Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evrik (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 5 June 2013 (→File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice 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:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Henk Kuijpers. It also violates WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the justification is pretty clear--to illustrate his style in his most famous work. It also has a very low resolution. I'm not seeing how 8 and 3b aren't met. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally, unless the work itself in connection to the artist is of critical discussion (eg using sound clips to describe a musical group's style, using representative paintings that are highlighted as exemplars of an artist's work), we don't reuse art from an article about the work on the article about the creator. The article is referenced, but not that specific line that discusses the style, so it is hard to verify if this is considered a critical comment on his style (which would help satisfy #8) or just an WPian's appraisal which would fail #8. (The 3b aspect is easy, as the image is too large per normal resolution guidance). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems reasonable to me to show a representative of an artist's work, so the reader can see and judge for themselves his/her style. It adds to reader understanding about the artist in the most direct and obvious way. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If there is no sourced discussion of the artist's style (which I'm not saying doesn't exist for Kuijpers, but its presently not shown here), we have no reason to show an image to show what that looks like to the reader, particularly when they are one link away from seeing it on a different article. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I think that's not true. In my view, gaining an impression of the artist's work is something that absolutely fundamentally adds to reader understanding of the artist, regardless of whether there is textual discussion. And I don't find the "one click away" argument convincing either -- if something is worth including in the article, then it's worth including in the article - full stop. We should aim for our articles to be self-standing and self-sufficient as far as possible, because we have no idea how they may be reused (eg saved to disk, or printed out, automatically extracted, or otherwise selected, with no guarantee the other article will also be available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
          • But our non-free content mission is against that, and that's policy. Again, find/affirm sources that describe his art style in context as a BLP, and the image (outside of its size) is probably fine. The artist is searchable but I'm not having luck on page translations to determine if this is the case, and its possible the sources exist already to show this. But in the general case, if an artist or other creative person/group are notable for an article but lack any sourced discussion about the style of their creative output, there's no benefit to the reader to show that, otherwise its assuming OR that the reader needs to see the art to see/hear that. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
            • No, what policy says, in black and white, is that the image should add to reader understanding about the subject of the article. This image manifestly does just that. And making that assessment ultimately doesn't rest on me finding sources: it is a judgement the policy commands me and the community to make, as editors. WP:OR applies to theses and propositions advanced by the article. It does not apply to talk pages, or editorial judgements, or community consensuses. Contextual significance is a matter for community assessment, which is not something to which the WP:OR policy applies. I put it again: that to me it seems blindingly obvious that showing an artist's style adds something absolutely fundamental to the reader understanding of the subject, when the subject is an artist. And I imagine most of the community would find it similarly blindingly obvious, too. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Going on that logic alone, I can justify the inclusion of any non-free image because I talk about it (without sources) in the article and say the reader needs to see it to understand it. It has long been policy and practice that sourced discussion of images are required in such cases like this as to meet NFCC#8, as to say that "If our reliable sources think it is necessary to highlight this factor of this creative person's work, then we can justify using non-free to show accompany that." If no sources discuss the creative person's style, then we have very little leg to stand on to justify its inclusion - there are exceptions, but not always. This is necessary to reduce non-free use otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
                • Absolutely not. A blanket statement of the kind you propose has occasionally been suggested at WT:NFC, and always been rejected. There are some particular specific categories -- for example high-value agency photographs -- where we require commentary on the image itself, and for that commentary to be properly sourced; but the requirement is not a general part of NFCC #8. (As witnessed, for example, by our preparedness to include album covers, company logos, etc without comment, because of their manifest revelance). IIRC in the very early days of the NFCC, there might have been a requirement for direct commentary on the image added for a few weeks, but it was removed again after consideration of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley. But the basic position has always been that NFCC #8 requires a judgement on whether the image adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and that that is a judgement for the community to make based on whatever common sense and context and background it wishes to bear -- there is no requirement, not stated in the NFC nor out of it, for a "smoking gun" source to be found saying "this image is significant".

If we have an article on an artist, for the reader to properly understand the nature of the artist and their work, it seems absolutely plain to me that it is manifestly relevant to show some example of what that artist's output looked like -- quite apart from whether or not the artist's style has attracted any particular comments. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If the readers wants to understand the artists work, the reader can click on the wikilink to the works article and view the image in that article. Also, I don't see how it adds to the readers understanding of the work if there is no (preferrably sourced) commentary about what aspect of the artists style the image depicts. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Because readers have eyes. You don't have to drag them by the nose and say "you can see this" and "you can see that" and "you can see the other". Jheald (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought readers have feet. :) -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with images illustrating an artist's style in an article about the artist's style, but this article only mentions his art style briefly (saying that he uses the clear line style). Also, I'm not sure if a cover illustration is a good idea for illustrating an artist's drawing style, unless you are specifically discussing cover illustrations. On a cover illustration, a lot of the page is typically covered by logos and text, so it is harder to see the actual art in the thumbnail in the article. Single panels from a story serve this purpose better. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's long been guidance at WP:COMICS, where the image policy in fact goes back substantially before WP:NFC, to prefer exterior matter over interior panels unless illustrating points specific to those panels, on the basis that you have had to pay to see interior matter, but the exterior matter is what you could see on the news-stand, and what tends to be circulated in promotional material, and so may be less economically significant a copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, if we are going to demonstrate someone's already-notable art on their bio page, reusing an image, while not completely avoiding NFC issues, would be better than uploading a new image of just one part of their art. But if there's sourced justification to use a more detailed closeup of the art, that's reasonable. That's simply not the case here (yet). --MASEM (t) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if an image of the style is to be used there, there should be a specific reference in the article to that image highlighting how that image demonstrates the specific style. Otherwise, I don't see how the image is helpful for a readers understanding of the article, if the reader doesn't already know what that style is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have maybe edited half a dozen articles on illustrators at one time or another. In each case, I think the article probably had an image of the illustrator's style. Toshio says that an article needs to say how an image demonstrates the specific style, if a reader is going to get any understanding out of it. But that's simply not true. Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them. For example, suppose you have an illustrator -- are the works they are celebrated for loose watercolours, hard-edged realism, Quentin Blake-style cartoons, ligne claire, 80's-style airbrush, Tenniel-style Victoriana, or something else again entirely...? Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin, perhaps the most famous example of ligne claire, and see for yourself that, no, it is not quite the same. Seeing the image therefore, even without commentary, gives you a much better idea of what the artist actually did -- which has to be something absolutely fundamental in an article on an artist. One can see immediately, for example, that what Henk Kuijpers did was rather different to say Action Comics 1. It's not a question of sourced commentary, it's a question of giving the reader a better understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8) -- exactly as showing a characteristic work on an artist's page does. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them." .... "Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin."

Anybody seeing the image might interpret the artists supposed intention behind the image differently. What we as Misplaced Pages editors think the artist was doing is irrelevant, we'd need reliable sources to support such claims. Also I am not aware that there is a consensus that such a use of a non-free image is acceptable (I don't see it at WP:NFCI). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive the figure of speech. I wasn't talking about the artist's intention, I was talking about physically what sort of work they produce. And that is exactly what seeing the image shows you. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that if the image is to show the characteristics of the style of Kuijpers works there needs to be more discussion of this style in the article and a reference to this specific image explaining how that image is representative of that style. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Without jumping in the middle, I just want to say that "manifest relevance" is a darn fine bit of reasoning here, just as it is with album covers (more so actually IMO). You can't understand what an artist _does_ without seeing the art. Period. It clearly meets NFCC#8 by definition. And nothing other than a sample of their art (or more than one in some cases where they have a wildly varying style) can accomplish that same thing. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If there was a larger, sourced discussion about his art style, certainly NFCC#8 is met. But we can't justify that based on a single, unsourced line, which could just be an OR statement by a WPian to try to justify their use. It simply doesn't qualify for the more rigorous nature we expect from NFCC#8 (in particular the second half about omission making the article difficult to understand - the importance of the artist is understood without the image, as there's no significant discussion about the art style).
  • I will stress one thing: despite the language barrier on searches, I do suspect there is additional sources to be used for this artist, and from those a few more words can be added about his art style as to secure the appropriateness of the image in this article. That it, I would urge those trying to keep it to find these sources (the name generates enough hits) and justify the art style appropriately, instead of fighting against standard expectations for such images. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You're re-writing NFCC #8 in your head again. It doesn't say that "omission would make the article difficult to understand". It says that the additional understanding of the topic, which the reader would have with the image, would be lost without it.

For an example see, eg Quentin Blake, and then look at a Google image search . I submit that you gain more real understanding about Quentin Blake and why he is celebrated by seeing any single one of these images than you do from the entirety of our shockingly image-less article. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The image simply sits in the article without being discussed. Thus I do not see how the presence of the image in the article significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The claim that the reader gains significantly from the images presence on that page is unfounded and the article is still understandable, if the image were removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As Toshio points out, no, that is actually what NFCC#8 says - it is a two prong test. It is nearly always easy to prove the first part that the picture helps, but the second part regarding omission is where, if there's no detailed discussion of the need for the image - nearly always required sourced discussion to avoid OR - then NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that NFCC #8 doesn't actually say what Toshio claims it does. What it actually says is

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

(emphasis added).

So it's not a question of whether the article is still "understandable" without the image. The question is whether not having the image is detrimental to the understanding the reader would have gained had the image been there.

And no, you don't always need to have detailed discussion of an image for that image to add something significant to reader understanding of the topic. As for example here. Knowing the sort of work an artist does adds something absolutely fundamental to what you understand about the artist. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that your claim contains a flaw, since it actually says:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Thus if there hadn't been a significant increase of a readers undertanding in the first place, the second part of the statement is moot. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes... And the point that has been consistently been put is that to know what kind of work it was that the artist made is perhaps the most significant increase in understanding that it's possible to imagine about the artist. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that NFCC8 isn't a bright line. I'd say it is _well_ over the line here and I'm somewhat surprised others disagree. But matters of opinion are sometimes that way. What seems black-and-white to one person isn't to another. I don't think arguing back-and-forth is going to solve that. If you don't believe having the art of an artist visible adds significantly to the understanding of that artist (and not having it therefore detracts) you're just not in a place that I can vaguely understand. And apparently you can't understand me. So we're stuck and more words aren't going to change that. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To step back, a key facet of US Fair Use law in determining if a use of the work includes the idea of a transformative nature; the phrase "criticism and commentary" that we banter around comes pretty much directly from why fair use is allowed. (). As we are purposely stricter than Fair Use law, this concept is still embedded within NFC policy, even if not fully listed out - this is why, for example, we highlight the need for "critical commentary" within NFCI - which I know is not exactly the same as the fair use phrase, but its origins are there.

To this point, this is why NFCC#8 - which is pretty much our guide to assure the transformative nature is met - nearly always (with very limited exception) - requires sourced discussion of the article in question. WPians cannot provide criticism and commentary without violating OR so ergo it has to come from reliable sources. This is the metric used in practice (effectively, WP:FAC being the ultimate point of review without consideration to delete) and has been the way for years. I don't question that a reader can be helped by seeing the artist's work to understand the artist's style, but without sourced discussion, the omission isn't hurting the article, particularly if the reader is one click away from the work in question. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley. Commentary on the image is not a pre-requisite for U.S. Fair Use.

In any case, the context of being used in as part of an education article, for an educational purpose, is transformative -- it's a very different context from that for which the image was originally created.

NFCC #8 is quite carefully drafted, both in what it requires and what it does not. "Significantly aiding reader understanding" is a good and appropriate test -- good for WP, and good in the context of one of our articles for U.S. law. This image is passing that test.

Such images, as you confirm, plainly help our readers -- so omitting them plainly harms what the article might be. In the specific language of NFCC #8, its omission is detrimental to the understanding that it would give readers if it was there.

Finally, I think WP:FAC is a red herring. An article on an artist probably deserves to fail WP:FAC if it doesn't discuss the artist's style. But we're not talking about whether this article is up for FAC -- we are talking about whether it (and articles like it) ought to have an image to convey an understanding of the artist's work. The test for that is not that an article has to be FAC standard, it is that the image has to pass NFCC #8 -- which this does. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A FAC case in point is the one for Pink Floyd which passed recently (last few months). Prior to FAC the article included pretty much every cover of their albums. The FAC discussion on images was centered on how this is just not acceptable, and with the end result being the album covers that were considered to have sourcable discussion w.r.t. to the band were left - eg for example Dark Side's iconic prism. The point here is that FAC understands that sourcing style and the like needs to be present before images about the creative person can be included. Remember, if no RS talks about the person's style, but otherwise is sufficiently sourced, we as WPians can't fill in that gap, but at FAC this wouldn't be considered an impediment.

