear a confirmation that this image is in the public domain as anyone could reasonably expect. X4n6 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The PIA of Texas applies to copies of the works when requested, and only to the personal use of that copy, and as such, if the agency still holds a copyright on an item requested, then the copy remains copyrighted. In other words, it's not 100% public domain or free as we need it to be. Constrast this with California, that says all works produced by the government are immediately in the public domain (eg they cannot be copyrights). Per In sum, Texas may be a state that requires specific statutory authority before copyright authority may be enforced, but it is possible that a court might find that the default rule applies, meaning that state works are generally copyrightable. In any event, where copyright has been authorized, disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act does not impede the ability of the agency to place use restrictions on the record consistent with the U.S. Copyright Act. So unless there is something in the criminal records side of the Texas law that puts all mug shots in the public domain, we have to assume this is a copyrighted photo. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Those arguments and their conclusions are factually incorrect across the board. That link is just generic, reference info. It has no force of law and claims none. It also does not discuss any particular state laws, or even reference any. In fact, it even concedes: "some ambiguity regarding how copyright principles intersect with state access laws." The Texas PIA is the only state access law in play in Texas. But the claim, that the Texas PIA is only applicable for personal use requests, is provably false. As the Texas Attorney General's Office states: "the governmental body must be consistent in its treatment of all requestors." So in reality, the law specifically prohibits the kind of differentiation between private and public requestors that you claim it promotes. That claim is also illogical. As news agencies and others, routinely request, obtain, reproduce, reuse and re-release documents obtained per the Texas PIA. Whether the documents are originals or copies is irrelevant; as that has no bearing in copyright law. This was made very clear when the producing/issuing agency itself asserted no copyright claim in its release of the image; and further expressed its disinterest in any future disposition and reuse of the image it had released. So the problem for that argument: is that you cannot assume or assert a copyright claim; when the only agency that possibly could, has expressly declined to do so. That is likely, as has already been explained, because they realize there is no basis for a copyright claim they could legally assert. Moreover, under US Copyright law, the image would have had to have been released with a Notice of Copyright accompanying it, to assert or preserve any claim. No such Notice was attached. So the copyright argument has no standing. As without Notice, under Section 405(b), any user of the image: "incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice."

So in the absence of any proof whatsoever of a copyright claim - and in the presence of overwhelming proof that there is no copyright claim - any suggestion that we must just "assume" a copyright: exposes itself as being simply specious and frivolous - with no basis in the law; facts; policy; practice; or for that matter, logic or reality. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still talking about "requestors" so we're still talking about copies of works created by TX government, and that does not work for a free license, because they are still holding onto the copyright of the original work in a non-free manner. And you are 100% wrong about the copyright claim; per updated US law, any work created after 2002 is automatically assumed to have copyright - it doesn't need markings, it doesn't need registration. (see ). --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is plain to see that you are one of those editors who tenaciously, albeit stubbornly, holds on to your positions long after all the evidence has clearly pointed to the opposing view. So be it. But that alone is not, or shouldn't be, sufficient to prevail in this case. I've given you more than ample citations documenting the reasons why your arguments have failed. From the Texas Attorney General's Office; to US Copyright law; to the Texas PIA statutes; to the written declaration / OTRS ticket already directly submitted to WP from the very agency that produced and released the image. That last one alone is, or certainly should be, definitive. But added to all the rest: it is both conclusive and definitive. While you have failed to meet your burden to overcome a single one of those proofs with any kind of opposing or evidence-based proofs whatsoever. So unless and until you are able to produce something beyond your own speculation; and what has been your record of misreading, misstating and misinterpreting, or just simply ignoring, the prevailing laws; there's really nothing more to add. If you have, what you believe is, concrete evidence found either in Texas or US Copyright law, that definitively supports your claims: then you certainly haven't produced it. But I invite you to do so now. Errant speculation time is over. In the absence of ANY contrary evidence, there is nothing more to argue here. So per the OTRS ticket which is already on file: this image is already and immediately available for use on this project. Whether you can successfully persuade enough editors to, like you, ignore the facts and reject it, is another story. But the legal question is already settled. There is no legal, rational, objective, or fact-based impediment to the use of this image on this project. Or anywhere else for that matter. X4n6 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the ORTS so I don't know what it says or the situation it was issued under; if what is quoted here is the contents of that ORTS, then no, that's nowhere close to the allowance you're claiming it says, as outlined by the admins replying there at commons who are experts at determining free licenses; but as that discussion points out, there might have been a followup message from the department that I can't see. Everything else out there points to the fact that Texas' PIA does not automatically release material into the public domain. I am trying to see if I can get what that ticket says specifically to see if they have specifically removed the implicit copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to provide some (any) proof that would legitimize your claim that this image is protected by copyright. But you've offered nothing. Instead, in the absence of anything tangible, now you'd like to "investigate" the OTRS? As your link shows, the Commons decision was based on an incomplete review. The OTRS says - which Commons didn't reference: "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." Nothing there suggests an "implicit copyright." Just the opposite. The final sentence explicitly contradicts your claim. The Texas agency, which produced/released the image, made no copyright claim. The Texas AG, the state's chief law enforcement agency, made no copyright claim. Both agencies - staffed by expert attorneys and even representing opposing political parties - have universal agreement. They've made no copyright claim. Universal: to everyone except you. In fact, Perry's PAC is using the image in a for-profit capacity! So if there is a copyright issue, don't you think this for-profit use would run afoul of that copyright? But all we hear is crickets. Still you persist: with nothing in support. If you are unable to provide any sources defending your claims - especially with all the sources that defeat it - then you don't need to change your mind. You just need to recuse yourself from this review. X4n6 (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you are mistaken on US Copyright law. Per "A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death." No markings or registration required. So this photo, clearly post 1978, has an automatic copyright.

If that is the extent of the ORTS statement, then no, that does not put the work into the public domain. The department still owns their copyright on the original work. We require free works to be free of any copyright issues, and because the original can still be copyrighted, that doesn't work for us. They would need to specifically say something like in the body of WP:CONSENT, that they are letting that be licensed under a free license or putting it into the public domain. The fact that some people have chosen to profit off the photo is an issue between them and the department - the department could easily opt to sue them for that, but there's also fair use aspects that those people might be in the right. But that's not our issue. This image is not under a free license, and thus will be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I am hardly mistaken about US Copyright law. I just quoted it and provided you the link. However, you have again misinterpreted that law. As it states that copyright is: "ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death" - How do you define either the author's life or death, when the author is not a person, but an agency? Once again you simply cherry-picked a section you thought supports you, with no thought to its practical implication or application. You would have done better to read the very first page of your own source, which says: "It is important to realize, however, that this circular contains only general information and that there are a number of exceptions to the principles outlined here." You could also have just read the introductory section on that first page: "There are several ways to investigate whether a work is under copyright protection and, if so, the facts of the copyright. These are the main ones: 1 Examine a copy of the work for such elements as a copyright notice, place and date of publication, author and publisher. If the work is a sound recording, examine the disc, tape, cartridge, or cassette in which the recorded sound is fixed, or the album cover, sleeve, or container in which the recording is sold." We did, and it didn't. "2 Search the Copyright Office catalogs and other records." We have searched other records. There is no record of a copyright anywhere. "3 Have the Copyright Office conduct a search for you." As you feel so strongly about this, you're more than welcome to do that at your expense. However, while you would have this continue ad nauseum it has gone on long enough and I'm putting an end to it. I have contacted all the prevailing authorities in Texas to get a final answer on whether or not the image is copyrighted. They are unanimous that it is not. So I am obtaining the requisite communications and sending them to OTRS. The image is public domain and will be properly declared so. We're done here. X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