You can't use the same argument on NFCC#8 to satisfy both parts. I will agree the image can be of help to the reader, but I still understand, with what text is presently there, that the guy is a comic artist, with or without the image, ergo the image is not necessary. Since it is impossible for a WPian to expand any more on the art style without evoking OR, we need sourced discussion to make seeing his style necessary to understand the article. I'm going to keep stressing: this has been a long-time standard for creative professionals, to require sourcing of style or the like to be able to include non-free works representative of them. But I will further stress: I think there are sources out there that would then otherwise make this whole argument moot, I just can't break the language barrier for them. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You say that "you understand that the guy is a comic artist". But what kind of art did he produce? There's a clear difference between Henk Kuijpers and Action Comics #1, or Quentin Blake, or even Hergé -- that much better understanding of what kind of art the artist produced is what the image contributes, without any further commentary -- and that is why it passes NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If no RS talked about the quality of the work, just saying he did comic art is sufficient for our readers and the picture is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient. If through the art we can give our readers a better understanding about the artist, namely a better idea of what he did, then that's a usage that policy -- NFCC #8 -- says is absolutely justified. Why sell our readers short, when policy says show them the picture? Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we didn't have a free content mission with non-free exceptional use, I would totally agree that yes, we'd plop an image of the cover of the comic the guy created on the article about the artist, absent any text discussing the art, and be done. But we have a require to minimize non-free use to exceptional uses. The logic that the image helps the reader to understand the article in the absence of sourced discussion is a slippery slope that would allow for any crafty-enough editor to include any piece of non-free where they want. We have consistently required (with some IAR, but not many) sourced commentary to identify when an exemption can be made, as to avoid this slope. In the current state of this article, this image is not one of those exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Slippery slope" is the last defence of scare-mongering. NFCC #8 has been what it says from the start, and there has been no slippery slope. Anyway, the proper place to meet a 'slippery slope' is where images do not add to reader understanding, not to delete images which do add to reader understanding "just in case". Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Masem, the question at hand is if it meets NFCC#8, not if it meets fair use requirements. If you'd like to debate the fair use issue as a separate notion, I'm fine with that, but let's settle the NFCC stuff first. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Since NFC is purposely stricter than fair use, we have to meet fair use irregardless. It cannot be treated as a separate notion. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

However, as the image is valid fair use, this sideline is somewhat irrelevant. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's quite relevant. NFCC#8 is designed to meet the transformative nature of US fair use law by seeking commentary in the article using the image to justify its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But Graham vs Dorling Kindersley establishes that commentary is not a necessary requirement for a use to be transformative. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming tedious. NFCC #8 tells us to ask a direct question, framed with an eye to US fair use law: "Does this image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?" You've now agreed that it does. That should be an end to it.

Instead you seem to be claiming that, due to some super-sekrit protocol vouchsafed to the enlightened, the plain meaning of the black-and-white text of NFCC #8 is quite misleading, and that what is required is a quite different test, which NFCC #8 specifically (and intentionally) does not call for.

Why you think that should have any credence I'm not quite sure. But let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR decision that you claim has re-written policy in this area (without actually bothering to re-write the policy). Otherwise all of this wordage is no more than an ode to a small lump of green non-policy you found in your armpit one midsummer morning -- and worth as much. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, NFCC#8 asked two distinct questions:

1. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,..."
2. "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The first question is always the easiest to meet and nearly always yes if the image is relevant to the topic; and it certainly holds in this case. That's rarely the problem.

The second is where most people have a hard time justifying. Yes, the metric "would be detrimental to understanding" is a negative, and typically difficult to quantify to proof, but in so many past image reviews (FFD, FAC, etc.) a grey line test applied nearly in every case is if there is discussion of this image in the article in question - if there is this discussion towards the image, lacking the image would harm that discussion to not see it right there, and one could argue NFCC#8 would be met (There's other aspects here from other NFCC points, but that's trivial right now). No, this test is not stated because it doesn't always apply in all cases and may not be the only test, and it is highly subjective, but this example (a picture of the creative output of a creative person in the article about that creative person) is one where this has always been used. Now, that discussion itself is usually easy to provide (as is the case right now with the unsourced statement about the line art style), but that then links to our OR policy; if the text of discussion in question fails OR, then the text itself should be removed, and suddenly you don't have that discussion. Hence why we always come back to "sourced discussion" as the requirement to meet the second half of NFCC#8.

To take it another way, on the second point of NFCC#8, the single unsourced line about his style gives me enough to understand his style for the amount of context the article gives me, that I don't need an image to understand his importance as a comic author. Therefore, with the omission of the image, my understand is not reduced, and therefore NFCC#8 fails. On the other hand, if the style line expanded to include more detail on his style, comparison to others, influences he borrowed from, and so on, I could see that lacking the image would harm my understanding. But to create those statements, we would absolutely need sources as it begs OR; a WPian could not write that without introducing OR. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're going round in circles. We've been through all this already. NFCC #8 doesn't say "detrimental to the understanding of the discussion", or "detrimental to the understanding of the text". It could do, but it deliberately doesn't. What is says is "detrimental to that understanding" -- meaning detrimental to the understanding you would have, if the image was there.

Now, the article could present either

• that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist; or
• that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist, and show the reader what his work looked like.

Which gives the reader a better understanding of the man and his work? #2. Significantly. And that is the test that NFCC #8 lays down.

Again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted, so we can assess the quality of the discussion there. Because the plain reading of NFCC #8 is clear: what matters is what improves reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are just flat out wrong; hundreds of FFD and FAC prove that out. The "that understanding" is reference to the topic without the image, not with. With what is given on the page, without the image, I understand everything that is said, and thus no image is necessary, because there is no text given to understand why I need to appreciate his art style. You're trying to change policy to justify something that has long been practice. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

-- i.e. the understanding of the topic the reader would have with the image

There's simply no other way to read that sentence.

"its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic the reader would have without the image" simply doesn't make sense -- because you can't do something detrimental to understanding by taking the image away if it's already not there.

The meaning of NFCC #8 is therefore quite clear.

So again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted. Because WP:NFC is a core policy, and deviating from it should not be undertaken lightly. Jheald (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Because there is not verified (sourced) commentary about the artwor, there is zero need to see the artwork to understand the significance of the artwork given that there's no significance to this given in the article. The topic as presented is complete without the image. You cannot use the argument "an image is worth a thousand words" to justify NFCC#8. I'm in completely agreement that if we were at Wikia or any other site outside the Foundation's Resolution, we would of course use the image because it falls within fair use (assuming our purpose was educational). But that's not the case here.

And now here's the sad part because I said that sourcing would be everything. When I jump to the Franka article, there's a source, , which has this line "Henk Kuijpers is a realistic comic artist who works in a Clear Line style with a great sense of detail, especially in his backgrounds". Now, I can't judge that source as the best reliable source (I would believe it is given its a European antiquities dealer cataloging things like this), but all that we needed as I said was a source that stated that, and now I can fully support the cover image to demonstrate this. That's all that was needed, as I've been saying. I'm sure there's more sources that can be used, but at least now there is relevance to show the reader, while discussing the artist, an example of his art and now I can argue that omission would be harmful. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just this article, it's the articles on endless other artists too -- where by failing to show any idea of the art which makes them notable, we are systematically failing our readers.

Plus, in my view, half a line of text is a pretty poor fig-leaf.

The fundamental significance of an image like this is not that it relates to half a line of text. It is that it helps you to better understand the topic of the article -- namely the artist, and what they did -- text or no text. And that is the test that NFCC #8 sets out.

NFCC #8 doesn't talk about the topic "as presented" being complete. It asks: does an image add significantly to the reader understanding of the topic? And, would taking the image away be detrimental to that understanding?

The answer is yes, it would be detrimental, because the reader would then have so much poorer an idea of just what it was that the artist produced, and was known for. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because that line of logic would allow for any non-free image to be used if it only helped comprehension. Take the Voyager screenshots above. Clearly every image can be claimed to help understand the episode, but very few are actually discussed short of text. But your logic says they should all be used. Nope, not going to happen. "Critical commentary" has always been a practical but unstated metric of validating NFCC#8, and why it appears in NFCI as when we readily accept uses. It provides a semi-objective starting point for NFCC#8 compliance. The need for critical commentary is also resonated in NFC#UUI of unacceptable uses that we don't just use images because they would be nice illustrations. This is a metric is used at FFD, it is used at FAC, and there's little room for any practice outside of these approaches. I'm not reinterpreting anything - this is just the norm for this. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not arguing for the Voyager images to be kept -- only if they significantly add to reader understanding. That's the test for NFCC #8, to be assessed by the community.

There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that an image is not expected to add anything particularly germane or significant, unless it specifically clarifies critical commentary.

There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that the image generally will add something significant, even if there is no commentary on the image.

And there are the remaining cases, where NFCC #8 has been left to speak for itself -- for the community to decide as and when, on the merits of the case, without WP:CREEP, and without making it harder to improve the wiki.

There is no "practical but unstated metric of requiring critical commentary" -- that's not the way policy works. Especially when that requirement (which was once added to NFCC #8 for a week or two) was specifically removed to allow NFCC #8 to better reflect the flexibility to do the right thing of the U.S. Law.

Instead NFCC #8 is quite plain: does the image add sufficiently significantly to reader understanding, which the community is to decide. For an image added to an article on an artist, to show the kind of work that the artist did, the answer to that is routinely going to be "yes". Jheald (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that an image without any commentary like in Henk Kuijpers adds significantly to a readers understanding of the article. Yes, the article looks more colorful and might be more pleasant to the eye, but this doesn't convey any trustworthy information to the reader. The reader can interpret the image in any way he or she wants in the context of the article, but that is just like any other unsourced statement in Misplaced Pages: it is original research. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing for the slippery slope between showing a representative image of an artist's work without any non-OR discussion about it, and the use of a screenshot of a TV episode without any non-OR discussion about it. From NFC's POV, they fail in exactly the same way. Toshio's hit the nail on the head when it comes to NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept. Because adding to reader understanding is what we're here to do. That is what NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. For example, if the image shows some particular striking creature effect. But a random image from a random episode is going to have a much harder time meeting that criterion than a representative image from an artist's work, which is pretty much always going to meet the criterion.

But that is the call that NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. The material is verifiably by the artist, or from the episode, so this isn't a case of the article being used to advance some novel thesis or proposition. Rather, it is part of the normal editorial judgment of what verifiable material to include in an article, and what not to include. WP:OR relates to the content of the article, and the theses and propositions it develops. WP:OR does not relate to editorial judgements, talk page discussions, discussions about significance and other meta-level discussions that are discussions about the content of the article, and what it should be, rather than being the content of the article. File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg is not advancing some contentious thesis or proposition about the artist, it is merely being what it is, allowing the reader to see for themselves what his work looked like. Jheald (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept." is screaming to be gamed and is the start of a slippery slope, and why we don't let that arguement fly to justify NFCC#8. This is why for most images that fall outside of NFCI we consider the presence of sourced commentary as a starting point. Yes, I don't deny there's probably exceptions to that determined by consensus, but look at any FFD or FAC that involves these types of cases, and you'll see editors looking to only keep images where sourced discussion exists. To flip this around, if we truly have a notable creative person who's notability rests on their creative product, I do find it hard to imagine that zero sources would exist that discuss their creative product critically as to allow non-free image use. However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use - as otherwise it would fail NFCC and we're supposed to remove this within 7 days (unlike where with notability, we can take time to judge that fact). So it is not the issue that we would never accept non-free images of a creative person's work on the article on the creative person, but instead that we need to have that meet NFCC before it can be used. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use" -- No. You're pulling policy out of your armpit again. That is not what NFCC #8 requires -- and e.g. here is a DRV and a deletion discussion which upheld that. What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding. That is the test laid down by NFCC #8. "Sourced discussion" is not the test. I am sorry for you if you find that personally inconvenient, but you can't just dream up your own criteria because you find the actual policy inconvenient. WP:NFCC is not just a charter for deleting images. It is also a commitment to preserve images that advance reader understanding sufficiently to justify the copyright taking. That is what NFCC #8 tells the community to make the basis of its judgement. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding."

I don't know where you got this from. Anyway, that is not what the policy says. All that NFCC#8 says is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The requirement you give here doesn't exist. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And the people who jusge that are the community. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We should start a poll at VPR split into Keep and Remove votes and then, after, say 7 days, close the poll and count the votes. The side with the most votes wins. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS idents

The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.

If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.

Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.

I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.

I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Misplaced Pages:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.

      (ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.

      (iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

      • • • NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times ), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.

            Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.

            The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

            • But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)

The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.

Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.

But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather humorous

Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Misplaced Pages has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.

The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. . Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.

The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.

So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it . Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.

As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.

VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating NFCC#10c in numerous articles. Appears to not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• This has been argued extensively in the past. First, the logo is in fact copyrighted and Prince has registered it as such, whether we choose to think it is past the threshold of originality or not. This is noted in the second paragraph of this section. Two, see this prior discussion. Three, the logo has been stripped from inappropriate locations many, many times. It always gets restored. Four, there are two rationales for the use of the image. Just in Love Symbol Album and Prince (musician) alone there are five uses. I.e., three rationales short. It doesn't really matter. The image will be used anyway, regardless of the arcane NFCC policy. That's what the common practice has been for years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• The two uses in Love Symbol Album follow the above thread, so they'd be okay. Two of the three uses in Prince are appropriate - the "AKA" infobox section and the discussion about the "name" change that is discussed int he article, but the third use, again, to call out to Love Symbol Album is excessive. The other uses fall into the YYYY in music articles, and I can see only two fair uses - in the year where Prince changed his name to that, and the year when Love Symbol Album was released - and even this last one, I'm hesistent to say is necessary, given the 3rd use on the Prince article above. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Osaka University logo.svg

Currently violates WP:NFCC#9 in a few articles, but I suspect that this might be {{PD-ineligible}}. Any opinions? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For this logo to be {{PD-ineligible}}, it needs to be ineligible for copyright protection both in the US and in Japan, am I understanding this correctly? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• For Commons. For English Misplaced Pages, US only. This looks PD-inelligible-US to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am really unsure about this one. I think US copyright office normally refuses copyright protection for logos that can be easily described by a short text. I am unsure how to describe this one. It seems to be essentially a blue half circle with a bit cut out at the top and two quarter circles attached to the bottom ends of the first circle so that they meet in a single point at the bottom. It possibly could be described more accurately, but since such a description is possible in only relatively few words, it appears to be simple and thus ineligible for copyright protection. Just a guess on my part though, I am not a copyright lawyer. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• IANAL either, but it's monochrome and consists of what is essentially a Y forced into a circle. You could double check at WP:MCQ, but I'd feel safe with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, tagging with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} seems like a reasonable solution. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is that consensus? It was tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} a few days ago, but that was recently reverted with the comment "more informed evaluation required". Cckerberos (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion it should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} again, as the logo seems to be ineligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is one of those cases where US copyright office might rule in either direction. So maybe we should just treat it as non-free to be on the safe side, as there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that the logo is ineligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this looks like a pretty obvious ineligible logo to me. This can't even begin to compare to File:Best Western logo.svg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This one and Best Western logo are quite different. Best Western logo is essentially typefaces except that red figure, which I suspect is too insignificant in order to affect the copyrightability of the whole logo. Osaka University logo is not typefaces and thus might be eligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I find the level of originality to be at most that of the crown. But not only this: at commons:COM:TOO#United States, you also have File:Nikken Logo.jpg, File:Jeff Ho logo.png, and others. As the Osaka logo is merely the combination of four thick curves, I don't think it is above the threshold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think a clear consensus has formed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Four simple linked arcs appear to be exactly what {{PD-shape}} defines. Certainly it does not pass the threshold of originality per US. ww2censor (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Women's World Squash 2008.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2008 Men's World Open Squash Championship. Might not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Geelong2008Logo.svg

Rationale for Geelong Football Club lacks components necessary per Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline and is insufficient in its current form. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "The image is only a small portion of the commercial product." Really? Looks like the whole logo which is present in the top left corner at http://www.geelongcats.com.au/. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I can get a perfect rendition of the image with a width of ${\displaystyle 2^{20}}$ pixels. This seems to be against WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events.

Not sure if it additionally violates WP:NFCC#1 because of the somewhat complex art on the helmet. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The logo might be sufficiently complex for copyright protection. Not sure whether the use of the logo in this image would be considered de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nippon Oil

The excerpt in the section History according to the information in that section was copied from a press release (seems to be http://www.noe.jx-group.co.jp/english/press/noc/2009/e71_enpr_091225_02.html). Lacks proper attribution to the original source as required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria#Policy and is not indicated as direct quotation. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, since I don't know much about dealing with textual copyright violations, I asked MRG for feedback regarding this matter. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png

The usage of the file in the Brașov article violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c . — Thehoboclown (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Gnnsjb001.jpg

The image is claimed to be the uploader's own work ("own photo taken at site"), but under magnification you see what looks just like a colour print raster, strongly suggesting this image was scanned from a publication in print. The presumption must be, therefore, that this is non-free content.  --Lambiam 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It says in the summary "Hari Singh own photo taken at site for Sikhiwiki.org scanned" I'd be prepared to accept that as face value, absent of evidence of previous publication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• This really belongs at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files. However, I concur that it appears to be scanned. That doesn't mean it's not the uploader's work. However, I did find this, indicating the image belongs (and is copyrighted to) a person with the pseudonym "jeevan21" which is not the same as the uploader here. However, that upload postdates the upload here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of websites

I noticed recently that {{Infobox website}} displays an initially collapsed screenshot of the website. As most websites are copyrighted, we are both saying (under NFCC #8) that the image is so critical to the reader's understanding that we need to have a fair use screenshot, but the screenshot is so unimportant that we can show it as initially collapsed. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_website#Collapsed_screenshots and opine if desired. Thank you. --B (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

excerpt from famous music review

Hi, I am fairly new to the NFCC policy, but when I uploaded this image, it seemed like it may have been consistent with NFCC #8 ("non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.")

this particular image is taken from a famous review of Illmatic in 1994. Here, for the first time, a debut artist was awarded the coveted '5 mic' rating. This review has historic value for hip hop music, given the prestige of The Source at that time. As you can see, this particular publication is very important to the topic - important enough to receive its own section in the article. Lacking visual commentary, however, I fear that readers could potentially be confused as to what the '5 mic' rating actually is.

Why? The 5-mic rating system is entirely unique to The Source. It is fair to assume that many readers won't be familiar with it, especially those who unfamiliar with hip hop journalism. And while the 5 mic rating is parallel to the the traditional five-star rating scale used by other music publications, it shouldn't simply be conflated. It just seems to me that a reader (absent some visual representation) might potentially confuse something like a '5 mic' rating with a '5 star' one - if it's only expressed using text. A visual symbol, on the other hand, could help make the distinction a lot clearer -- especially for an article like Illmatic, which contains so many other reviews and ratings.

So in terms of relevance to NFCC #8, I feel having a visual representation of the '5 mic rating' would help to avoid any confusion -- by visually delineating the difference between "5 mics" and the traditional "five-star" symbol used by other music publications. Without this, I feel the reader's understanding might be obscured.

What are your thoughts? Chubdub (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this logic applies, at least for its use on a song/album article. Just doing a quick check of sources shows that the Five-Mic rating itself is a noted feature of the magazine, so highlighting that is fine, no problem, and in fact can be stated as a "coveted" review. However, once you say that in text, then the visual aspects of how a 5-mic rating are shown isn't necessary on an individual song/album article, as by stating the prestige of getting five mics, you've distinguished it from other, less impressive 5-star rating systems so the conflation you anticipate is not there.

That said, you may (I'm not 100% convinced but you could justify it better) be able to use that image on the article about The Source. You just need to boost that section in that article to explain how the five-mic rating was coveted, etc. from other reliable sources than The Source itself. (Again, my quick check of sources show that that is certainly something that can be done). It's still a weak rational because the image of five iconographs of mics in a row isn't too hard to envision, but its a far better shot there than on any individiaul song/album page. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please note, that every album on Misplaced Pages already features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Judging from these other pages, I would say that readers generally expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough or even acceptable, but for most readers, it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. It gives ratings a certain profile within the topic, and it helps raise awareness about important jouranlistic distinctions in terms of how albums are evaluated. .

I think there's genuine enyclopedic value in including this image, for the sake of enhancing a reader's understanding of this topic -- and avoiding potential confusion. In the case of Illmatic, the absence of visual symbols makes it extremely vague to distinguish between 5 mics and 5 stars - especially because under the 'Professional Ratings' box, The Source is listed alongside Allmusic and The Rolling Stones as conferring 'stars' That alone invites the possibility of confusion. It would be helpful for readers to know that while the two rating systems are parallel, they are not the same. The star system is quite universal, but mic ratings are a lot more obscure, and I only want to help "increase reader's understanding" by offering some sort of visual commentary that will familiarize them with it.

You make a really good point though: Having to explain a rating system for a reader is far more relevant for a wiki page dealing with the publication itself - rather than a particular album. Fair enough! But we should also remember that ratings have the potential to be relevant not just to the publications themselves, but also the albums that receive them -- especially when the legacy of that album has been shaped by the acclaim it received.

In this specific context, we are not just referring to a generic system of rating (which, in the grand scheme of things, is only a mundane concern), but we are citing a specific historical and symbolic moment that shaped how this album has been perceived. That's why I specifically chose to excerpt the review itself (or at least a segment of it) - rather than just include a generic logo of 5 mics. The review itself -- which of course, prominently features the 5 mic logo -- is fundamentally intertwined with the legacy of this album, in terms of its history, scholarship, and memorabilia. Most documentaries that allude to Illmatic will also mention this review; one major book even includes it in its appendix; and the review itself has even been featured in a recent deluxe edition of Illmatic, as part of a collector's set.

To sum up my logic then: Understanding the rating is secondary to understanding how this rating impacted the album's legacy - but in order to understand the album's legacy, you have to understand the rating, and if you don't, you will only have a partial grasp of Illmatics significance.

Again, I'm not that well-versed in NFCC. I must admit, much of this is new to me. But logic wise, it seems that the concerns I've raised fall under "significantly increase a reader's understanding" and "ommission... detrimental to the understanding" Furthering the understanding of Illmatic (which is the stated goal of NFCC #8), requires an explanation of its critical reception (by taking steps to clarify the differences between each of the publications, and assigning greater weight to to ones that are 'coveted', 'prestigious', or quite simply 'unique'). Including visual commentary is the best way to enhance a reader's understanding, and it also helps to avoid potential ambiguities by making it significantly easier for a reader to distinguish the '5 mic rating' from other publications. Omitting a visual commentary, on the other hand, makes it harder to do so, and might potentially detract from a proper understanding of the album's historical and symbolic significance. Chubdub (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're entering an area where you are putting a lot of undue weight on one single review over the others. This is not to call out the Source's rating (being the first 5-mic to a hip-hop) as being unimportant - it seems, on my reading, to deserve that section that is there. Just that the importance of the 5-mic compared to other 5-star ratings as to require a picture to show that. I understand that in that field that a 5-mic Source review is considered far more prestigious than, say, 5 stars from Rolling Stone or a similar publication, and the fact its one of the few such works to get one should be called out. But at the same time, it is just another review that uses a 5-star-like system. It is just that the Source appears to be a bit more critical compared to other works. This concept happens all the times in other areas - for example video games , the area I work mostly, there's a few publications that are known to be tough reviewers and getting a perfect score on whatever scale it is is something to call out in prose, but in terms of a score relative to others, its just listed there (though these sources still use numbers or a plain 5-star system).

There's also another problem with the image, in that we also have something here that is easily described by text: that is, the 5-mic you have shows, pretty much what one can envision when you say something received a 5-mic rating: a picture of a microphone, repeated 5 times over. While there could be argument on NFCC#8 being met (as you are trying above), this aspect fails NFCC#1 since simply saying "the source gave Illmatic a 5-mic rating" describes exactly what that picture shows. And even moreso along that line, that picture doesn't help the reader, who may be unfamiliar with the Source and their 5-mic scale, to understand the importance of the Source's rating system over anyone else's. There may be other graphics that show this, but this is really something that can only be understood by text - and that means prose is the way to go. So I really don't think you can use this image on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I don't want to belabor the points I've made already. I just feel there's some genuine encylopedic value to including this image. I think you're right to point out that the caption is basically redundant - might we simply change it into some more in-line with NFCC 1? Chubdub (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:BBC News titles.png

This has a fair use rationale for one article but is used in three articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The image is of the generic titles to BBC News summary's, weekend news, and the BBC News channel. BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, and BBC News at Ten use a version with the number in the titles. Hope this help. --] 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original comment, rationales could have been added quite quickly for each of the articles. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter

This concerns the following three images:

• File:Ultima2 CompVsRGB.png
• File:KQ CompVsRGB.png
• File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png

All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like. Diego (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1930 Rover Light Six Sportsman Saloon by Weymann (Photo).jpg

We have File:1929RoverLightSixTM6124.jpg on commons which is virtually the same vehicle in colour even. Do we need a fair use b/w just because it shows a road and people for five articles? It is used in a gallery in two articles which is also a no-no, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was, say, the photo of the car after winning that race (the first rationale listed), there might be reason, but all the uses seem to be "I want to illustrate this model of car, but this is the best I can find due to age). The free photo is sufficient replacement and this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:WWE Undisputed Championship Belt.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in WWE Championship. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg

In the article Scrabble. The NFUR states "The image is used for identification and clarification in the context of critical commentary of the work from which the screenshot is taken. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Commentary in the article about the screenshot itself: Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original work, a single frame, being of comparatively low commercial value." The section of Scrabble (Scrabble#Television game show versions) where the image appears does not have such critical commentary; the image appears to merely show the logo decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the show had its own article (assuming notability) it might be reasonable there. But the show doesn't appear to be notable, and just to show its title card on a larger subject is inappropriate. Agree it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The show does have its own article at Scrabble Showdown for which the use of the image of the nonfree titlecard falls within WP:NFCC, which is why I went here and not to WP:FFD. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Then its use on the main Scrabble game is completely out of NFCC allowance. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Misplaced Pages first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Misplaced Pages with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Misplaced Pages. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide", that Microsoft released with the Beta "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Rangers.svg

If non-free, this violates WP:NFCC#9, but maybe it is below the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free (copyrightable) due to the shield shape. Even so, since it is tagged non-free, it is unallowable except in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is not below the threshold of originality. An example that Stefan once showed me on Commons was a crown shape on a logo which copyright review office had rejected as being too simple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to commons. If it is below threshold it should be moved to commons and discussed there. I don't see why we should host images here that are PD with a fair use rationale. If it passes there then delete here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we are absolutely assured outselves it is below the threshold, we start with the assumption of non-free. If we do say it is below the threshold, then yes, we can push it to commons, but we have to figure that out first. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons has more experts than us on TOO. I will upload it there, tag it for deletion review, and if it passes we can delete it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New_York_Rangers.svg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This one can be closed. It passed deletion review at commons not as below TOO but published before 1977 without proper notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see and for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we should seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with WP:NFCC#1 (we have free images that show who is is) and WP:NFCC#3a (already numerous non-frees on that page, though arguably on her more famous and critically acclaimed awards). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is zero discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Misplaced Pages. Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does not require illustration without commentary. That's the failure of NFCC#8 here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks nude which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources. Diego (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's zero discussion critically about how she looked nude. NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it. Diego (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No, that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Every time someone says "but this can be explained with text", Jimbo kills a kitten. So please don't. Diego (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Bullshit. This is exactly a case where, as there's zero discussion (sourced or otherwise) about how she looks without clothes on, the existence of nude photos (which is documented) can be explained in text. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Too bad then that WP:NFCI#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. Diego (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced commentary, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is PD, that's fine. As I've made clear, it's not the fact its a nude, just that its a piece of non-free (presently) that is not needed. As PD, there's no question that it could be included. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg. I uploaded it to commons and put it up for deletion review if anyone wants to join over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It can't be on commons. It can be used 1 time in 1 article per WP:NFCI 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance. Theworm777 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Changed vote to delete cause I now feel this gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fact she posed in the nude and I am not sure it is needed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.Diego (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will should be deleted then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• DeleteNon free fair use images should only be used when an image is absolutely essential to the article, this image is not.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of NFCC#8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Totally amazed. We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Misplaced Pages not being a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I give up. Now the prudes have changed it to the fair use cover of the 1953 Playboy where she is dressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that up. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame. The 7 Year Itch, Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The River of No Return helped as well of course. She was very talented and the Playboy, calender picture opened the door...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM," which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period. This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Illmatic and the Source excerpt image

I'm not sure if this is where I need to have images approved by an admin, but it seems like there are still issues to resolve. So I'm putting this image up for review for a second time. As I mentioned in the earlier review], the intention of the image is to serve an enyclopedic purpose, by offering visual commentary that enhances the reader's understanding - the absence of which would otherwise be detrimental to article.

NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image here satisfies the the first prong, because it "significantly increases the readers' understanding" by illustrating a rating that is entirely unique to The Source magazine. The 5 mic scale is not at all common in the world of music journalism (it departs from the more universal, 5-star system). And so, including its image would help aid readers who are unfamiliar with the The Source. Keep in mind however, that the goal of the image is not to inform the reader of this scale per se, but to illustrate the coveted rating given to a specific album. It is not meant to illustrate a generic logo, but is intended to represent a journalistic event -- hence, its inclusion in the Illmatic page, and not The Source article. That being the case, I've made the image appear less generic, by adding more specifity to the image's original source (as a column review excerpt) and by including a caption that suggests its enyclopedic purpose (which is to help the reader identify what a "5 mic" rating is and what it looks like.)

As for the second prong, I think this image helps to prevent confusion for the reader, who may otherwise conflate the source rating with that of another. Visual commentary allows the reader differentiate the 5-mic rating from other magazines. Without this image, however, it becomes a lot harder to distinguish the differences. My intention here isn't to elevate the "5 mics" above other ratings, but to simply highlight its significance. As it is, there's a sizable amount of text devoted to explaining this journalistic event, within its own separate section. Because it is a very crucial component of Illmatic's legacy, there needs to be some visual aid to help readers become familiar with it (in the context of the album, and not generically vis-a-vis the magazine); and to help them distinguish it from other publications who adopt a more, recognizable symbol. Otherwise, we risk having readers confused.

Also, I believe this image offers commentary that cannot be illustrated by text. As warranted by NFCC #1, you could argue that it should be easy for the reader to envsion the 5 mics without an image But I would say that most readers expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. That's why every album on Misplaced Pages features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough, but it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. In any case, it should not be the burden of the reader to have to locate what these ratings are; when possible, the article ought to include the symbols for their consideration. Chubdub (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to stretch the allowance of non-free here. Should we include all 4-mic and 3-mic and 2-mic images on articles rated by Source as such? It's a proliforation of non-free that's simply not allowed, and the confusion you believe is there simply doesn't. Text is perfectly fine to say "The Source awarded the album a coveted 5-mic review, stating 'blah blah blah'". On the article about The Source itself, one example of a 5-mic rating may be appropriate, but definitely out of the question on any album pages. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'm not suggesting that the image be used for all albums rated by the Source. The primary goal of this image is not to describe a rating, but to illustrate an event and legacy that's being described in the article. Being the first rap album to receive 5-mics was considered a cultural achievement within the hip hop community, and it was one that generated considerable controversy at the time. I think once something's been made out to be that important, it helps to clarify what's actually being discussed, especially for those who aren't familiar with it. It's a form of visual commentary whose inclusion would help a lot of readers, and who's omission might lead to some confusion. Isn't that valid enogh for fair use? Chubdub (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to emphasize a generic system of rating here...the only goal of the image is to serve as a commentary of an event/legacy being described in the text. Chubdub (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing an image of five mics does not help that. Describing the controversy of the Source rating is fine, but it does not need to be illustrated to understand the rating system. We can assume readers are smart enough to figure out it is similar to a star rating, and if they need to learn more, to go to the Source article to learn about that, but they don't need the visual indicators to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. Is there an approval proccess for non-free images, so we can open this up for others to consider too? Chubdub (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I still feel there's a legitimate need to describe what the 5-mic rating is and what form it took when it was awarded to the album in question. But I don't know if its gonna help to go back and forth. That's why I'd like to open it up for more input, and see if we can get some official approval Chubdub (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, , or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Misplaced Pages's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png

This image was tagged as F7 and then disputed, so I feel it's more appropriate to discuss this in an open forum. If use is to be allowed, two things must be established:

1. Irreplaceable. A good-faith search should be done on Flickr and other places to see if other versions exist, and whether they are freely licensed (or their owners are willing to freely license them). It's actually possible it is indeed irreplaceable, given that the explosion happened in a few seconds and you'd probably have to be continuously filming the area to get a shot of it. But we need to check whether free images can be found first.
2. Contextual significance. Is an image of the blast important enough that a later image of rescue efforts will not be suitable for the same purpose?

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the question is what purpose the image of the instant of detonation serves? I'm reluctant to support its inclusion, because there are so many high-quality images of the aftermath that I'm struggling to find a special use for the image. -- Veggies (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the image was removed and the article has been fine without it for about a day now, I say get rid of it per NFCC#8. Ryan Vesey 00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the broader point, if the image met NFCC#8, the fact that the event occurred in a second or so means that it is unlikely to expect a free image to be made - though yes, as a highly visible event, we should see if there is one, but this would not block NFC use. But I agree NFCC#8 so far isn't met, and thus that test fails. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously to me it is a unique and historic image, the only one that shows the exact moment of the explosion with the marathoners still running, there's no proper replacement to that. It is not one of the "Aftermath" images as said above, there are a lot of them, it is the bombings itself. MachoCarioca (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Certainly, we have plenty of free "Aftermath" images, but I this one is unique in that is actually shows the blast in progress. Consider the probability of a free image existing depicting this exact moment in time (as the explosion only lasted for a couple of seconds). Canuck 03:58, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Agree, also, too. It's very unlikely for anyone to have a shot of that unless it's a still from a video, and all I've seen so far indicates that that video is the only one of the finish line that's remotely good. There's a video from a runner at this Telegraph article (first video, second 17) which might work—but again, seems the Telegraph got rights, or something, or at least they've got their graphic on it. Then there are seventeen gabillion copies of this image floating around, but I don't know how you'd track down the original. I think we're better off sticking to the one we've got. It's low-res, it's iconic. Ignatzmice•talk 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The above image states: "...the finish line of the race in this photo exclusively licensed to Reuters by photographer Dan Lampariello after he took the photo..." I doubt Dan Lampariello would be able to have us upload a 'free licence' image because he gave Reuters 'exclusive' rights which probably includes his own rights as well. If we could track a photographer that hasn't signed rights away then we may be able to find a free licence one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found his contact info: http://bostontoat.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html . Does someone want to email him and see if the rights are actually exclusive? Reuters may not be accurate on that fact.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I uploaded this picture is that it shows the race time very clearly, and initially it depicted the actual finish line on the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in ptwiki (as enwiki, with a local image policy, more restricted compared to the "fair use") we have a similar discussion about the identical image = pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Ficheiro:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png (uploaded by MachoCarioca (talk · contribs · count), who - being advised by me - now also defends the image here - see above). I really don't care what enwiki will decide about this image (and personally I would say: the realtime moment of the explosion(s), the fire flash, or whatever, is irrelevant. For educational use, the impact of these bombs are more relevant, showing desparated (injured) people miliseconds after the detonation(s)). commons:Category:Boston Marathon explosions increased now to over 110 itens, presenting the entire spectrum of this attack --> including a video of Voice of America (VOA, russian version), showing in a similar way the 1st explosion in realtime (which could be cropped, at around 11-13s). I confess, that I am still not convinced about the "free" licensing at Commons because: the whole video might be produced by VOA, but it seems that they have included material from external sources which might be copyrightable by others... --Gunnex (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

VOA will include copyrighted materials in their works; they have this on their copyright page (anything else that is otherwise directly produced by VOA will be public domian). It is highly doubtful that VOA had their cameras there at that point to take the footage and we should assume it borrowed from CNN or the like. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:GG Allin sshot.jpg

Image is a still from a film, and is not being used for "critical commentary" on the film, but for a headshot on the artist's article. If this use is inappropriate, it will fail NFC7. czar · · 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be probably be deleted. There's already a non-free image in the article (further down). While Allin has been dead for 20 years, and thus there is very little likelyhood of a free image appearing, there's no compelling reason for the use of two non-free images, and thus one of the images should go. No real preference for which, but one non-free image is enough to illustrate any biographical article. --Jayron32 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all five articles where it is currently being used. Possibly below WP:TOO (essentially a textlogo next to a red square with a white figure trying to hit a tennis ball). Don't know how much of a difference that reflection effect on the square makes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure of the woman puts this well above the TOO. (Same with the logo on Women's Squash Association). Bu agreed that on the individual tourney pages, the logo is not appropriate. There's no overall article on the general tourney, but all those details are in the above Women's Squash Association, where a logo that is close enough (same graphic and block letters, just different subtitle) is used. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Watson's avatar.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Watson (computer) and 2011 in science. The first violation was created through this page move. I don't know whether that use might be appropriate under one of the points at WP:NFCI. The second use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Watson (computer) is fine with regards to 10c; the rationale is referring to that article back when it had a different name. But I agree it should be removed from 2011 in science. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the rationale for Watson (computer) is valid, the current rationale links to Watson (artificial intelligence software) which redirects to ] making the rationale completely valid still. as for 2011 it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No, 10c is not met. While a wikilink to the article is not required, 10c explicitly requires the name of the article. The image is not being used on Watson (artificial intelligence software) and a rationale for Watson (computer) is lacking. Yes, I could simply correct the name and wikilink in the rationale, but as long as WP:NFCC still means something it is the duty of those wanting to use this image on that page. The current rationale for Watson (computer) is invalid. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I dont have a link handy but a redirect still meets the requirement for 10c, if you want to debate that, raise the discussion at WT:NFC. You will find very little support for your position. A redirect name is equivalent to the article name. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Redirects as article names in non-free use rationales. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in 2011 in science. That article shouldn't have any non-free images at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Adaptations of Les Misérables

A user keeps adding lots of non-free images which so blatantly violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6. They all need to be deleted from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, thanks for starting this discussion about the images in Adaptations of Les Misérables.

Les Misérables has been adapted so many times, by so many different people.

So it's great to have these images there, because they serve the purpose of illustrating the point that there have been so many different adaptations by so many different people with different ideas and across various media.

All the images are low resolution and each of them has a rationale addressing the inclusion in this article.

I sincerely hope we can find consensus to keep them there, as I feel the article would not look as good as it does now without them, and also readers wouldn't get the instant level of understanding of the main point the article makes.

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The ones that are non-free have their own articles, and thus users can see the images there. We don't allow non-free content in lists (which this is) because like this it tends to be decorative. Here, your argument that the images help the reader to see how many times the work has been adapted is unnecessary as you have dozens and dozens of text entries showing the same thing. Unless the non-free images are discussed in the article and not just the fact that the remake is on the list, they can't be used. Free images are fine and it looks like you have a few there. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and explanation. I know what you mean, there are lots and lots of text entries. But images make articles more much more powerful and also there's the good old "an image says more than a thousand words".

As regards leaving only the free images, the problem is that there is only one afaik.

Do you think if we discuss the images in the article we could justify keeping them?

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Burn it with fire; none of them provide adequate contextual significance for use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between discussing a copyright issue, and having a "burn it with fire" attitude. List of book-burning incidents , Death by burning Azylber (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is also a difference between reading the policies and guidelines and using non-free images willy-nilly, which appears to be what happened here. "Delete/remove the non-free images with extreme prejudice" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why? Masem and Hullaballoo have made this perfectly clear; no contextual significance which requires non-free images. One mentions Jaws in a list, one need not see the poster to have an idea of what it is about, or that it exists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious NFCC violations -- gallery of nonfree images illustrating list entries Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• The images should be removed and stay removed. They are decor. They are not discussed, nor should they be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, consensus seems to be very clear here, so I agree that we should delete the images. I reckon we should give it a couple more days in case someone else has anything else to say, and then delete them.

If anyone thinks we can justify keeping the images by discussing them in the article, please let me know, and I'm happy to write the necessary text. Azylber (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The posters from the 1934 and 1935 films should be more thoroughly investigated before deleting them, since it's highly probable that they're out of copyright and in the public domain now, just like the 1943 comic cover is. Diego (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The easiest way would be to find a high resolution scan and check for a copyright notice. I've used Doctor Macro for that before. Not sure if this film is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If some of the posters from that age are from the United States, then yes, they should be checked for copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The ones I checked had notices (1935). No word on renewal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I have to agree with Stefan's concerns. It was a concern I myself had back around the time the article was created, though I forgot to follow up on it. I think we could justify inclusion of some of these pictures if we turned the article from a list (as it now, essentially, is) into a full-fledged article that summarises the history of Les Mis adaptations, including summary-style synopses of the adaptations' respective articles. I agree with Azylber that images are good for an article, make it more powerful, etc., but in this case we have policies that are strict with regard to our utilisation of fair-use images, and that unfortunately trumps consideration of the impact of the article. We will have a featured article on the main page within the next few weeks that will not be able to have an image of its subject run alongside it, because the only photo available is non-free. As in that case, I wish there were a better way of doing things, but the policy is what it is. Evanh2008  10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 in 2008–09 Indonesia Super League or 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. Also, the image violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The image satisfies 10c now, as it is now only being used in Indonesia Super League and 2008–09 Indonesia Super League. Both of those uses are for identification purposes. The use in Indonesia Super League seems to be acceptable. Unless we have a point at WP:NFCI explicitly stating logo uses in articles about specific sports events are acceptable, the image should be removed from 2008–09 Indonesia Super League for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:OasisTowerRender.jpg