X4n6 you conveniently left off the part of that law that completely contradicts your point. "For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." Works are automatically copyright, and no registration notice, or any other action is required to secure the copyright. Conversely, very specific affirmative actions are required to release a work into the public domain, or other free license, and those have not been done. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, here is the law specifically stating that Texas (state) agency works are federally copyright. Here is the state law specifically saying that COUNTY works may be copyright (and due to federal law, automatically are) And here is the Travis county website, conveniently prominently displaying a copyright notice for their government work. . The burden of proof lies with those who want to use a work to prove that it is freely usable, not those that know that copyright is automatically applied to almost everything except Federal government works, and that "released to the public" is not the same as "released to the public domain" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, what you claim I "conveniently left off" , was omitted because it was not relevant. It only applies: "For works made for hire" - which this was not; "and for anonymous and pseudonymous work" - which this is not. Travis County is anything but fictitious. Also your other links demonstrate the same lack of understanding of the laws you cited. Regarding your first link, you conveniently ignored that the section only applies to "State Agency Web Sites". The image was released in tangible, non-electronic form as well, not just on the website. So that section does not apply. Your second link also suffers from the same lack of thorough review. You conveniently missed the 3rd word in the 1 sentence: "A county may...". "May" is not "shall." "May" is not "must." "May" is not "will." If a county "may" do something, then guess what? It just as likely "may not." No explicit mandate is implied. By the way, "and for the record," not everything on Texas state websites is copyright protected. As the Texas Attorney General's Office proves to you here and here. Finally, regarding your 3rd link; as I've already explained to you, having the Travis County website exhibit a copyright notice only applies to material appearing exclusively on the Travis County website. Further, some material reprinted there might already be copyrighted by someone else. However, as regards your burden of proof contention, you also conveniently ignored that I have already expressed the intent to provide OTRS with that proof. X4n6 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. If you are employed by a company and you create something for that company, that is a work for hire. So the person behind the mug shot camera here, an employee of the department, created that work for hitre. At this point, you are clearly in the wrong about copyright. There are experts on free licenese both here and on commons and we've all come to the same conclusion - this is a copyrighted work, which may be used under non-free terms if it meets the criteria, but will never be classified as a free work. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is your most transparent - and desperate - leap to date. Sworn officers generally process arrestees: which includes the intake process of booking, fingerprinting and photographing. Officers and staff are not paid, as you seem to believe, from some a la carte menu for every function they perform. Nor can they assert ownership of the photos, or other work product, they produce. So your claim that the photos are "for hire" is patently ridiculous. Wedding photographers are "for hire." Cops who shoot mugshots are not. As to your "experts", as you don't appear to be one of them, perhaps you should simply let the process function as it is designed to. Then we'll see. But what is of more immediate concern, is your clear disinterest in that proper process if the outcome is not to your predetermined liking. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in proper WP procedure. Your only interest, as you have repeatedly expressed, is just to exclude this image from this project - by any means necessary. You've launched every bizarre claim you could think of: largely based upon no law and supported by no logic; to reach your conclusion. That behavior is shameful. For an admin, it is the kind of behavior that leads to a review of that status. But in the interim, I recommend that you refresh yourself on NPOV. Then when those experts review the resubmitted OTRS, we'll all see where we stand. X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You've had several people tell you you are flat out wrong in your analysis of US copyright law. These are people, like myself, routinely involved in evaluating if images can be used freely or not. Further, you clearly missed the above where I said that there is now sufficient support to use this image under NFC allowances because of sourcing about the "Smugshot", so you're not assuming good faith by what people have told you. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

On top of everything else, I shouldn't also have to point out that 2 eds. - you and Gaijin42 - do not constitute "several people." As the 2 of you are the only eds. I have interacted with on this issue. But as I've also said, it really speaks volumes when you accuse me of being "flat out wrong" in my analysis of US copyright law when, between us: I am the only one who has actually quoted and linked to US copyright law. And Texas state law. AND received confirmation from the involved agencies in Texas; on the state and local level. So that attack strikes me as just petty and hypocritical. As to AGF, I only respond to statements and actions. No need to assume anything. Finally, despite the current support for the image, I'm still updating the OTRS. Just in case people are inclined to revisit the issue again later. Nothing more to say. But as I'm sure you want it, you're more than welcome to the last word. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand that your misreading of the copyright law is wrong, and interferes with how WP handing imagery and the like and can become disruptive. You linked to a subsection of copyright law that specifically talks about works (and specifically audio works) before the Berne Convention date, which this isn't. is the copyright law that applies to all published works, and there's not a mention of any need to register or have markings on it, and this been a long established point that everyone else knows; in the US if you put something in a tangible medium, it is copyrighted unless you specifically put it to the public domain. You cannot continue to argue against that, that's flat out wrong. (And I speak for the others at commons that have also identified the work as a problem). --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

X4n6, if you are sending anything to OTRS about this issue, please add the ticket number 2014082810013198 in the subject line, so it doesn't become lost.

With copyright it is always better to assume that images are unfree in the first instance and that all rights have been reserved. With this particular image the reply from the county official seemed pretty conclusive that it was not in the public domain but was made available to pretty much anybody that asked for it. Gaijin's link is also fairly strong evidence that the county holds copyright to all such images taken by their officials unless there is an explicit statement that something has been released to the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WEWS-TV on-air broadcast screenshots

• File:WEWS24HourNewsSource.jpg
• File:WEWS open.png

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded. Unless the screen format/title cards are the subject of discussion, that's just extraneous non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Fuldheim

• File:Dorothy Fuldheim picture.jpg -- Likely fails WP:NFCCP #1.

• File:DorothyFuldheim1920s.jpg, File:Oneoclockclub.jpg, & File:DororthywithTV5NewsTeam.png -- Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8.

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SAU Athletics logo.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vox (song)

I was encouraged to use only one image. However, I'm torn between using either Canadian or American cover art. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is more an editorial issue than an NFCR (you're acting responsibly from an NFC side). You may want other advice towards that, but my impression is that we nearly always use the first version cover for identification if there's a choice. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has been infrequently edited for years. I don't know whom to speak with. This shouldn't bother me. McLachlan is Canadian, but I don't know whether the song hit the charts when it was first released on airwaves. Typically, if a cover art has a face of a singer or band, I should always stick to an edition from the country where a singer or band member was born in or has been a citizen of. For example, I switched cover art of "Material Girl" from European edition to American edition. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Printscreen of "The Weight of Chains" credits.jpg

Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails WP:NFCCP point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As the uploader, I agree, please remove it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So High (Ghost Loft song)

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Olympiakos4.svg

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Magda Olivero

I removed the Youtube link to the filmed recording of the subject's rendition of "vissi d'arte". However, the edit was reverted because of PD claims. I wonder if the removal was justified under copyright law of Italy Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg

Sorry if this is not the right place to discuss this, but we have commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg which we can use to replace this file, we can also transfer this file if needed. - TheChampionMan1234 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't trust Commons. The nominated file was originally on Commons. It survived two deletion discussions, I think. Then, a couple of month after the second discussion, it was deleted out-of-process. I asked the deleting admin to decide the commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg's fate as well, pending his previous announcement to delete all derivative works of Commons:File:Windows logo - 2002.svg. Basically, the file is as eligible for Commons as Schrödinger's cat is alive.

The deleting admin is User:Fastily. You might want to contact him.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also not think this can be on commons; the effects on the 4-color "wave" are too novel to be simple effects , pushing that part of the image over TOO. Should be treated as non-free --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What Can I Do? (The Corrs song)

There are too many album covers in this article. Also, the logo shouldn't be here. The logo was deleted from some other articles by User:TLSuda after another discussion was closed, but after that, it was added to this article without any FUR. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, all but the first cover are inappropriate uses, the logo being outright flagrant violation. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png

The review of the File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png (same logo used on the current File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png) have a problem. The logo meets the criteria WP:NFC#UUI §17 in the majority of "Disney Channel" articles like as Disney Channel, Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain), Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) and others (except on Disney Channel (Germany) and Disney Channel (Russia), who use other logos). --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) and the others are clearly sub-entities to Disney Channel. WP:NFC#UUI §17 tells that the logo of the parent entity (Disney Channel) shouldn't be used in the articles about the sub-entities (Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) et cetera). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is as you say, File:DisneyChannel2010.png would have to be only on the "Disney Channel" article. That image is (or was) almost all of "Disney Channel" articles. In some cases, the logo could meet (i think) WP:NFCI §2 --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:NFC. WP:NFCI §2 is about WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is about WP:NFCC#3a. All files must satisfy both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and as this file doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3a in the country articles (per WP:NFC#UUI §17, it shouldn't be used in the country articles. §17 was added to WP:NFC#UUI specifically with this kind of articles in mind. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is in fact very similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Olivia Pope - season 3 poster.jpg

This clearly fails the criteria for a valid fair use claim. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"