This image is used in five articles, but it only has one fair use rationale, and the fair use rationale doesn't say to which article the fair use rationale applies, so the image currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of those articles. Additionally, the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in most of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does - it points to Oasis Tower, so there's clearly a rationale for it there (its not a template, but the paragraph there does try to hit on the salient points of NFC) (this is not to comment on how valid that rationale is). But separate rationals would be need for each of the other four uses. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It says that it is an "Image of Oasis Tower in Mumbai", not that it is a fair use rationale for the article Oasis Tower or for the article Mumbai. WP:NFCC#10c doesn't only require you to include the title to which the FUR refers; you should also tell that the FUR describes the use of the image in that article. The FUR includes many article titles (Oasis Tower and Mumbai with links, building, information etc. without links), and it isn't clear which article the FUR is meant to refer to. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't require rationale to be that exact - common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower. Yes, it can be more clear, but if, for example, that was the only use of that image on that page, a #10c complaint would be petty. Now, yes, with 4 other images unaccounted for, those need to be very clear for their rationales, and likely the one for Oasis made more explicit. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually this rationale is insufficient in its current form. I disagree that "common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower", as that is not clear from the rationale at all. WP:NFCC#10c explicitly requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". This rationale is not specific and the use of this file does not satisfy 10c as it is currently written. If people think such a rationale is sufficient, then 10c should be adjusted to reflect that, but until that happens the file should either be removed or the rationale improved to meet the requirements of the current version of 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale could be written better, but this is a case where it would be silly to be hard-nosed about #10c enforcement in the use on Oasis Tower since it is the article about the building in the image - an allowable case. All other 4 cases beg the question "why" and thus the rationale needs to be added or the image removed. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should just be left as is. While the rationale could indeed be better, it seems to be kind of silly to try to get it improved, as in this case it is implicitly clear why the image is in the article about that building. The other uses have been removed, so this should just be closed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am just ignoring the fact that this image might violate NFCC#1, since I guess it would be possible to get a free image of the building under construction. I mean, I am not aware of a guideline which says articles about buildings need to include an image of the building in its finished state before the building is even finished. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

India has building FOP, so when it is completed, a free image can be made. That said, it's 3 years away from completion, and even a photograph of the building under construction at this time won't be much. This is a case where a free image can't be had at the present but can in a sufficiently long time in the future that, assuming all other conditions are met, NFC could be used as long as it is subsequently replaced with a free image when that becomes possible. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how much you can see of the building at this time. If three years remain, maybe it is still too incomplete. Once the building is almost complete, a photo of the incomplete building might be sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that once the building is in a state where it is indistinguishably close to the planned rendering, then we need a free image. Three years is likely still a good ways off for it , but maybe in a year or two that will be different. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png

Might violate WP:NFCC#8 in a number of articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Only acceptable at the main ACC article. The use in the ACC-related articles is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Botola vf.PNG

Used in three articles but only has one rationale. Rationale is a group rationale explicitly contianing only one article name. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:División de Honor.PNG

Having reviewed the examples at Commons:Threshold of originality I guess that this doesn't meet the threshold. Essentially consists of some curves and typefaces. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ivy League logo.svg

I guess the ivy icon places this above the threshold. In that case, the use in Ivy League Men's Basketball Player of the Year violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LourdesGrayWolves.png

Used in four articles but only has a rationale for one. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• If this were Germany, then it's definitely below TOO; but given that this is the US, we might want to be more cautious since TOO mainly applies to text and geometric shapes. If it's copyrighted, then I can only see justification for it in Lourdes Gray Wolves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the logo is indeed essentially text, except the paw, which I guess isn't sufficiently complex to be copyrightable on it's own and so I guess it doesn't place the logo above TOO. I don't expect that the mere combination of those two basic ideas would be regarded as creative enough by the US copyright office to grant registration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, combining the two won't push it above TOO. But it would be good to get some more opinions on the paw. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The pawprint would be considered artistic enough to push past TOO in the US. US's is basic shapes and geometry, that's not it. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pac-12-Uniform-UA.png

Another one of those non-free sports uniform images. Is currently tagged as non-free and violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Arizona Wildcats football team and 2013 Arizona Wildcats football team. Possibly violates WP:NFCC#1 if the logo on the helmet is below WP:TOO or its depiction on the uniform is de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The logo and markings would fall below TOO. Since we can make a free image of a uniform template to "cover" with the appropriate logo/markings, a free version can be had, if this one is not already free. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I frequently tag images like this as replaceable fair use. Care should be taken if there is a complex logo on the uniform or if there are lots of logos (in which case there might be some kind of arrangement copyright). Care should also be taken to check old versions of the file information page: sometimes, old revisions of a file may be freely licensed, and then it is better to revert to an earlier revision. In this case, all revisions seem to be unfree.

Even in the cases where there might be copyrightable elements in the uniform, I think that we should strive to list two licences – one free and one unfree – so that you only need to depend on fair use for the uniform parts and not for the uploader's contributions, in the same way as we are using {{photo of art}} for photos of copyrighted statues. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that two licenses would be smart to have, one for the uniform template, and a second for the team's designs. The first better be a PD/CC-BY license, otherwise we may be exasterbating non-free here. Whether the second is below TOO, that's a different issue (here, I believe it fails the TOO threshold as just shapes and a font letter). --MASEM (t) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Frosty paws.jpg

There seems to be a violation of WP:NFCC#3a here. I don't think that it is necessary to show both the logo and the product packaging separately as the logo is repeated in the product packaging. Additionally, I'm not sure if the product packaging is needed at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the product packaging is unnecessary. The image can be trimmed to the logo and reduce content used. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the packaging should be removed from the image. Otherwise this might be problematic under both WP:NFCC#3a and b. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Coca-Cola packaging

The section Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio violates WP:NFLISTS. However, it seems that some of the bottles and cans are {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-1923}}. Some may also be {{PD-US-1989}}. Some of them currently make no mention of any free licence from the photographer, but it seems that earlier versions of the file information pages sometimes mention free licences. The images which are unfree can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that an audit to determine which ones are free, and which ones aren't and to remove this is necessary, as well as proper licensing around. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, on a second look, it seems (based on block logs) that all of the images were uploaded by a sockpuppet of Yattum (talk · contribs) while Yattum (talk · contribs) was blocked. Maybe the whole set should go away per WP:CSD#G5 instead. I'm not sure if the edits by other people are enough to prevent that. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'm quite inclusionist on non-free content but I'm inclined to agree that the packaging in the table serves no encyclopædic value. The original bottle shape is genuinely iconic and it would be a poor article that didn't include a photograph of it. But the value of having the photos of cans and plastic bottles is pretty tenuous, imho. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)

On this article, there are currently two non-free images showing the same thing, so only one of them can stay. Which one do people prefer? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. Which images are you referring to? The two I am seeing, namely File:Artist's Rendition of Energy Tower (Midland, Texas).jpg and File:Computer generated rendition of downtown Midland, Texas with the new building.jpg are both tagged as licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, which is regarded as a free license for Misplaced Pages's purposes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The files are on Commons and appear to be copyright violations, so I have nominated them for deletion there. That said, one of the images should maybe be reuploaded here under a fair use claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those two images can be used under a fair use claim, as both would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The building doesn't exist yet, so it is not yet possible to replace the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone having access to the design sketches or plans for the building can create a new image and release it under a free license, so both violate NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The only exception would be if the building design or visual appearance were itself copyrighted, in which case any image of it would be a derivative work and so no free replacement could be made. But since (as you said) the building doesn't exist yet, the mere idea for the building cannot be copyrighted and thus a free replacement can be created. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the law which regulates Commons:Template:FoP-US (s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 120):

Freedom of panorama only applies to buildings which have been constructed and only to buildings located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. This building isn't covered because it isn't constructed yet and not yet located in or visible from a public place (it currently only exists on paper). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that once the building has been constructed and is visible from a public place, then a free image can be made, which is not the case yet.

Irregardless of that fact, the point remains that a free replacement of the not yet constructed building could be made and thus a non-free image cannot be used. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make a drawing of the building without that being a derivative work of the other drawings, though. Also, post-1989 buildings are protected by copyright, and you can only depict copyrighted buildings if the building has been constructed, because the image otherwise would violate the copyright of the architect. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

One could make a drawing that shows the building from an angle or position different from that depicted in this image. If it is different enough from this image, then it would not violate the copyright in this image. As I said, the mere idea for the building cannot be copyrighted and thus it wouldn't violate the copyright in the building either. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, the building is protected by copyright (see s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act), and it is only permitted to create depictions of buildings which have been constructed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Stefan is right - even if you access to the plans and created your own rendering, it would be a derivative work of the copyrighted building, and would remain non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. Any drawing of the not yet constructed building (irregardless of from which perspective it depicts the building) would (as the converse of the amendment outlined in SEC. 704. SCOPE OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS IN ARCHITECTURAL WORKS.) violate the copyright in the architectural work (the building). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the issue being now that at the present time a free image can't be taken (US FOP allows pictures of buildings) until the building is completed. This is similar to a previous discussion that if we're talking something that is still several months/years out from being possible, NFCC#1's free alternative can't be readily met, and thus we'd allow a non-free, though as soon as the free image becomes possible, we have to swap it out. This seems to be the case here, so 1) the images need to be on en.wiki for the time being and 2) one is reasonable to include here for the time being, and 3) as soon as the building is reasonably completed, a free image needs to be taken and replace the non-free here. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The long-standing consensus has always been to allow one image for every building under construction which has an article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reuploading as non-free?

Both images have been deleted now. Per the above discussion, maybe one of them should be undeleted and reuploaded here at EN Misplaced Pages as NFC. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the way it should be done. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik  17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik  01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik  03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik  15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik  22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik  00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik  01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
              • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik  17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel _Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people made up their minds from the moment this was listed here. --evrik  14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try and reformat the article, but it was reverted by another editor. --evrik  14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik  15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik  03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik  16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik  18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I've added sources. --evrik  15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • You can't use the Pine Tree Web one as it is clearly citing Misplaced Pages, making it WP:CIRCULAR. The other (reading Google's translate) has little to speak directly about the logos and also being a blog raising questions of reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, you're right. I found another source and will look for others. --evrik  17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PaladinsLogo.svg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Furman Paladins. Seems to be below WP:TOO, as consisting essentially of basic geometric shapes (the rhombs) and typefaces (the F). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2012iccworldt20.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20. I am unsure whether this consists just of simple geometric shapes and typefaces. The lower part is indeed just typefaces. I don't know whether the blue circle is a simple geometric shape or not. The red-yellow part might push the logo beyond WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the "upper half" drawing in the logo would be beyond WP:TOO, so it needs valid rationale(s) for each use. Begoon  03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png

And yet another non-free sports uniform image, this time violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Las Vegas Locomotives season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Nighthawks.jpg

The use of this nonfree image in Art Institute of Chicago is plainly inappropriate. According to the applicable NFCC rationale on the file page, "The artwork is being used as an example of a prominent American artwork of its era". There is no relevant text in the article on this point (the "era"). In the article's current text, the image is used merely to illustrate the point that it is owned by the Art Institute. That point is more than adequately conveyed by text alone, and the image adds nothing. The relevant text is part of a discussion listing the most important paintings in the Institute's collection. About a dozen items are listed. All but this one are out of copyright/PD. Any one of those could serve the same function in the section, providing an example of an important work in the collection. The image is therefore replaceable. Indeed, the article includes an extensive gallery of images of its important holdings; there is no need for another, nonfree, image serving the same function.

Nevertheless, removal of the image has been contested, using the many of the same non-policy-based arguments that were rejected in a similar debate at Talk:List of 20th-century women artists. There are quite a few articles about museums featuring extended discussions/listings of their collections. I can find no other examples of such discussions illustrated by nonfree images, further reinforcing my conclusion that such use is not consistent with consensus or policy. Further input is requested. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is, whether this is still copyrighted and that depends on whether when it was published (1942 or later) and whether the initial copyright had been renewed or not. If the copyright was not renewed, then it is in the public domain if it was published in 1942. If it was published in 1942 and the copyright was renewed, then it is still copyrighted until 2037. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not PD. See, for example, (last paragraphs). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If its non-free its absolutely not acceptable on the AIC page; it can be mentioned as a famous work there and linked, but the image doesn't aid in understanding the article on the Institute. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I found a copyright under registration number VA0000613732 here which was registered in 1993 and might be applicable to this image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those are relevant; museums are notorious for false claims of copyright and getting people to pay for something that's not their copyright (see for one example), and VA0000613732 is for photolithography from 1993. We'd need to look at record from 1942 + 28ish years, or circa 1970 for the renewal; that's assuming it was first published in 1942. That's manual; see the scans at .--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1993 copyright is for a lithograph of the painting. If the painting wasn't renewed then any 2D copies with no threshold of originality should be PD as well. "Description: Reproduction of oil painting. Date of Publication: 1993-09-01 Basis of Claim: New Matter: photolithography." Someone could upload it to commons and then have them run it through DR where it should survive as PD not renewed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't upload at Commons to "test the waters" for copyright. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do when I feel they are public domain like: File:New York Rangers.svg. I put in DR after upload and I think it will pass over there. Even the admin that deleted it the first time agrees now. The same file was discussed here before I moved it to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonably if you think the image is most likely free and need to check, but here, I think the consensus is that the image is most likely non-free and using Commons's deletion process is not the right way to verify it. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The only places where this image belongs are on Edward Hopper and Nighthawks. The uses in Art Institute of Chicago, History of painting, Visual art of the United States and Western painting must go. That's in the world where NFCC is followed. That world doesn't exist here on Misplaced Pages. As we see at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago, a vehement argument in opposition and people willing to edit to include a non-free image will win the day, regardless of what NFCC says. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the local versions to the Commons version. We'll see if anyone challenges it, but I think we've got a good claim that it's public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's remarkable, given that no one has yet advanced any evidence on the point,just noted a separate copyright for a derivative work. Given the news reports like the one I cited above, and the complete lack of contrary substantiated claims otherwise, this is pure WP:POINTy disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It was advanced on Commons:Village Pump/Copyright and added to the image talk page on Commons. The news report you cited above is irrelevant; it's a self-interested claim from someone with no interest in checking out the facts, and even taken literally, it's probable there is a German copyright on the painting, which is what the German company would be interested in licensing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We definitely should not be using commons as a testing ground (uploading images of questionable copyright, and then waiting for a deletion discussion). It is better to drop links on the Commons copyright discussion boards pointing to en.wiki to get clarification than to "taint" Commons if the assumption it is free is wrong. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 laid out a sufficient argument on Commons and after I, one of Commons' resident copyright mavens, said that it was sufficient, he uploaded it. We are an independent wikiproject, you know. I would appreciate if Hullaballoo Wolfowitze would assume good faith here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I just found a key work that specifically identifies Nighthawks in the PD (at least in the US) here), thus indicating that this is a free work for purposes of en.wiki (whether it's PD-US on en.wiki, or PD on Commons, is still up in the air) but irregardless this isn't a non-free. So the use is fine there. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is fine on commons and en:wp because the servers are in the USA. If you read the fine print of Template:PD-US-no notice and Template:PD-US-not renewed you will notice that there is a warning about re-use in some other countries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, perfect, for some reason I thought we didn't have the allowance for such works on commons. Then we're all set here. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is in the public domain in the United States unless the painter had affixed a copyright notice to the painting at every exhibition he authorised before 1978, per Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Exception: No copyright notice was needed if the museum disallowed photography (impossible to verify) or if the exhibition wasn't open to the general public. Also, it had to be renewed 28 years after the first exhibition. The main problem is that it is hard to prove that any single painting is in the public domain due to the definition of "publication" requiring information which is not easily accessible (such as photo rules at a museum several decades ago, or whether there was a sign below the painting which contained a copyright symbol). It might be easier to search for a copyright renewal and assume that it is in the public domain if no renewal can be found but assume that it still is copyrighted if a renewal was found.