The image is on an article about the fictional character "Olivia Pope". There's a separate article on the TV series Scandal (TV series). So to have an "encyclopedic purpose" the image would have to tell us something about the character which cannot be conveyed in words or with a free image. That would have to be "what the character looks like". However, we have a valid free image of the actress Kerry Washington see File:Kerry Washington Django avp.jpg. The character does not differ in appearance from the actress - has no significant costume, or makeup. Therefore there's nothing educational here that cannot be portrayed with putting the actresses's image with the caption "Kerry Washington, who portrays Olivia Pope". And indeed that's what was on the article until this image was very recently uploaded. It adds nothing. Scott Mac 21:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been argued in the past that if a live-action character is notable, a single non-free image can be used to show what that character looks like assuming that the image is capturing the poise and style that that actor presents the character as, which a free image of just the actor cannot directly convey. I don't think the poster image here is the best choice, but a single non-free would be generally allowed here. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any one of us should be the arbiter of what image captures the poise and style of that character. Whatever ABC uses as their promotional image should be what we go with. That is pretty plain and simple. As Masem has stated, there is a long-established custom of allowing a single non-free image. Quite often the promotional poster is the image that is used on WP. I am the main author of five other characters from currently running television shows: Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Piper Chapman, Crazy Eyes (character) and Selina Meyers. I have chosen to go with promotional artwork (posters and DVD covers) in all cases. I think this is much better than us choosing a screencap from our own taste. In this case, if you google image Olivia Pope Scandal poster, there is basically a chose between the profile and the frontal of her head only. I am perfectly willing to swap out the current image for a frontal promotional image from the network. I don't think we should get into choosing how to depict her from among various screencaps, but if that is preferred let me know. There are certainly many screencap images that arise from the aforementioned google image search.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know what image to go with for Claire Underwood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that if there's no free image that can convey the same information. Here there is. So whatever has "been argued" I'd like to know how this can meet the strict criteria in this particular instance.--Scott Mac 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This particular image, no, it fails, due to being more a show promo piece. On the other hand, someone might replace that with this image which removes the promo stuff. We would allow this as this image carries a poise and attitude associated with the character that cannot be readily created by a free image (we cannot expect someone to stop a celeb on the street, dress as the character in question and then drop into the character role). Note: this is from consensus in the past on character images, one I don't agree with but found best difficult to convinence otherwise). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never been told to avert the promotional text in the chosen image. Is that general policy? If so, shouldn't we crop her image from a promotional image rather than make our own choice on which screen cap to choose?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The optimal choice of a character image should be one provided by the show that just shows the character (for example Twelfth Doctor's image is a promo shot provided by the BBC). Most shows today still provide these. If there is only promo material that has text or the like, cropping that out is fine - the image here in question this would be a bad choice because it is just her face in profile and gives very little. Just scanning around for Olivia Pope, however, I see several possible promo images floating around from ABC, so one of those should be used. Only if there is no promo image, then pulling an image from a screenshot can be done with the care of editors to chose one that all believe is representative of that character. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I know which ones are from ABC other than the ones with text for the show name and the network logo on them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sites that cover entertainment will include photo credits. You can also go to the show's page on the broadcaster's website which usually will have files and media kits. (eg like here : for this specific case. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Photo credits! Bingo! I'll swap in this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald can you slap a {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my new image is satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It is certainly not resolved. I can see no justification for a non-free image here. This is a 💕 - there are criteria and they need to be strictly applied. There needs to be a high "no alternative" bar to non-free images. It is not met here.--Scott Mac 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to push for one, but consensus disagrees; they feel live action characters need a shot of a notable character on that's characters page despite the arguments that free images the actors in costume could be free replacements, because of the poise and attitude aspect. I think we could be better but can't convince people of that, so we go with allowing one non-free character image for identification. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to "push" for a high bar. The bar IS high on non-free content. The high bar is a meta:Foundation Issue not subject to consensus. It just has to be applied.--Scott Mac 09:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, if we allow that a non-free image can be used, even when there's a free image of the character, simply to capture "the poise and style", we open the door to almost any fair use claim. And we are not respecting the principle of being a 💕 with certain educational exceptions. If the character had distinctive dress or costume, I'd understand. But "poise"? That will vary through the show. What's next "shade of lipstick"? We do need to judge on a case-by-case basis, but we also need to err on the side of *free* and set a fairly high bar.--Scott Mac 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an issue that deals with NFCC#1 (nearly objective) and #8 (subjective). If it were the case we were talking this picture being used on Kerry Washington's page to identify her, that would be a very simple, very straightforward NFCC#1 failure, and that would be removed without discussion. But when you are talking a character, the argue put forth is that the poise and attitude are elements that a free image can't capture, and these are parts that need to be seen in context of a notable article on that character (#8). As that is a subjective call, we cannot just use NFC to remove the image (Otherwise we will be back to the days of BetaCommand where everyone was against harsh implementation of NFC). There has to be discussion, and in the past when there has been discussion about these images, consensus favors keeping them. I do want to stress that this is not opening doors, because the use is only being justified in one situation: when the character is notable enough to have their own standalone page, and this only justifies one single image for that page. As long as we are allowing cover art in the same manner, this is not an unreasonable consensus. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Japanese invasion money

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Obverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Reverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Obverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse Old.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 50 centavos reverse.jpg

Are these correctly indicated as unfree? Japanese works by organisations (such as the Japanese government) are protected for 50 years from publication per {{PD-Japan-organization}}. However, these were likely first published in the Philippines, meaning that Japan isn't the source country. If the Philippines is the source country, then the term in the source country might be 50 years p.m.a. or something similar. Works by the Philippine government are {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. However, these were made by the Japanese government, so maybe the tag isn't applicable. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any valid copyright has ever existed on these bills, except in the minds of the Imperial Japanese occupying forces. They are not valid circulating currency, and have not been since 1945. I'd say that by even the most stringent of standards, they have fallen into the public domain by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are writing is nonsense. Copyright is created automatically upon creation of a work. These banknotes have obviously been created at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the 1950s. Remember, at one point in US copyright law, if you didn't put the (C) notice on the work, it was assumed PD. That said, just because we're talking about money printed during the occupation of one country by another that has long since been ended doesn't mean the copyright that might have been there has disappeared: eg much of the Nazi publications do have a current copyright holder today despite the Nazi organization long since vanished. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

However, the stupid copyright notice stuff is only relevant to U.S. works (unless the copyright expired in the source country before 1996) and only affects the copyright status in the United States. The question here is partially what the source country is. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not only in the States that copyright was NOT automatic when a work was created. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Godot13 this file is in the Japanese domain/copyright which covers 50 years. These images are in the public domain. The source country would be the occupied country as all legal issues would transfer to the established government.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Umbrella (song)

There are way too many pictures from the music video. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion in the article to support one image, but not 5. Certainly not the first, or the last two, but I dont know if the other two are good either to showcase what is described in the text save for the one about applying silver makeup. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Runaway (The Corrs song)

Two music video screenshots are used. Do proses of music videos replace them? George Ho (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no critical discussion of the videos (outside describing what they show) that require the use of non-free over, say, a free picture of the band or just prose. Both are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:William Van Der Hagen, Drogheda, 1718.jpg

Not sure why a painting from 1718 is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that motion. Is there any reason to believe it is in fact not in public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The UK National Gallery might think so, but we've got the backing of the Foundation that any unmodified, 2D slavish copies (read: scans or photographs) of 2D PD art will be PD. So this should be PD. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It has no rationale for Willem Van der Hagen anyway, so best to move it to Commons as PD-art. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to scroll down my watchlist and I clicked the rollback button. bd2412 T 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely a free image, regardless of the National Portrait Galleries claims to UK law.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivanta Hotels.png

Is this copyrightable in the United States? It violates WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be PD in the US, likely not in countries like UK, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)

There is more than one album cover. Shall there be one or two album covers? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been arguments presented by the Album wikiproject when a second album cover is allowed, generally for a major release in a different region. I am not sure their take on special editors/reprints with new art, but I don't think its necessary here. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces

It has three logos. Is either of them eligible for copyright in India? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My read on India's copyright stance appears to be close to UK's, so yes they would be copyrightable there, but they do fall short of US thresholds, and would be PD-logo US Only here. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg

It is claimed that this is from 1856. Why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian Infantry Regiment No. 3 attacking during the battle.jpg

This is claimed to be from 1850. Why is it claimed to be unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Torpan Pojat logo.png

Is this copyrightable? Violates WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would say the logo is too simple to be copyrightable, but I don't know if thats a decision we make here or not. Where is the image being used? It may be fair use even if copyrighted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless that is a copyrighted font...then no. Simple geometric shapes can't be copyrighted and the only issue I can see is whether the font is copyrighted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivian James.jpg

I've tagged this copyrighted image for deletion because it is not critically discussed in the article, and tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone. It therefore fails NFCC #1 and #8. Discussed with the uploader, but he is convinced any sourced commentary on the image is sufficient, despite what WP:NFCC says about the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", something this image does not fit. Dreadstar ☥ 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Image might be better over at GamerGate where there is actually discussion about it. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Suffers the same issues in that article too; the image tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone, and it is not critically discussed. There's nothing significant about the image. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, there is critical discussion about the character at the article:

After 4chan members donated over $5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign they were allowed to create a character who would appear in the winning game. The character created by 4chan, named Vivian James as a play on "video games", was designed to appear like a normal female gamer. Vivian James was criticized by Allegra Ringo of Vice as "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". TFYC responded to criticism of its association with GamerGate and the related harassment of Quinn by offering to sell Vivian James t-shirts with profits going to iFred, a charity Quinn was supporting.

There is actually more commentary about the character than at the GamerGate article. I mean, even more could be added given some of what is said in the sources, but there is already plenty of critical commentary regarding the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The mascot's origins has curious origins which are intertwined with the convoluted course of the GamerGate, and indeed has become emblematic of GamerGate as a whole. While I've noticed a lot of Vivian James avatars on Twitter on #GamerGate, she has also been illustrative, literally, in mainstream press coverage. It's fair to say both that she has taken on a life of her own, and that it would detract from the article not to include an image of her. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that the mascot is more an issue that arose from GamerGate, even though it was more connected with a project by TFYC. It definitely should not go in both, but I do feel the rationale is stronger for the GG article due to it being made in response to all the events there. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the character going in both? Vivian James is more closely associated with TFYC in reliable sources and is supposed to appear in the game they eventually produce but is no less significant to GamerGate. As far as coverage in reliable sources, I would say Vivian James is less significant in the GamerGate, but the same non-free image can appear in more than one article. We wouldn't provide for the possibility otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We look to minimize non-free use - if only one image will work, then we do that and link from the other case. She's appropriate in one article, but not both. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• What this needs is comments from editors uninvolved in the GamerGate, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion; unlike the three involved editors above who have commented thus far - one of whom is the uploader. Dreadstar ☥ 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Be aware I'm a frequent NFCR reviewer too and been involved in too many discussions to count. I'm speaking from that perspective here. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is of questionable copyright status (as the hivemind of /v/ or /pol/ or whichever board made it is unknown) and it seems superfluous whenever it's added to the pages in question. The subject of the file may be mentioned in these articles, but Dreadstar is correct that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. The content quoted by The Devil's Advocate may be discussion of the subject of the file, but it's not critical commentary of the file itself but the subject of the file. Describing the character as being created by a group or it being an antifeminist spite mascot does not qualify for critical discussion of the image.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems inadequate to meet Fair Use guidelines and absent any notion of who holds the copyright, it does not meet the criteria for enhancing any articles on either topic. It's just an attack cartoon. Montanabw 23:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously someone who dismisses it as an "attack cartoon" is only thinking about our non-free content criteria . . . The NFCC does not mean an exact depiction of something needs to be the subject of critical commentary. The character is the subject of critical commentary and I think it is important for people to see what this "anti-feminist icon" looks like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As the image has definitely been published, and there's enough RS to direct its origins somewhere on 4chan, I'm not seeing any immediate copyright issues to prevent us from considering is as NFC. The NFC points still need to be determined, of course, but we're not talking that we cannot adequetely explain a source and give a license for. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of the image does not meet our NFCC imo. The image appears to have been added to the article purely for decoration. Fails NFCC #1: Its inclusion does not tell us anything that cannot be told using words alone. The fact that the character exists can be adequately covered using words. Fails NFCC #8: It does not increase our understanding of the subject of the article, which is the group The Fine Young Capitalists. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about other people's motivations. I added it because the character is prominently associated with the group and its involvement with 4chan per reliable sources and is discussed by said sources. It also is kind of important since saying "4chan designed a female character" does not adequately convey the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, artwork cannot be replaced by prose. Now...whether or not its exclusion would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject is another matter. Not sure about that at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

""Artwork cannot be replaced by prose."", where in Misplaced Pages policy are you getting that from? I don't see anything like that in WP:NFCC. Please clarify. AFAICT, it's a simple cartoon drawing of a girl, nothing educational or significant to the understanding of the article's subject that I can see. Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the fair use rationale with references from three reliable sources (on of them The Independent) covering the relevance of the character as the mascot of the 4chan /v/ board, and thus their primary means of identification. I've used the logo template, just like Cobi does, as apparently there isn't a mascot-specific one except for teams; I'm not sure if the logo template applies, but the rationale definitely does, as Vivian James has been recognized by the RSs as "the primary means of visual identification" of the /v/ board, and that is an accepted NFC criteria per WP:NFCI#2 and Misplaced Pages:Logos. Diego (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Independent did not mention TFYC so I removed that mention, though it can definitely be used in the GamerGate article for that purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Diego (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Source", for the fair use rationale template, is intended for the source of the image, not a source that discusses the image. The source for the image needs to be chagned to vice.com. The Forbes article states that this was a mascot for a game, not for 4chan or 4chan /v/ board. We don't have an article on 4chan /v/ board, so the image currently qualifies for removal under speedy deletion criterion F6 for the article 4chan. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. There's a broken template on the file page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of people making an image is not the same thing as discussing the image itself. I see nothing in the content above that is aided by having the image other than just normal illustration. That is not sufficient to pass NFCC imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Where in the criteria does it actually say the image must be discussed to used?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember, ALL NFCC criteria must be met. NFCC #8 more specifically Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion What understanding would the reader have about this topic that they would not have if the image were missing? What discussion of the image is there? Note the "only" in the identification bit. Is this the "only" way to identify the image?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that is simply not what that says at all. First that section makes it clear from the top that the two most common "circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are..." and then lists those two common circumstances. Nowhere does that state those two instances are the only reason non free images may be used or that if those two circumstances are not met that the image cannot be used. I am sorry but our non free content criteria in no ways states that as an absolute...only that "eeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content" and that we determine such by "principles of due weight and balance."--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the character. It is unlikely there will be discussion of a specific image of Vivian James, as is the case with most images of fictional characters. In the case of fictional characters a non-free image serves as an exemplar. For instance, critical commentary on a particular costume or design for a character may be illustrated by any official image of the character with that design or costume. You are unlikely to find a source discussing the exact image you are using because it is interchangeable with any number of examples of the design or costume and is not really the primary copyright concern. Copyright most specifically applies to the design of the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As another data point, if Vivian was a notable character for her own article, we would allow a non-free image of her in that for identification. Can that be done? Arguably yes - there's enough data for notability here. However, separating her from the discussion of either TFYC or GamerGate would be rather duplicative, but because she would be notable for her own article, we would allow a non-free in one of those places as well. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't even come close to passing WP:GNG. and since it's regarding a WP:BLP, that's another huge hurdle it would fail to pass. That's something else to consider here, BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's multiple secondary sources talking about the creation and use of the character, and while there are BLP reasons that led to its creation, the character itself is not tied to anything directly. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC and even WP:TALK. The cartoon drawing is not notable, fails non-free, and is an attack on a BLP. Clearly and undeniably. Your data point actually goes to deletion, not an article. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

File:Vodafone logo.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, excessive use. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:RPN9-9TV 2014 logo.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Misplaced Pages only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Syd.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a failure there. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:One More Try.jpg

If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png

See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There was a "C" too much. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SL Benfica logo.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FC Porto.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Viasat Sport (Sweden)

Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FedEx Cup.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:England, Half English.jpg

Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

University of Sydney logos

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Monster (song)

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is zero mention of the "Monster Under My Bed" clip in the article, so there's no contextual significance for that clip. The other clip is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Henderson's Boys

There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the common series logo is appropriate here. The individual covers are not. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mothers Talk

There are two covers; is the USA cover relevant? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, the US cover being just the wordmark part of the original cover. Fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Basque Country national football team

All non-free images except for the main infobox one should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like this has been dealt with, but agreed that previous versions used excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is essentially the same logo as File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg, but there are slight differences. We should keep the correct one and delete the other one. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pale Shelter

Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Because of two different recordings? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:UCF Seal.svg

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg

The image was deleted at commons for lack of evidence of permission. My limited understanding of WP:NFC#UUI makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use? Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this image is a violation of both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. While the mugshot itself is the subject of commentary in Indictment of Rick Perry#Mugshot photo, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.- MrX 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is nothing about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like a NOT#NEWS improper split. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • To add, while there is discussion of the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the focus) and would be a free image. (For example, this free image File:Trayvon_Martin_shooting_protest_2012_Shankbone_11.JPG includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- MrX 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
            • The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years. He has a pretty good public campaign going on right now dismissing the indictment and this mugshot photo is an important aspect of his perspective. There are an overwhelming number of sources connecting his mugshot to his feelings about the indictment and his mugshot is unique. To try to explain in words his appearance and how it represents his feelings would be inadequate.--v/r - TP 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for information purposes, an email (ticket:2014082810013198) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? Green Giant (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the sheriffs office photos are priced at $0.00 - so this photo is unlikely to ever be freely-licensed. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Misplaced Pages for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Misplaced Pages thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a 💕 if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article about the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use images are not free content for a 💕, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say smugshot, is a matter of widespread commentary in reliable sources.- MrX 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The image is not "iconic" or of "historical importance", but there is commentary about the image. Is that commentary sufficient to overcome copyright and BLP concerns? Not in my opinion, but others certainly disagree. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by sources not presently in the article, I can follow the line of the term "Smugshot" to describe exactly how he looks in that photo, and how it relates to how he is taking this otherwise serious charge; these are sources that are now there as opposed to when this NFCR was first opened. As such, as long as sourcing beyond what is there presently (about the viral nature of the image) specifically about how people see Perry's attitude towards this charge, then this should be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I had meant to add those sources a week ago - but it's been a tough week at work and I just got over a head cold.--v/r - TP 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it should be okay (by my assessment, that is) as long as you get these in at some point, and make sure the rationale for use is focused on how people have called this a "smugshot" to show what I mentioned that have come up during this week. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, I just helped by increasing the rationale strength on the image page. You'll still need to add the sourcing for the article, but I am in no doubt they exist. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just so much ado about nothing; and the fact that the mugshot image was removed from Commons represents nothing more than a sad win for the POV pushers over common sense and the law. In Texas, there is something called the "Public Information Act" which: "applies to information of every “governmental body.” “Governmental body” is defined in section 552.003(1)(A) of the Government Code to mean: (see page 7):

(i) a board, commission, department, committee, institution, agency, or office that is

within or is created by the executive or legislative branch of state government and

that is directed by one or more elected or appointed members;

(ii) a county commissioners court in the state;

(iii) a municipal governing body in the state;

(iv) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and that is classified

as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or municipality"

The mugshot image is the public record. It was released, for public use, by the local agency which released it. Therefore, the question isn't whether WP must obtain permission for it's use. That's a desperate reach; and little more than "reasonable sounding" nonsense. That legal question is already settled, given that the agency in question has already released its public record (the image).