The copyright status in other countries may be different. For example, Germany has a bilateral treaty with the United States which forbids the use of the rule of the shorter term on US works in Germany, at least if the work was first published on 15 April 1892 or later. The bilateral treaties usually don't seem to protect works published before the treaty entered force, so Germany might use the rule of the shorter term on US works published on 14 April 1892 or earlier. The Berne Convention states that you may not use copyright formalities to determine the term of copyright protection, but it also says that your country may choose to end its term of protection when the work enters the public domain in the source country, and this creates a conflict of two things in the Berne Convention. A French court decided that the rule about non-use of copyright formalities takes precedence, so compliance or non-compliance with US copyright formalities do not affect the copyright status of a work in France, and the rule of the shorter term is only used for works published before 1923 (see recent discussion about films at Commons:COM:VPC, might not have been archived yet). This may also be protected by copyright in lots of other countries outside the United States regardless of the copyright status in the United States, but as the United States is the source country, Misplaced Pages and Commons only care about the copyright status in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we have a very reliable source that discusses the issues of artwork and public domain that specifically includes Nighthawks as an example of being published and never renewed, which to me is good enough evidence to clear it into the PD and thus consider free without requiring a copyright registration search. It shouldn't be an issue now beyond that. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This one can be closed and you can put it back in all the articles it was removed from. It is a definite keeper at commons and confirmed as public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg

Used in 2012 Men's World Junior Squash Championships and 2012 Women's World Junior Squash Championships, but only has a rationale for the former and lacks one for the latter. Both uses appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 8 articles. Might be below WP:TOO (essentially typefaces and simple geometric shapes). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:NFL(Australia).png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Northern Football League Season. Does this count as basic geometric shapes and typefaces? If yes, then it's below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png

Non-free sports uniform image. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Omaha Nighthawks season. The logo probably pushes the image past TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

KOFY-TV

I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG

I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:

1. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
2. 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
3. 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
4. 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
5. 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
6. 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
7. 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
8. 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
9. 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
10. 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
11. 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
12. 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
13. 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment

• Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. Misplaced Pages will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
            • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Misplaced Pages should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete from Waterboarding: This isn't even a photo of the act, it is a painting of it! Anyone can make a painting of it. A painting by someone else would give exactly the same understanding. A clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:TheSprektors.jpg

And another non-free image uploaded by the same user. Can't somebody have a word with this guy? He is uploading too many non-free images. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is actually okay. The band no longer exists and there doesn't appear to be an immediate free alternative. So a non-free in discussion about the band is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool. I might move it to the correct band name though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He's also using it at Bon Scott, which I'm guessing is not ok? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem for its use there (you can't even make out much of the faces in that image to use for an article on a person), but not a reason to delete the image since it is fine for the band article. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out of Scott's article and leave it in the band article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif

From the image:

Windows Server (TM) Code Name "Longhorn"

Evaluation copy. Build 6001

From its copyright statement:

If you wish to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, you may not use screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released.

Can someone swap it out for a shot from a 2008 RTM? That would convey the same information and be legally safer. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First thing is we don't need Microsoft's permission to use the screenshot under a fair use claim (if the use of this image constitutes fair use). This use is probably okay under fair use as its nature seems to be largely transformative. That said, the use in Windows Server 2008 appears to be a violation of WP:NFCC#8, as a removal of the image wouldn't harm a readers overall understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to question whether it violates fair use, but it does violate the licence it claims it's under. Swapping the licence out for {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be a possible solution, but Non-free Microsoft is more liberal than Non-free software and therefore better.

As for removing it, I agree that we don't need two images of Server Core, but I'd rather remove File:Windows 2008 Server Core.png than this one, since this one demonstrates the removed features more clearly. I believe having at least one increases the understanding of what exactly is different in a way text can't convey. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

I often come across files that I think should be re-licensed as free due to not meeting TOO is there some tag that can be applied so that status can be review by someone more familiar with the process than me? or some other place this can be raised. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are sure TOO is not met on a non-free logo, you're free to change the licensing; if you're unsure, I'd say here is the best venue for it (since it is non-free review) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

This violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik  16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the BSA Brand Identity Guide, I misidentified this emblem: File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg is the 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'. I will fix this.
• The emblem is currently used at:
  • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America): should use the proper 'Boy Scouts of America universal emblem' (Second Class Scout emblem)
  • Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • February 1910: not needed
  • History of the Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): I am fairly certain there is a training emblem; else the Trained emblem can be used.
    • File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg moved to File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • Proper version of File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg uploaded
    • Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • History of the Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • February 1910: image removed
    • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): image removed; will replace with proper emblem once I find it
    • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now uses proper File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
    • --  Gadget850 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Werieth has threatened to have me topic banned on this subject, let me get a word in and say I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik  19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and in particular WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, wait, it's an American painting. Maybe that makes it PD due to failure to comply with copyright formalities, although I have no idea how to prove that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have had to be registered (falling into the 1950-1963 period where registration was required in the 28 yr term), but there's no easy way to search for this. It would make sense to consider it non-free until it can be found. As for its use, it's clearly fine on Milton Avery's page (an artist's work) but the other uses are suspect - there's not much establishing this as a major work that needs to be seen to understand those topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Avery is an important artist from the mid-20th century and this is a fine example of his mature work...Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a point made on the various "History" articles or the Landscape Artwork articles. It's included and Avery's name-dropped but there's no rational why this piece is more important than any other piece in the same family (contemporary western landscape artists) that we could probably find free replacements for if we're trying to demonstrate this period. Again, same probably with painting articles before - I know that the traditional way to present this in textbooks outside of WP is to show many many examples and let the work speak for itself, but we have a stronger requirement here and that method simply doesn't work. This is not to say that we need to remove those images "now" but just that the language can be improved to make them fit better to describe the importance of AVery's work. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do a copyright renewal search use: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I read somewhere that less than 5% were ever renewed in the 28 year window. Look at 27, 28, and 29 years after first publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in the 78-on copyright office search but I didn't look at the pre-records. I also note that Avery appears to be covered by the ARS () though that doesn't necessarily mean every work he did is covered. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem: If it was first published in a book or a newspaper, then I believe that you usually need to search for the book title or the name of the newspaper instead of searching for the name of the painitng. This is one thing which makes it difficult to search for renewals of paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Huge category

Category:Doctor Who character images has over 300 images in it. The few I checked are fair use and not movable to commons. Should we go through all of them or has it been done already? A trusted admin may wish to go through and delete the obvious ones on sight. We may wish to look at other cats, ie. Star Trek, Star Gate, Buffy, Zombies, Werewolves, Vampires, and Casper (cat) etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think all those images need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone should go through the category and list the suspicious cases here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Several of these appear to be used in the infobox of episode articles and seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. However, this needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis as there presumably are other images which satisfy all points of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of them do appear to be images of characters used on fictional character articles, and there's a weak consensus that this is always appropriate - that is, if the character's notable enough for a standalone article, the character image is a reasonable thing to include to show implicitly how the character was portrayed (but again, that's weak consensus). Episode articles have to be reviewed, though. I know that the newer reincanation of the show, the editors have been good, but I suspect a lot of the older series have problems with unnecessary episode images. A case-by-case is needed, but I recommended asking the Doctor Who project to assist here. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012–13 NBL season and National Basketball League (Australasia). The uses in 2009–10 NBL season and 2012–13 NBL season appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As a logo, it's only allowable use w/o additional discussion is on the league page, the two season pages are unacceptable even if there were 10c rationales for them. Recommend removal from those pages and using the standards FUR for logos for the NBL page. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Eminem - Role Model single CD cover.jpg

I tagged that file as violating WP:NFCC#10c while performing my NFCC task. However I strongly suspect this might be below WP:TOO (typefaces and black and white boxes). Checking back here to be on the safe side. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Straight up text and simple geometry. Fails TOO, uncopyrightable, in the PD. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to tag it as PD. Dumb question: What exactly is the difference between {{PD-text}} and {{PD-textlogo}} and which of them should I use? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} is used for logos whereas {{PD-text}} is used for identical images which don't happen to be logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The fact that PD-textlogo says "This image or logo...." confused me, though... -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Unknownpleasures.jpg

This file is used under a non-free license, but a recent article points out that it's actually a public-domain image. According to the article, an assistant to the image's creator replied to an email with "We understand the image as copyright free."

There's a lot more research in the article, but it comes to the conclusion that the image is in the public domain. I'm not sure what the correct public domain tag is today - I haven't been active on wikipedia in a long time - but I think that some free license should be appropriate. — PyTom (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of that article, I'm not sure we have iron clad evidence of being in the public domain. The logic makes sense but if the first point of true publication is the '71 Scientific American, which would likely have been printed with a copyright notice somewhere in that magazine , and thus the image is copyright (even though no one has gone after Joy Division on their use, that doesn't free it up). The argument that the radio telescope employees are "government workers" is not correct - most employees of such sites are non-federal employees and thus their work is not automatically PD (a site like JPL for NASA is an exception, not the rule). I realize that the original image is just plotted data, but the end graph can be considered creative enough for copyright protection, and its reuse in Joy Division's cover isn't creating a new graph.

Basically, I think we need to keep the JD album as non-free until we can assured prove the original graph is in the public domain. If it was in the PD, the addition of block titles is not sufficient creativity to make the album cover a "new" work of art, so that would be uncopyrightable. But it hinges on the freeness of the original stacked plot. Note that this doesn't mean the image can't be used on the article about the album, but that would likely be the only proper use of the image under NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

TV Patrol

• TV Patrol (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article uses 9 non-free files, I can really only see justification for 1 (WP:NFCC#3 and #8 ). Werieth (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, with the logos they are all derivatives of each other (not even considering past arguments of historical logos), so only one is needed. And we don't need screenshots of the show to understand its a news program. Free images can be had of the hosts (they all appear to be living) so we don't need non-free to show them. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, maybe the screenshots and the images of the host can be removed but the logos and the images pertaining to the "augmented reality" are not to be removed as this best depicts how it evolved as each logo shows the evolution of the show. I am from the Philippines and I know the show very well as I watch it so I have a better say on the article. And besides unlike other shows which only changes title cards, this show, when they do, they're has to be a major change in it. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The changes in the logo are extremely small and trivial. Unless there's detailed discussion from sources that explain each change, it's unlikely to cause the reader confusion. I can understand the use of augmented reality as a highlight of discussing the show but that's probably the only other image besides the current logo I'd keep. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the writers of the page, including me already have an existing plan of massively fixing the article way before this issue came in. In fact it would adhere to your concern about each logo change being small and trivial into putting why the logo change is also a major change in the program. Its just that our schedules do not permit us to do this in a full blown single time edit because as we all know its better if all the writers would first agree on the content that would be placed.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Isobel (song)

I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last cover, the one that is a simple label, may be free - its text + simple shape and fails TOO. But 4 is still too many. One of the covers is clearly duplicative (there's a small change in the photo), not enough enough to justify it. The alt. art is reasonably fair to include per past discussions on regional variations. The music video image needs a lot better justification to keep. It's a Gondry video who is known to be visually abstract but the image doesn't correlate this to the article. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Book articles don't get multiple cover images. The article The Quest for Kalevala only has one cover image, not seven. Why are music products different? The main difference with music products is that cover images of music products provide less identification than cover images of printed publications since music more commonly is distributed without illustrations (for example on radio). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion within the last two years where the album project said that one additional cover if it is in major retail region and significantly different from the main release (eg: differences between EU and US versions) is appropriate but that's about all the allowance allowed if there's no further discussion on the cover images. So there's still a problem in this article, but we'd otherwise have to re-address that alt art consenssus. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alagoas.jpg

This file is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

• Brazilian monitor Ceará
• Brazilian monitor Pará
• Brazilian monitor Piauí
• Brazilian monitor Rio Grande
• Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
• Pará-class monitor

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed  03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It also fails WP:NCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's the complete text of #3:
          • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
          • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
        • How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed  02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed  02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed  05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed  07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Submissions for List of Australian flags and List of New Zealand flags

My submissions for these two pages are being kicked out by rather vindictive folk for being non-free images. Given that other images listed as non-free are allowed to remain (and I've taken pains to ensure that the rationales for use follow what is required), just what the hell am I doing wrong if they are still being removed??? --Expatkiwi (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA and I have removed all files that are non-free on those pages, and in fact almost ever page with List of XXXXXX with more than a file or two. See WP:NFLIST Werieth (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, I regard your comments with the same affection as I would a turd in a punch-bowl. --EXPATKIWI (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. But Werieth is absolutely right. WP:NFLISTS probits the use of non-free media in tables like this, and while they may be appropriate in other articles, do not work here. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche

I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (song)

I cannot see a justification for 7 covers, I can see 1 cover and then one for the sound sample but a total of 8 non-free items for one song? Werieth (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this is absurd. 1 is enough. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ottawa LPP Stadium Proposal.JPG

Both uses in Lansdowne Park redevelopment and Frank Clair Stadium appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. The paragraph beginning with "On May 27, OSEG revealed an updated design...." in Lansdowne Park redevelopment#Lansdowne Live/Lansdowne Partnership Plan is well understandable without this image. Same goes for the section Future in Frank Clair Stadium. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable in the article about the stadium as long as it is recognized as replacable fair use once the stadium is constructed. It is unallowable on the redevelopment article. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Allentown, Pennsylvania

• Allentown, Pennsylvania (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I cant see the justification for the 5 non-free files that are being used on this article. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (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:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Henk Kuijpers. It also violates WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the justification is pretty clear--to illustrate his style in his most famous work. It also has a very low resolution. I'm not seeing how 8 and 3b aren't met. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally, unless the work itself in connection to the artist is of critical discussion (eg using sound clips to describe a musical group's style, using representative paintings that are highlighted as exemplars of an artist's work), we don't reuse art from an article about the work on the article about the creator. The article is referenced, but not that specific line that discusses the style, so it is hard to verify if this is considered a critical comment on his style (which would help satisfy #8) or just an WPian's appraisal which would fail #8. (The 3b aspect is easy, as the image is too large per normal resolution guidance). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems reasonable to me to show a representative of an artist's work, so the reader can see and judge for themselves his/her style. It adds to reader understanding about the artist in the most direct and obvious way. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If there is no sourced discussion of the artist's style (which I'm not saying doesn't exist for Kuijpers, but its presently not shown here), we have no reason to show an image to show what that looks like to the reader, particularly when they are one link away from seeing it on a different article. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I think that's not true. In my view, gaining an impression of the artist's work is something that absolutely fundamentally adds to reader understanding of the artist, regardless of whether there is textual discussion. And I don't find the "one click away" argument convincing either -- if something is worth including in the article, then it's worth including in the article - full stop. We should aim for our articles to be self-standing and self-sufficient as far as possible, because we have no idea how they may be reused (eg saved to disk, or printed out, automatically extracted, or otherwise selected, with no guarantee the other article will also be available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
          • But our non-free content mission is against that, and that's policy. Again, find/affirm sources that describe his art style in context as a BLP, and the image (outside of its size) is probably fine. The artist is searchable but I'm not having luck on page translations to determine if this is the case, and its possible the sources exist already to show this. But in the general case, if an artist or other creative person/group are notable for an article but lack any sourced discussion about the style of their creative output, there's no benefit to the reader to show that, otherwise its assuming OR that the reader needs to see the art to see/hear that. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
            • No, what policy says, in black and white, is that the image should add to reader understanding about the subject of the article. This image manifestly does just that. And making that assessment ultimately doesn't rest on me finding sources: it is a judgement the policy commands me and the community to make, as editors. WP:OR applies to theses and propositions advanced by the article. It does not apply to talk pages, or editorial judgements, or community consensuses. Contextual significance is a matter for community assessment, which is not something to which the WP:OR policy applies. I put it again: that to me it seems blindingly obvious that showing an artist's style adds something absolutely fundamental to the reader understanding of the subject, when the subject is an artist. And I imagine most of the community would find it similarly blindingly obvious, too. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Going on that logic alone, I can justify the inclusion of any non-free image because I talk about it (without sources) in the article and say the reader needs to see it to understand it. It has long been policy and practice that sourced discussion of images are required in such cases like this as to meet NFCC#8, as to say that "If our reliable sources think it is necessary to highlight this factor of this creative person's work, then we can justify using non-free to show accompany that." If no sources discuss the creative person's style, then we have very little leg to stand on to justify its inclusion - there are exceptions, but not always. This is necessary to reduce non-free use otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
                • Absolutely not. A blanket statement of the kind you propose has occasionally been suggested at WT:NFC, and always been rejected. There are some particular specific categories -- for example high-value agency photographs -- where we require commentary on the image itself, and for that commentary to be properly sourced; but the requirement is not a general part of NFCC #8. (As witnessed, for example, by our preparedness to include album covers, company logos, etc without comment, because of their manifest revelance). IIRC in the very early days of the NFCC, there might have been a requirement for direct commentary on the image added for a few weeks, but it was removed again after consideration of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley. But the basic position has always been that NFCC #8 requires a judgement on whether the image adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and that that is a judgement for the community to make based on whatever common sense and context and background it wishes to bear -- there is no requirement, not stated in the NFC nor out of it, for a "smoking gun" source to be found saying "this image is significant".

If we have an article on an artist, for the reader to properly understand the nature of the artist and their work, it seems absolutely plain to me that it is manifestly relevant to show some example of what that artist's output looked like -- quite apart from whether or not the artist's style has attracted any particular comments. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If the readers wants to understand the artists work, the reader can click on the wikilink to the works article and view the image in that article. Also, I don't see how it adds to the readers understanding of the work if there is no (preferrably sourced) commentary about what aspect of the artists style the image depicts. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Because readers have eyes. You don't have to drag them by the nose and say "you can see this" and "you can see that" and "you can see the other". Jheald (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought readers have feet. :) -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with images illustrating an artist's style in an article about the artist's style, but this article only mentions his art style briefly (saying that he uses the clear line style). Also, I'm not sure if a cover illustration is a good idea for illustrating an artist's drawing style, unless you are specifically discussing cover illustrations. On a cover illustration, a lot of the page is typically covered by logos and text, so it is harder to see the actual art in the thumbnail in the article. Single panels from a story serve this purpose better. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's long been guidance at WP:COMICS, where the image policy in fact goes back substantially before WP:NFC, to prefer exterior matter over interior panels unless illustrating points specific to those panels, on the basis that you have had to pay to see interior matter, but the exterior matter is what you could see on the news-stand, and what tends to be circulated in promotional material, and so may be less economically significant a copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, if we are going to demonstrate someone's already-notable art on their bio page, reusing an image, while not completely avoiding NFC issues, would be better than uploading a new image of just one part of their art. But if there's sourced justification to use a more detailed closeup of the art, that's reasonable. That's simply not the case here (yet). --MASEM (t) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if an image of the style is to be used there, there should be a specific reference in the article to that image highlighting how that image demonstrates the specific style. Otherwise, I don't see how the image is helpful for a readers understanding of the article, if the reader doesn't already know what that style is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have maybe edited half a dozen articles on illustrators at one time or another. In each case, I think the article probably had an image of the illustrator's style. Toshio says that an article needs to say how an image demonstrates the specific style, if a reader is going to get any understanding out of it. But that's simply not true. Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them. For example, suppose you have an illustrator -- are the works they are celebrated for loose watercolours, hard-edged realism, Quentin Blake-style cartoons, ligne claire, 80's-style airbrush, Tenniel-style Victoriana, or something else again entirely...? Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin, perhaps the most famous example of ligne claire, and see for yourself that, no, it is not quite the same. Seeing the image therefore, even without commentary, gives you a much better idea of what the artist actually did -- which has to be something absolutely fundamental in an article on an artist. One can see immediately, for example, that what Henk Kuijpers did was rather different to say Action Comics 1. It's not a question of sourced commentary, it's a question of giving the reader a better understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8) -- exactly as showing a characteristic work on an artist's page does. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them." .... "Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin."

Anybody seeing the image might interpret the artists supposed intention behind the image differently. What we as Misplaced Pages editors think the artist was doing is irrelevant, we'd need reliable sources to support such claims. Also I am not aware that there is a consensus that such a use of a non-free image is acceptable (I don't see it at WP:NFCI). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive the figure of speech. I wasn't talking about the artist's intention, I was talking about physically what sort of work they produce. And that is exactly what seeing the image shows you. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that if the image is to show the characteristics of the style of Kuijpers works there needs to be more discussion of this style in the article and a reference to this specific image explaining how that image is representative of that style. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Without jumping in the middle, I just want to say that "manifest relevance" is a darn fine bit of reasoning here, just as it is with album covers (more so actually IMO). You can't understand what an artist _does_ without seeing the art. Period. It clearly meets NFCC#8 by definition. And nothing other than a sample of their art (or more than one in some cases where they have a wildly varying style) can accomplish that same thing. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If there was a larger, sourced discussion about his art style, certainly NFCC#8 is met. But we can't justify that based on a single, unsourced line, which could just be an OR statement by a WPian to try to justify their use. It simply doesn't qualify for the more rigorous nature we expect from NFCC#8 (in particular the second half about omission making the article difficult to understand - the importance of the artist is understood without the image, as there's no significant discussion about the art style).
  • I will stress one thing: despite the language barrier on searches, I do suspect there is additional sources to be used for this artist, and from those a few more words can be added about his art style as to secure the appropriateness of the image in this article. That it, I would urge those trying to keep it to find these sources (the name generates enough hits) and justify the art style appropriately, instead of fighting against standard expectations for such images. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You're re-writing NFCC #8 in your head again. It doesn't say that "omission would make the article difficult to understand". It says that the additional understanding of the topic, which the reader would have with the image, would be lost without it.

For an example see, eg Quentin Blake, and then look at a Google image search . I submit that you gain more real understanding about Quentin Blake and why he is celebrated by seeing any single one of these images than you do from the entirety of our shockingly image-less article. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The image simply sits in the article without being discussed. Thus I do not see how the presence of the image in the article significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The claim that the reader gains significantly from the images presence on that page is unfounded and the article is still understandable, if the image were removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As Toshio points out, no, that is actually what NFCC#8 says - it is a two prong test. It is nearly always easy to prove the first part that the picture helps, but the second part regarding omission is where, if there's no detailed discussion of the need for the image - nearly always required sourced discussion to avoid OR - then NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that NFCC #8 doesn't actually say what Toshio claims it does. What it actually says is

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

(emphasis added).

So it's not a question of whether the article is still "understandable" without the image. The question is whether not having the image is detrimental to the understanding the reader would have gained had the image been there.

And no, you don't always need to have detailed discussion of an image for that image to add something significant to reader understanding of the topic. As for example here. Knowing the sort of work an artist does adds something absolutely fundamental to what you understand about the artist. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that your claim contains a flaw, since it actually says:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Thus if there hadn't been a significant increase of a readers undertanding in the first place, the second part of the statement is moot. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes... And the point that has been consistently been put is that to know what kind of work it was that the artist made is perhaps the most significant increase in understanding that it's possible to imagine about the artist. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that NFCC8 isn't a bright line. I'd say it is _well_ over the line here and I'm somewhat surprised others disagree. But matters of opinion are sometimes that way. What seems black-and-white to one person isn't to another. I don't think arguing back-and-forth is going to solve that. If you don't believe having the art of an artist visible adds significantly to the understanding of that artist (and not having it therefore detracts) you're just not in a place that I can vaguely understand. And apparently you can't understand me. So we're stuck and more words aren't going to change that. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To step back, a key facet of US Fair Use law in determining if a use of the work includes the idea of a transformative nature; the phrase "criticism and commentary" that we banter around comes pretty much directly from why fair use is allowed. (). As we are purposely stricter than Fair Use law, this concept is still embedded within NFC policy, even if not fully listed out - this is why, for example, we highlight the need for "critical commentary" within NFCI - which I know is not exactly the same as the fair use phrase, but its origins are there.

To this point, this is why NFCC#8 - which is pretty much our guide to assure the transformative nature is met - nearly always (with very limited exception) - requires sourced discussion of the article in question. WPians cannot provide criticism and commentary without violating OR so ergo it has to come from reliable sources. This is the metric used in practice (effectively, WP:FAC being the ultimate point of review without consideration to delete) and has been the way for years. I don't question that a reader can be helped by seeing the artist's work to understand the artist's style, but without sourced discussion, the omission isn't hurting the article, particularly if the reader is one click away from the work in question. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley. Commentary on the image is not a pre-requisite for U.S. Fair Use.

In any case, the context of being used in as part of an education article, for an educational purpose, is transformative -- it's a very different context from that for which the image was originally created.

NFCC #8 is quite carefully drafted, both in what it requires and what it does not. "Significantly aiding reader understanding" is a good and appropriate test -- good for WP, and good in the context of one of our articles for U.S. law. This image is passing that test.

Such images, as you confirm, plainly help our readers -- so omitting them plainly harms what the article might be. In the specific language of NFCC #8, its omission is detrimental to the understanding that it would give readers if it was there.

Finally, I think WP:FAC is a red herring. An article on an artist probably deserves to fail WP:FAC if it doesn't discuss the artist's style. But we're not talking about whether this article is up for FAC -- we are talking about whether it (and articles like it) ought to have an image to convey an understanding of the artist's work. The test for that is not that an article has to be FAC standard, it is that the image has to pass NFCC #8 -- which this does. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A FAC case in point is the one for Pink Floyd which passed recently (last few months). Prior to FAC the article included pretty much every cover of their albums. The FAC discussion on images was centered on how this is just not acceptable, and with the end result being the album covers that were considered to have sourcable discussion w.r.t. to the band were left - eg for example Dark Side's iconic prism. The point here is that FAC understands that sourcing style and the like needs to be present before images about the creative person can be included. Remember, if no RS talks about the person's style, but otherwise is sufficiently sourced, we as WPians can't fill in that gap, but at FAC this wouldn't be considered an impediment.

You can't use the same argument on NFCC#8 to satisfy both parts. I will agree the image can be of help to the reader, but I still understand, with what text is presently there, that the guy is a comic artist, with or without the image, ergo the image is not necessary. Since it is impossible for a WPian to expand any more on the art style without evoking OR, we need sourced discussion to make seeing his style necessary to understand the article. I'm going to keep stressing: this has been a long-time standard for creative professionals, to require sourcing of style or the like to be able to include non-free works representative of them. But I will further stress: I think there are sources out there that would then otherwise make this whole argument moot, I just can't break the language barrier for them. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You say that "you understand that the guy is a comic artist". But what kind of art did he produce? There's a clear difference between Henk Kuijpers and Action Comics #1, or Quentin Blake, or even Hergé -- that much better understanding of what kind of art the artist produced is what the image contributes, without any further commentary -- and that is why it passes NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If no RS talked about the quality of the work, just saying he did comic art is sufficient for our readers and the picture is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient. If through the art we can give our readers a better understanding about the artist, namely a better idea of what he did, then that's a usage that policy -- NFCC #8 -- says is absolutely justified. Why sell our readers short, when policy says show them the picture? Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we didn't have a free content mission with non-free exceptional use, I would totally agree that yes, we'd plop an image of the cover of the comic the guy created on the article about the artist, absent any text discussing the art, and be done. But we have a require to minimize non-free use to exceptional uses. The logic that the image helps the reader to understand the article in the absence of sourced discussion is a slippery slope that would allow for any crafty-enough editor to include any piece of non-free where they want. We have consistently required (with some IAR, but not many) sourced commentary to identify when an exemption can be made, as to avoid this slope. In the current state of this article, this image is not one of those exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Slippery slope" is the last defence of scare-mongering. NFCC #8 has been what it says from the start, and there has been no slippery slope. Anyway, the proper place to meet a 'slippery slope' is where images do not add to reader understanding, not to delete images which do add to reader understanding "just in case". Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Masem, the question at hand is if it meets NFCC#8, not if it meets fair use requirements. If you'd like to debate the fair use issue as a separate notion, I'm fine with that, but let's settle the NFCC stuff first. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Since NFC is purposely stricter than fair use, we have to meet fair use irregardless. It cannot be treated as a separate notion. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

However, as the image is valid fair use, this sideline is somewhat irrelevant. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's quite relevant. NFCC#8 is designed to meet the transformative nature of US fair use law by seeking commentary in the article using the image to justify its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But Graham vs Dorling Kindersley establishes that commentary is not a necessary requirement for a use to be transformative. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming tedious. NFCC #8 tells us to ask a direct question, framed with an eye to US fair use law: "Does this image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?" You've now agreed that it does. That should be an end to it.

Instead you seem to be claiming that, due to some super-sekrit protocol vouchsafed to the enlightened, the plain meaning of the black-and-white text of NFCC #8 is quite misleading, and that what is required is a quite different test, which NFCC #8 specifically (and intentionally) does not call for.

Why you think that should have any credence I'm not quite sure. But let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR decision that you claim has re-written policy in this area (without actually bothering to re-write the policy). Otherwise all of this wordage is no more than an ode to a small lump of green non-policy you found in your armpit one midsummer morning -- and worth as much. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, NFCC#8 asked two distinct questions:

1. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,..."
2. "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The first question is always the easiest to meet and nearly always yes if the image is relevant to the topic; and it certainly holds in this case. That's rarely the problem.

The second is where most people have a hard time justifying. Yes, the metric "would be detrimental to understanding" is a negative, and typically difficult to quantify to proof, but in so many past image reviews (FFD, FAC, etc.) a grey line test applied nearly in every case is if there is discussion of this image in the article in question - if there is this discussion towards the image, lacking the image would harm that discussion to not see it right there, and one could argue NFCC#8 would be met (There's other aspects here from other NFCC points, but that's trivial right now). No, this test is not stated because it doesn't always apply in all cases and may not be the only test, and it is highly subjective, but this example (a picture of the creative output of a creative person in the article about that creative person) is one where this has always been used. Now, that discussion itself is usually easy to provide (as is the case right now with the unsourced statement about the line art style), but that then links to our OR policy; if the text of discussion in question fails OR, then the text itself should be removed, and suddenly you don't have that discussion. Hence why we always come back to "sourced discussion" as the requirement to meet the second half of NFCC#8.

To take it another way, on the second point of NFCC#8, the single unsourced line about his style gives me enough to understand his style for the amount of context the article gives me, that I don't need an image to understand his importance as a comic author. Therefore, with the omission of the image, my understand is not reduced, and therefore NFCC#8 fails. On the other hand, if the style line expanded to include more detail on his style, comparison to others, influences he borrowed from, and so on, I could see that lacking the image would harm my understanding. But to create those statements, we would absolutely need sources as it begs OR; a WPian could not write that without introducing OR. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're going round in circles. We've been through all this already. NFCC #8 doesn't say "detrimental to the understanding of the discussion", or "detrimental to the understanding of the text". It could do, but it deliberately doesn't. What is says is "detrimental to that understanding" -- meaning detrimental to the understanding you would have, if the image was there.

Now, the article could present either

• that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist; or
• that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist, and show the reader what his work looked like.

Which gives the reader a better understanding of the man and his work? #2. Significantly. And that is the test that NFCC #8 lays down.

Again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted, so we can assess the quality of the discussion there. Because the plain reading of NFCC #8 is clear: what matters is what improves reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are just flat out wrong; hundreds of FFD and FAC prove that out. The "that understanding" is reference to the topic without the image, not with. With what is given on the page, without the image, I understand everything that is said, and thus no image is necessary, because there is no text given to understand why I need to appreciate his art style. You're trying to change policy to justify something that has long been practice. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

-- i.e. the understanding of the topic the reader would have with the image

There's simply no other way to read that sentence.

"its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic the reader would have without the image" simply doesn't make sense -- because you can't do something detrimental to understanding by taking the image away if it's already not there.

The meaning of NFCC #8 is therefore quite clear.

So again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted. Because WP:NFC is a core policy, and deviating from it should not be undertaken lightly. Jheald (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Because there is not verified (sourced) commentary about the artwor, there is zero need to see the artwork to understand the significance of the artwork given that there's no significance to this given in the article. The topic as presented is complete without the image. You cannot use the argument "an image is worth a thousand words" to justify NFCC#8. I'm in completely agreement that if we were at Wikia or any other site outside the Foundation's Resolution, we would of course use the image because it falls within fair use (assuming our purpose was educational). But that's not the case here.

And now here's the sad part because I said that sourcing would be everything. When I jump to the Franka article, there's a source, , which has this line "Henk Kuijpers is a realistic comic artist who works in a Clear Line style with a great sense of detail, especially in his backgrounds". Now, I can't judge that source as the best reliable source (I would believe it is given its a European antiquities dealer cataloging things like this), but all that we needed as I said was a source that stated that, and now I can fully support the cover image to demonstrate this. That's all that was needed, as I've been saying. I'm sure there's more sources that can be used, but at least now there is relevance to show the reader, while discussing the artist, an example of his art and now I can argue that omission would be harmful. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just this article, it's the articles on endless other artists too -- where by failing to show any idea of the art which makes them notable, we are systematically failing our readers.

Plus, in my view, half a line of text is a pretty poor fig-leaf.

The fundamental significance of an image like this is not that it relates to half a line of text. It is that it helps you to better understand the topic of the article -- namely the artist, and what they did -- text or no text. And that is the test that NFCC #8 sets out.

NFCC #8 doesn't talk about the topic "as presented" being complete. It asks: does an image add significantly to the reader understanding of the topic? And, would taking the image away be detrimental to that understanding?

The answer is yes, it would be detrimental, because the reader would then have so much poorer an idea of just what it was that the artist produced, and was known for. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because that line of logic would allow for any non-free image to be used if it only helped comprehension. Take the Voyager screenshots above. Clearly every image can be claimed to help understand the episode, but very few are actually discussed short of text. But your logic says they should all be used. Nope, not going to happen. "Critical commentary" has always been a practical but unstated metric of validating NFCC#8, and why it appears in NFCI as when we readily accept uses. It provides a semi-objective starting point for NFCC#8 compliance. The need for critical commentary is also resonated in NFC#UUI of unacceptable uses that we don't just use images because they would be nice illustrations. This is a metric is used at FFD, it is used at FAC, and there's little room for any practice outside of these approaches. I'm not reinterpreting anything - this is just the norm for this. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not arguing for the Voyager images to be kept -- only if they significantly add to reader understanding. That's the test for NFCC #8, to be assessed by the community.

There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that an image is not expected to add anything particularly germane or significant, unless it specifically clarifies critical commentary.

There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that the image generally will add something significant, even if there is no commentary on the image.

And there are the remaining cases, where NFCC #8 has been left to speak for itself -- for the community to decide as and when, on the merits of the case, without WP:CREEP, and without making it harder to improve the wiki.

There is no "practical but unstated metric of requiring critical commentary" -- that's not the way policy works. Especially when that requirement (which was once added to NFCC #8 for a week or two) was specifically removed to allow NFCC #8 to better reflect the flexibility to do the right thing of the U.S. Law.

Instead NFCC #8 is quite plain: does the image add sufficiently significantly to reader understanding, which the community is to decide. For an image added to an article on an artist, to show the kind of work that the artist did, the answer to that is routinely going to be "yes". Jheald (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that an image without any commentary like in Henk Kuijpers adds significantly to a readers understanding of the article. Yes, the article looks more colorful and might be more pleasant to the eye, but this doesn't convey any trustworthy information to the reader. The reader can interpret the image in any way he or she wants in the context of the article, but that is just like any other unsourced statement in Misplaced Pages: it is original research. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing for the slippery slope between showing a representative image of an artist's work without any non-OR discussion about it, and the use of a screenshot of a TV episode without any non-OR discussion about it. From NFC's POV, they fail in exactly the same way. Toshio's hit the nail on the head when it comes to NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept. Because adding to reader understanding is what we're here to do. That is what NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. For example, if the image shows some particular striking creature effect. But a random image from a random episode is going to have a much harder time meeting that criterion than a representative image from an artist's work, which is pretty much always going to meet the criterion.

But that is the call that NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. The material is verifiably by the artist, or from the episode, so this isn't a case of the article being used to advance some novel thesis or proposition. Rather, it is part of the normal editorial judgment of what verifiable material to include in an article, and what not to include. WP:OR relates to the content of the article, and the theses and propositions it develops. WP:OR does not relate to editorial judgements, talk page discussions, discussions about significance and other meta-level discussions that are discussions about the content of the article, and what it should be, rather than being the content of the article. File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg is not advancing some contentious thesis or proposition about the artist, it is merely being what it is, allowing the reader to see for themselves what his work looked like. Jheald (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept." is screaming to be gamed and is the start of a slippery slope, and why we don't let that arguement fly to justify NFCC#8. This is why for most images that fall outside of NFCI we consider the presence of sourced commentary as a starting point. Yes, I don't deny there's probably exceptions to that determined by consensus, but look at any FFD or FAC that involves these types of cases, and you'll see editors looking to only keep images where sourced discussion exists. To flip this around, if we truly have a notable creative person who's notability rests on their creative product, I do find it hard to imagine that zero sources would exist that discuss their creative product critically as to allow non-free image use. However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use - as otherwise it would fail NFCC and we're supposed to remove this within 7 days (unlike where with notability, we can take time to judge that fact). So it is not the issue that we would never accept non-free images of a creative person's work on the article on the creative person, but instead that we need to have that meet NFCC before it can be used. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use" -- No. You're pulling policy out of your armpit again. That is not what NFCC #8 requires -- and e.g. here is a DRV and a deletion discussion which upheld that. What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding. That is the test laid down by NFCC #8. "Sourced discussion" is not the test. I am sorry for you if you find that personally inconvenient, but you can't just dream up your own criteria because you find the actual policy inconvenient. WP:NFCC is not just a charter for deleting images. It is also a commitment to preserve images that advance reader understanding sufficiently to justify the copyright taking. That is what NFCC #8 tells the community to make the basis of its judgement. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding."

I don't know where you got this from. Anyway, that is not what the policy says. All that NFCC#8 says is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The requirement you give here doesn't exist. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And the people who jusge that are the community. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We should start a poll at VPR split into Keep and Remove votes and then, after, say 7 days, close the poll and count the votes. The side with the most votes wins. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS idents

The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.

If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.

Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.

I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.

I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Misplaced Pages:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.

      (ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.

      (iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

      • • • NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times ), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.

            Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.

            The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

            • But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)

The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.

Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.

But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather humorous

Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Misplaced Pages has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.

The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. . Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.

The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.

So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it . Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.

As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.

VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating NFCC#10c in numerous articles. Appears to not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• This has been argued extensively in the past. First, the logo is in fact copyrighted and Prince has registered it as such, whether we choose to think it is past the threshold of originality or not. This is noted in the second paragraph of this section. Two, see this prior discussion. Three, the logo has been stripped from inappropriate locations many, many times. It always gets restored. Four, there are two rationales for the use of the image. Just in Love Symbol Album and Prince (musician) alone there are five uses. I.e., three rationales short. It doesn't really matter. The image will be used anyway, regardless of the arcane NFCC policy. That's what the common practice has been for years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• The two uses in Love Symbol Album follow the above thread, so they'd be okay. Two of the three uses in Prince are appropriate - the "AKA" infobox section and the discussion about the "name" change that is discussed int he article, but the third use, again, to call out to Love Symbol Album is excessive. The other uses fall into the YYYY in music articles, and I can see only two fair uses - in the year where Prince changed his name to that, and the year when Love Symbol Album was released - and even this last one, I'm hesistent to say is necessary, given the 3rd use on the Prince article above. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Osaka University logo.svg

Currently violates WP:