The only plausible objection would be IF that agency had requested the withholding of it's release (see page 8). But again, as the agency has already self-released the image, that question is already answered. Any opposing argument would have to make the nonsensical (and unproven) claim that the local agency had voluntarily self-released the image - only to then appeal to the Attorney General to rule that it does not have to release the image - after it had already released it. Effectively, asking the AG to reverse time:

The Public Information Act provides that a governmental body must request an Attorney General

open records ruling if the governmental body wishes to withhold requested information unless

there has been a previous determination about that particular information.

So no legal impediment whatsoever exists to WP using the image: either according to State of Texas law, or U.S. copyright law. That question is settled. Fair use doesn't even apply here, as the image is already entirely within the public domain and a public record not subject to copyright by an Texas, or federal, government agency. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "public record" and "public domain", from the terms of a free license. Material on public record means that the public cannot be restricted from accessing the material but the state can still maintain copyright on that material. That is not the same as public domain, where the state has relinquished all copyrights on the material so that all users can use, share, and modify the work (as is the case in California). --MASEM (t) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is, of course, a clear distinction between "public record" and "public domain." However, your definition of "public domain," which you assert is when: "the state has relinquished all copyrights," is incorrect and misstates the legal principle. When certain government-produced work is excluded from copyright law, that is not the same as relinquishing its copyright. Something must first exist, before it can be relinquished. If it does not exist, it cannot be relinquished. Per the US Copyright Office: "A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. (Also:) Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner." This entirely comports with the response provided on the OTRS (ticket:2014082810013198): "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." That is the practical definition of public domain. The producing/releasing agency has explicitly stated that it has no interest in the re-use purposes of the released material. That is as clear a confirmation that this image is in the public domain as anyone could reasonably expect. X4n6 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The PIA of Texas applies to copies of the works when requested, and only to the personal use of that copy, and as such, if the agency still holds a copyright on an item requested, then the copy remains copyrighted. In other words, it's not 100% public domain or free as we need it to be. Constrast this with California, that says all works produced by the government are immediately in the public domain (eg they cannot be copyrights). Per In sum, Texas may be a state that requires specific statutory authority before copyright authority may be enforced, but it is possible that a court might find that the default rule applies, meaning that state works are generally copyrightable. In any event, where copyright has been authorized, disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act does not impede the ability of the agency to place use restrictions on the record consistent with the U.S. Copyright Act. So unless there is something in the criminal records side of the Texas law that puts all mug shots in the public domain, we have to assume this is a copyrighted photo. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Those arguments and their conclusions are factually incorrect across the board. That link is just generic, reference info. It has no force of law and claims none. It also does not discuss any particular state laws, or even reference any. In fact, it even concedes: "some ambiguity regarding how copyright principles intersect with state access laws." The Texas PIA is the only state access law in play in Texas. But the claim, that the Texas PIA is only applicable for personal use requests, is provably false. As the Texas Attorney General's Office states: "the governmental body must be consistent in its treatment of all requestors." So in reality, the law specifically prohibits the kind of differentiation between private and public requestors that you claim it promotes. That claim is also illogical. As news agencies and others, routinely request, obtain, reproduce, reuse and re-release documents obtained per the Texas PIA. Whether the documents are originals or copies is irrelevant; as that has no bearing in copyright law. This was made very clear when the producing/issuing agency itself asserted no copyright claim in its release of the image; and further expressed its disinterest in any future disposition and reuse of the image it had released. So the problem for that argument: is that you cannot assume or assert a copyright claim; when the only agency that possibly could, has expressly declined to do so. That is likely, as has already been explained, because they realize there is no basis for a copyright claim they could legally assert. Moreover, under US Copyright law, the image would have had to have been released with a Notice of Copyright accompanying it, to assert or preserve any claim. No such Notice was attached. So the copyright argument has no standing. As without Notice, under Section 405(b), any user of the image: "incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice."

So in the absence of any proof whatsoever of a copyright claim - and in the presence of overwhelming proof that there is no copyright claim - any suggestion that we must just "assume" a copyright: exposes itself as being simply specious and frivolous - with no basis in the law; facts; policy; practice; or for that matter, logic or reality. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still talking about "requestors" so we're still talking about copies of works created by TX government, and that does not work for a free license, because they are still holding onto the copyright of the original work in a non-free manner. And you are 100% wrong about the copyright claim; per updated US law, any work created after 2002 is automatically assumed to have copyright - it doesn't need markings, it doesn't need registration. (see ). --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is plain to see that you are one of those editors who tenaciously, albeit stubbornly, holds on to your positions long after all the evidence has clearly pointed to the opposing view. So be it. But that alone is not, or shouldn't be, sufficient to prevail in this case. I've given you more than ample citations documenting the reasons why your arguments have failed. From the Texas Attorney General's Office; to US Copyright law; to the Texas PIA statutes; to the written declaration / OTRS ticket already directly submitted to WP from the very agency that produced and released the image. That last one alone is, or certainly should be, definitive. But added to all the rest: it is both conclusive and definitive. While you have failed to meet your burden to overcome a single one of those proofs with any kind of opposing or evidence-based proofs whatsoever. So unless and until you are able to produce something beyond your own speculation; and what has been your record of misreading, misstating and misinterpreting, or just simply ignoring, the prevailing laws; there's really nothing more to add. If you have, what you believe is, concrete evidence found either in Texas or US Copyright law, that definitively supports your claims: then you certainly haven't produced it. But I invite you to do so now. Errant speculation time is over. In the absence of ANY contrary evidence, there is nothing more to argue here. So per the OTRS ticket which is already on file: this image is already and immediately available for use on this project. Whether you can successfully persuade enough editors to, like you, ignore the facts and reject it, is another story. But the legal question is already settled. There is no legal, rational, objective, or fact-based impediment to the use of this image on this project. Or anywhere else for that matter. X4n6 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the ORTS so I don't know what it says or the situation it was issued under; if what is quoted here is the contents of that ORTS, then no, that's nowhere close to the allowance you're claiming it says, as outlined by the admins replying there at commons who are experts at determining free licenses; but as that discussion points out, there might have been a followup message from the department that I can't see. Everything else out there points to the fact that Texas' PIA does not automatically release material into the public domain. I am trying to see if I can get what that ticket says specifically to see if they have specifically removed the implicit copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to provide some (any) proof that would legitimize your claim that this image is protected by copyright. But you've offered nothing. Instead, in the absence of anything tangible, now you'd like to "investigate" the OTRS? As your link shows, the Commons decision was based on an incomplete review. The OTRS says - which Commons didn't reference: "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." Nothing there suggests an "implicit copyright." Just the opposite. The final sentence explicitly contradicts your claim. The Texas agency, which produced/released the image, made no copyright claim. The Texas AG, the state's chief law enforcement agency, made no copyright claim. Both agencies - staffed by expert attorneys and even representing opposing political parties - have universal agreement. They've made no copyright claim. Universal: to everyone except you. In fact, Perry's PAC is using the image in a for-profit capacity! So if there is a copyright issue, don't you think this for-profit use would run afoul of that copyright? But all we hear is crickets. Still you persist: with nothing in support. If you are unable to provide any sources defending your claims - especially with all the sources that defeat it - then you don't need to change your mind. You just need to recuse yourself from this review. X4n6 (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you are mistaken on US Copyright law. Per "A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death." No markings or registration required. So this photo, clearly post 1978, has an automatic copyright.

If that is the extent of the ORTS statement, then no, that does not put the work into the public domain. The department still owns their copyright on the original work. We require free works to be free of any copyright issues, and because the original can still be copyrighted, that doesn't work for us. They would need to specifically say something like in the body of WP:CONSENT, that they are letting that be licensed under a free license or putting it into the public domain. The fact that some people have chosen to profit off the photo is an issue between them and the department - the department could easily opt to sue them for that, but there's also fair use aspects that those people might be in the right. But that's not our issue. This image is not under a free license, and thus will be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I am hardly mistaken about US Copyright law. I just quoted it and provided you the link. However, you have again misinterpreted that law. As it states that copyright is: "ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death" - How do you define either the author's life or death, when the author is not a person, but an agency? Once again you simply cherry-picked a section you thought supports you, with no thought to its practical implication or application. You would have done better to read the very first page of your own source, which says: "It is important to realize, however, that this circular contains only general information and that there are a number of exceptions to the principles outlined here." You could also have just read the introductory section on that first page: "There are several ways to investigate whether a work is under copyright protection and, if so, the facts of the copyright. These are the main ones: 1 Examine a copy of the work for such elements as a copyright notice, place and date of publication, author and publisher. If the work is a sound recording, examine the disc, tape, cartridge, or cassette in which the recorded sound is fixed, or the album cover, sleeve, or container in which the recording is sold." We did, and it didn't. "2 Search the Copyright Office catalogs and other records." We have searched other records. There is no record of a copyright anywhere. "3 Have the Copyright Office conduct a search for you." As you feel so strongly about this, you're more than welcome to do that at your expense. However, while you would have this continue ad nauseum it has gone on long enough and I'm putting an end to it. I have contacted all the prevailing authorities in Texas to get a final answer on whether or not the image is copyrighted. They are unanimous that it is not. So I am obtaining the requisite communications and sending them to OTRS. The image is public domain and will be properly declared so. We're done here. X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

X4n6 you conveniently left off the part of that law that completely contradicts your point. "For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." Works are automatically copyright, and no registration notice, or any other action is required to secure the copyright. Conversely, very specific affirmative actions are required to release a work into the public domain, or other free license, and those have not been done. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, here is the law specifically stating that Texas (state) agency works are federally copyright. Here is the state law specifically saying that COUNTY works may be copyright (and due to federal law, automatically are) And here is the Travis county website, conveniently prominently displaying a copyright notice for their government work. . The burden of proof lies with those who want to use a work to prove that it is freely usable, not those that know that copyright is automatically applied to almost everything except Federal government works, and that "released to the public" is not the same as "released to the public domain" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, what you claim I "conveniently left off" , was omitted because it was not relevant. It only applies: "For works made for hire" - which this was not; "and for anonymous and pseudonymous work" - which this is not. Travis County is anything but fictitious. Also your other links demonstrate the same lack of understanding of the laws you cited. Regarding your first link, you conveniently ignored that the section only applies to "State Agency Web Sites". The image was released in tangible, non-electronic form as well, not just on the website. So that section does not apply. Your second link also suffers from the same lack of thorough review. You conveniently missed the 3rd word in the 1 sentence: "A county may...". "May" is not "shall." "May" is not "must." "May" is not "will." If a county "may" do something, then guess what? It just as likely "may not." No explicit mandate is implied. By the way, "and for the record," not everything on Texas state websites is copyright protected. As the Texas Attorney General's Office proves to you here and here. Finally, regarding your 3rd link; as I've already explained to you, having the Travis County website exhibit a copyright notice only applies to material appearing exclusively on the Travis County website. Further, some material reprinted there might already be copyrighted by someone else. However, as regards your burden of proof contention, you also conveniently ignored that I have already expressed the intent to provide OTRS with that proof. X4n6 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. If you are employed by a company and you create something for that company, that is a work for hire. So the person behind the mug shot camera here, an employee of the department, created that work for hitre. At this point, you are clearly in the wrong about copyright. There are experts on free licenese both here and on commons and we've all come to the same conclusion - this is a copyrighted work, which may be used under non-free terms if it meets the criteria, but will never be classified as a free work. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is your most transparent - and desperate - leap to date. Sworn officers generally process arrestees: which includes the intake process of booking, fingerprinting and photographing. Officers and staff are not paid, as you seem to believe, from some a la carte menu for every function they perform. Nor can they assert ownership of the photos, or other work product, they produce. So your claim that the photos are "for hire" is patently ridiculous. Wedding photographers are "for hire." Cops who shoot mugshots are not. As to your "experts", as you don't appear to be one of them, perhaps you should simply let the process function as it is designed to. Then we'll see. But what is of more immediate concern, is your clear disinterest in that proper process if the outcome is not to your predetermined liking. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in proper WP procedure. Your only interest, as you have repeatedly expressed, is just to exclude this image from this project - by any means necessary. You've launched every bizarre claim you could think of: largely based upon no law and supported by no logic; to reach your conclusion. That behavior is shameful. For an admin, it is the kind of behavior that leads to a review of that status. But in the interim, I recommend that you refresh yourself on NPOV. Then when those experts review the resubmitted OTRS, we'll all see where we stand. X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You've had several people tell you you are flat out wrong in your analysis of US copyright law. These are people, like myself, routinely involved in evaluating if images can be used freely or not. Further, you clearly missed the above where I said that there is now sufficient support to use this image under NFC allowances because of sourcing about the "Smugshot", so you're not assuming good faith by what people have told you. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

On top of everything else, I shouldn't also have to point out that 2 eds. - you and Gaijin42 - do not constitute "several people." As the 2 of you are the only eds. I have interacted with on this issue. But as I've also said, it really speaks volumes when you accuse me of being "flat out wrong" in my analysis of US copyright law when, between us: I am the only one who has actually quoted and linked to US copyright law. And Texas state law. AND received confirmation from the involved agencies in Texas; on the state and local level. So that attack strikes me as just petty and hypocritical. As to AGF, I only respond to statements and actions. No need to assume anything. Finally, despite the current support for the image, I'm still updating the OTRS. Just in case people are inclined to revisit the issue again later. Nothing more to say. But as I'm sure you want it, you're more than welcome to the last word. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand that your misreading of the copyright law is wrong, and interferes with how WP handing imagery and the like and can become disruptive. You linked to a subsection of copyright law that specifically talks about works (and specifically audio works) before the Berne Convention date, which this isn't. is the copyright law that applies to all published works, and there's not a mention of any need to register or have markings on it, and this been a long established point that everyone else knows; in the US if you put something in a tangible medium, it is copyrighted unless you specifically put it to the public domain. You cannot continue to argue against that, that's flat out wrong. (And I speak for the others at commons that have also identified the work as a problem). --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

X4n6, if you are sending anything to OTRS about this issue, please add the ticket number 2014082810013198 in the subject line, so it doesn't become lost.

With copyright it is always better to assume that images are unfree in the first instance and that all rights have been reserved. With this particular image the reply from the county official seemed pretty conclusive that it was not in the public domain but was made available to pretty much anybody that asked for it. Gaijin's link is also fairly strong evidence that the county holds copyright to all such images taken by their officials unless there is an explicit statement that something has been released to the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WEWS-TV on-air broadcast screenshots

• File:WEWS24HourNewsSource.jpg
• File:WEWS open.png

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded. Unless the screen format/title cards are the subject of discussion, that's just extraneous non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Fuldheim

• File:Dorothy Fuldheim picture.jpg -- Likely fails WP:NFCCP #1.

• File:DorothyFuldheim1920s.jpg, File:Oneoclockclub.jpg, & File:DororthywithTV5NewsTeam.png -- Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8.

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SAU Athletics logo.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vox (song)

I was encouraged to use only one image. However, I'm torn between using either Canadian or American cover art. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is more an editorial issue than an NFCR (you're acting responsibly from an NFC side). You may want other advice towards that, but my impression is that we nearly always use the first version cover for identification if there's a choice. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has been infrequently edited for years. I don't know whom to speak with. This shouldn't bother me. McLachlan is Canadian, but I don't know whether the song hit the charts when it was first released on airwaves. Typically, if a cover art has a face of a singer or band, I should always stick to an edition from the country where a singer or band member was born in or has been a citizen of. For example, I switched cover art of "Material Girl" from European edition to American edition. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Printscreen of "The Weight of Chains" credits.jpg

Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails WP:NFCCP point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As the uploader, I agree, please remove it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So High (Ghost Loft song)

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Olympiakos4.svg

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Magda Olivero

I removed the Youtube link to the filmed recording of the subject's rendition of "vissi d'arte". However, the edit was reverted because of PD claims. I wonder if the removal was justified under copyright law of Italy Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg

Sorry if this is not the right place to discuss this, but we have commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg which we can use to replace this file, we can also transfer this file if needed. - TheChampionMan1234 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't trust Commons. The nominated file was originally on Commons. It survived two deletion discussions, I think. Then, a couple of month after the second discussion, it was deleted out-of-process. I asked the deleting admin to decide the commons:File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg's fate as well, pending his previous announcement to delete all derivative works of Commons:File:Windows logo - 2002.svg. Basically, the file is as eligible for Commons as Schrödinger's cat is alive.

The deleting admin is User:Fastily. You might want to contact him.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also not think this can be on commons; the effects on the 4-color "wave" are too novel to be simple effects , pushing that part of the image over TOO. Should be treated as non-free --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What Can I Do? (The Corrs song)

There are too many album covers in this article. Also, the logo shouldn't be here. The logo was deleted from some other articles by User:TLSuda after another discussion was closed, but after that, it was added to this article without any FUR. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, all but the first cover are inappropriate uses, the logo being outright flagrant violation. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png

The review of the File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png (same logo used on the current File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png) have a problem. The logo meets the criteria WP:NFC#UUI §17 in the majority of "Disney Channel" articles like as Disney Channel, Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain), Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) and others (except on Disney Channel (Germany) and Disney Channel (Russia), who use other logos). --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) and the others are clearly sub-entities to Disney Channel. WP:NFC#UUI §17 tells that the logo of the parent entity (Disney Channel) shouldn't be used in the articles about the sub-entities (Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) et cetera). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is as you say, File:DisneyChannel2010.png would have to be only on the "Disney Channel" article. That image is (or was) almost all of "Disney Channel" articles. In some cases, the logo could meet (i think) WP:NFCI §2 --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:NFC. WP:NFCI §2 is about WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is about WP:NFCC#3a. All files must satisfy both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and as this file doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3a in the country articles (per WP:NFC#UUI §17, it shouldn't be used in the country articles. §17 was added to WP:NFC#UUI specifically with this kind of articles in mind. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is in fact very similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Olivia Pope - season 3 poster.jpg

This clearly fails the criteria for a valid fair use claim. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"

The image is on an article about the fictional character "Olivia Pope". There's a separate article on the TV series Scandal (TV series). So to have an "encyclopedic purpose" the image would have to tell us something about the character which cannot be conveyed in words or with a free image. That would have to be "what the character looks like". However, we have a valid free image of the actress Kerry Washington see File:Kerry Washington Django avp.jpg. The character does not differ in appearance from the actress - has no significant costume, or makeup. Therefore there's nothing educational here that cannot be portrayed with putting the actresses's image with the caption "Kerry Washington, who portrays Olivia Pope". And indeed that's what was on the article until this image was very recently uploaded. It adds nothing. Scott Mac 21:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been argued in the past that if a live-action character is notable, a single non-free image can be used to show what that character looks like assuming that the image is capturing the poise and style that that actor presents the character as, which a free image of just the actor cannot directly convey. I don't think the poster image here is the best choice, but a single non-free would be generally allowed here. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any one of us should be the arbiter of what image captures the poise and style of that character. Whatever ABC uses as their promotional image should be what we go with. That is pretty plain and simple. As Masem has stated, there is a long-established custom of allowing a single non-free image. Quite often the promotional poster is the image that is used on WP. I am the main author of five other characters from currently running television shows: Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Piper Chapman, Crazy Eyes (character) and Selina Meyers. I have chosen to go with promotional artwork (posters and DVD covers) in all cases. I think this is much better than us choosing a screencap from our own taste. In this case, if you google image Olivia Pope Scandal poster, there is basically a chose between the profile and the frontal of her head only. I am perfectly willing to swap out the current image for a frontal promotional image from the network. I don't think we should get into choosing how to depict her from among various screencaps, but if that is preferred let me know. There are certainly many screencap images that arise from the aforementioned google image search.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know what image to go with for Claire Underwood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that if there's no free image that can convey the same information. Here there is. So whatever has "been argued" I'd like to know how this can meet the strict criteria in this particular instance.--Scott Mac 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This particular image, no, it fails, due to being more a show promo piece. On the other hand, someone might replace that with this image which removes the promo stuff. We would allow this as this image carries a poise and attitude associated with the character that cannot be readily created by a free image (we cannot expect someone to stop a celeb on the street, dress as the character in question and then drop into the character role). Note: this is from consensus in the past on character images, one I don't agree with but found best difficult to convinence otherwise). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never been told to avert the promotional text in the chosen image. Is that general policy? If so, shouldn't we crop her image from a promotional image rather than make our own choice on which screen cap to choose?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The optimal choice of a character image should be one provided by the show that just shows the character (for example Twelfth Doctor's image is a promo shot provided by the BBC). Most shows today still provide these. If there is only promo material that has text or the like, cropping that out is fine - the image here in question this would be a bad choice because it is just her face in profile and gives very little. Just scanning around for Olivia Pope, however, I see several possible promo images floating around from ABC, so one of those should be used. Only if there is no promo image, then pulling an image from a screenshot can be done with the care of editors to chose one that all believe is representative of that character. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I know which ones are from ABC other than the ones with text for the show name and the network logo on them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sites that cover entertainment will include photo credits. You can also go to the show's page on the broadcaster's website which usually will have files and media kits. (eg like here : for this specific case. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Photo credits! Bingo! I'll swap in this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald can you slap a {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my new image is satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It is certainly not resolved. I can see no justification for a non-free image here. This is a 💕 - there are criteria and they need to be strictly applied. There needs to be a high "no alternative" bar to non-free images. It is not met here.--Scott Mac 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to push for one, but consensus disagrees; they feel live action characters need a shot of a notable character on that's characters page despite the arguments that free images the actors in costume could be free replacements, because of the poise and attitude aspect. I think we could be better but can't convince people of that, so we go with allowing one non-free character image for identification. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to "push" for a high bar. The bar IS high on non-free content. The high bar is a meta:Foundation Issue not subject to consensus. It just has to be applied.--Scott Mac 09:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, if we allow that a non-free image can be used, even when there's a free image of the character, simply to capture "the poise and style", we open the door to almost any fair use claim. And we are not respecting the principle of being a 💕 with certain educational exceptions. If the character had distinctive dress or costume, I'd understand. But "poise"? That will vary through the show. What's next "shade of lipstick"? We do need to judge on a case-by-case basis, but we also need to err on the side of *free* and set a fairly high bar.--Scott Mac 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an issue that deals with NFCC#1 (nearly objective) and #8 (subjective). If it were the case we were talking this picture being used on Kerry Washington's page to identify her, that would be a very simple, very straightforward NFCC#1 failure, and that would be removed without discussion. But when you are talking a character, the argue put forth is that the poise and attitude are elements that a free image can't capture, and these are parts that need to be seen in context of a notable article on that character (#8). As that is a subjective call, we cannot just use NFC to remove the image (Otherwise we will be back to the days of BetaCommand where everyone was against harsh implementation of NFC). There has to be discussion, and in the past when there has been discussion about these images, consensus favors keeping them. I do want to stress that this is not opening doors, because the use is only being justified in one situation: when the character is notable enough to have their own standalone page, and this only justifies one single image for that page. As long as we are allowing cover art in the same manner, this is not an unreasonable consensus. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Japanese invasion money

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Obverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 100 Peso Reverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Obverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 10 Pesos Reverse Old.jpg

File:Japanese Invasion Money, 50 centavos reverse.jpg

Are these correctly indicated as unfree? Japanese works by organisations (such as the Japanese government) are protected for 50 years from publication per {{PD-Japan-organization}}. However, these were likely first published in the Philippines, meaning that Japan isn't the source country. If the Philippines is the source country, then the term in the source country might be 50 years p.m.a. or something similar. Works by the Philippine government are {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. However, these were made by the Japanese government, so maybe the tag isn't applicable. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any valid copyright has ever existed on these bills, except in the minds of the Imperial Japanese occupying forces. They are not valid circulating currency, and have not been since 1945. I'd say that by even the most stringent of standards, they have fallen into the public domain by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are writing is nonsense. Copyright is created automatically upon creation of a work. These banknotes have obviously been created at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the 1950s. Remember, at one point in US copyright law, if you didn't put the (C) notice on the work, it was assumed PD. That said, just because we're talking about money printed during the occupation of one country by another that has long since been ended doesn't mean the copyright that might have been there has disappeared: eg much of the Nazi publications do have a current copyright holder today despite the Nazi organization long since vanished. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

However, the stupid copyright notice stuff is only relevant to U.S. works (unless the copyright expired in the source country before 1996) and only affects the copyright status in the United States. The question here is partially what the source country is. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not only in the States that copyright was NOT automatic when a work was created. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Godot13 this file is in the Japanese domain/copyright which covers 50 years. These images are in the public domain. The source country would be the occupied country as all legal issues would transfer to the established government.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Umbrella (song)

There are way too many pictures from the music video. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion in the article to support one image, but not 5. Certainly not the first, or the last two, but I dont know if the other two are good either to showcase what is described in the text save for the one about applying silver makeup. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Runaway (The Corrs song)

Two music video screenshots are used. Do proses of music videos replace them? George Ho (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no critical discussion of the videos (outside describing what they show) that require the use of non-free over, say, a free picture of the band or just prose. Both are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:William Van Der Hagen, Drogheda, 1718.jpg

Not sure why a painting from 1718 is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that motion. Is there any reason to believe it is in fact not in public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The UK National Gallery might think so, but we've got the backing of the Foundation that any unmodified, 2D slavish copies (read: scans or photographs) of 2D PD art will be PD. So this should be PD. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It has no rationale for Willem Van der Hagen anyway, so best to move it to Commons as PD-art. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to scroll down my watchlist and I clicked the rollback button. bd2412 T 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely a free image, regardless of the National Portrait Galleries claims to UK law.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivanta Hotels.png

Is this copyrightable in the United States? It violates WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be PD in the US, likely not in countries like UK, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)

There is more than one album cover. Shall there be one or two album covers? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been arguments presented by the Album wikiproject when a second album cover is allowed, generally for a major release in a different region. I am not sure their take on special editors/reprints with new art, but I don't think its necessary here. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces

It has three logos. Is either of them eligible for copyright in India? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My read on India's copyright stance appears to be close to UK's, so yes they would be copyrightable there, but they do fall short of US thresholds, and would be PD-logo US Only here. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg

It is claimed that this is from 1856. Why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Prussian Infantry Regiment No. 3 attacking during the battle.jpg

This is claimed to be from 1850. Why is it claimed to be unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Torpan Pojat logo.png

Is this copyrightable? Violates WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would say the logo is too simple to be copyrightable, but I don't know if thats a decision we make here or not. Where is the image being used? It may be fair use even if copyrighted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless that is a copyrighted font...then no. Simple geometric shapes can't be copyrighted and the only issue I can see is whether the font is copyrighted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Vivian James.jpg

I've tagged this copyrighted image for deletion because it is not critically discussed in the article, and tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone. It therefore fails NFCC #1 and #8. Discussed with the uploader, but he is convinced any sourced commentary on the image is sufficient, despite what WP:NFCC says about the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", something this image does not fit. Dreadstar ☥ 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Image might be better over at GamerGate where there is actually discussion about it. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Suffers the same issues in that article too; the image tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone, and it is not critically discussed. There's nothing significant about the image. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, there is critical discussion about the character at the article:

After 4chan members donated over $5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign they were allowed to create a character who would appear in the winning game. The character created by 4chan, named Vivian James as a play on "video games", was designed to appear like a normal female gamer. Vivian James was criticized by Allegra Ringo of Vice as "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". TFYC responded to criticism of its association with GamerGate and the related harassment of Quinn by offering to sell Vivian James t-shirts with profits going to iFred, a charity Quinn was supporting.

There is actually more commentary about the character than at the GamerGate article. I mean, even more could be added given some of what is said in the sources, but there is already plenty of critical commentary regarding the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The mascot's origins has curious origins which are intertwined with the convoluted course of the GamerGate, and indeed has become emblematic of GamerGate as a whole. While I've noticed a lot of Vivian James avatars on Twitter on #GamerGate, she has also been illustrative, literally, in mainstream press coverage. It's fair to say both that she has taken on a life of her own, and that it would detract from the article not to include an image of her. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that the mascot is more an issue that arose from GamerGate, even though it was more connected with a project by TFYC. It definitely should not go in both, but I do feel the rationale is stronger for the GG article due to it being made in response to all the events there. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the character going in both? Vivian James is more closely associated with TFYC in reliable sources and is supposed to appear in the game they eventually produce but is no less significant to GamerGate. As far as coverage in reliable sources, I would say Vivian James is less significant in the GamerGate, but the same non-free image can appear in more than one article. We wouldn't provide for the possibility otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We look to minimize non-free use - if only one image will work, then we do that and link from the other case. She's appropriate in one article, but not both. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• What this needs is comments from editors uninvolved in the GamerGate, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion; unlike the three involved editors above who have commented thus far - one of whom is the uploader. Dreadstar ☥ 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Be aware I'm a frequent NFCR reviewer too and been involved in too many discussions to count. I'm speaking from that perspective here. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is of questionable copyright status (as the hivemind of /v/ or /pol/ or whichever board made it is unknown) and it seems superfluous whenever it's added to the pages in question. The subject of the file may be mentioned in these articles, but Dreadstar is correct that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. The content quoted by The Devil's Advocate may be discussion of the subject of the file, but it's not critical commentary of the file itself but the subject of the file. Describing the character as being created by a group or it being an antifeminist spite mascot does not qualify for critical discussion of the image.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems inadequate to meet Fair Use guidelines and absent any notion of who holds the copyright, it does not meet the criteria for enhancing any articles on either topic. It's just an attack cartoon. Montanabw 23:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously someone who dismisses it as an "attack cartoon" is only thinking about our non-free content criteria . . . The NFCC does not mean an exact depiction of something needs to be the subject of critical commentary. The character is the subject of critical commentary and I think it is important for people to see what this "anti-feminist icon" looks like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As the image has definitely been published, and there's enough RS to direct its origins somewhere on 4chan, I'm not seeing any immediate copyright issues to prevent us from considering is as NFC. The NFC points still need to be determined, of course, but we're not talking that we cannot adequetely explain a source and give a license for. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of the image does not meet our NFCC imo. The image appears to have been added to the article purely for decoration. Fails NFCC #1: Its inclusion does not tell us anything that cannot be told using words alone. The fact that the character exists can be adequately covered using words. Fails NFCC #8: It does not increase our understanding of the subject of the article, which is the group The Fine Young Capitalists. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about other people's motivations. I added it because the character is prominently associated with the group and its involvement with 4chan per reliable sources and is discussed by said sources. It also is kind of important since saying "4chan designed a female character" does not adequately convey the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, artwork cannot be replaced by prose. Now...whether or not its exclusion would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject is another matter. Not sure about that at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

""Artwork cannot be replaced by prose."", where in Misplaced Pages policy are you getting that from? I don't see anything like that in WP:NFCC. Please clarify. AFAICT, it's a simple cartoon drawing of a girl, nothing educational or significant to the understanding of the article's subject that I can see. Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the fair use rationale with references from three reliable sources (on of them The Independent) covering the relevance of the character as the mascot of the 4chan /v/ board, and thus their primary means of identification. I've used the logo template, just like Cobi does, as apparently there isn't a mascot-specific one except for teams; I'm not sure if the logo template applies, but the rationale definitely does, as Vivian James has been recognized by the RSs as "the primary means of visual identification" of the /v/ board, and that is an accepted NFC criteria per WP:NFCI#2 and Misplaced Pages:Logos. Diego (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Independent did not mention TFYC so I removed that mention, though it can definitely be used in the GamerGate article for that purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Diego (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Source", for the fair use rationale template, is intended for the source of the image, not a source that discusses the image. The source for the image needs to be chagned to vice.com. The Forbes article states that this was a mascot for a game, not for 4chan or 4chan /v/ board. We don't have an article on 4chan /v/ board, so the image currently qualifies for removal under speedy deletion criterion F6 for the article 4chan. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. There's a broken template on the file page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of people making an image is not the same thing as discussing the image itself. I see nothing in the content above that is aided by having the image other than just normal illustration. That is not sufficient to pass NFCC imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Where in the criteria does it actually say the image must be discussed to used?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember, ALL NFCC criteria must be met. NFCC #8 more specifically Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion What understanding would the reader have about this topic that they would not have if the image were missing? What discussion of the image is there? Note the "only" in the identification bit. Is this the "only" way to identify the image?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that is simply not what that says at all. First that section makes it clear from the top that the two most common "circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are..." and then lists those two common circumstances. Nowhere does that state those two instances are the only reason non free images may be used or that if those two circumstances are not met that the image cannot be used. I am sorry but our non free content criteria in no ways states that as an absolute...only that "eeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content" and that we determine such by "principles of due weight and balance."--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the character. It is unlikely there will be discussion of a specific image of Vivian James, as is the case with most images of fictional characters. In the case of fictional characters a non-free image serves as an exemplar. For instance, critical commentary on a particular costume or design for a character may be illustrated by any official image of the character with that design or costume. You are unlikely to find a source discussing the exact image you are using because it is interchangeable with any number of examples of the design or costume and is not really the primary copyright concern. Copyright most specifically applies to the design of the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As another data point, if Vivian was a notable character for her own article, we would allow a non-free image of her in that for identification. Can that be done? Arguably yes - there's enough data for notability here. However, separating her from the discussion of either TFYC or GamerGate would be rather duplicative, but because she would be notable for her own article, we would allow a non-free in one of those places as well. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't even come close to passing WP:GNG. and since it's regarding a WP:BLP, that's another huge hurdle it would fail to pass. That's something else to consider here, BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's multiple secondary sources talking about the creation and use of the character, and while there are BLP reasons that led to its creation, the character itself is not tied to anything directly. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC and even WP:TALK. The cartoon drawing is not notable, fails non-free, and is an attack on a BLP. Clearly and undeniably. Your data point actually goes to deletion, not an article. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards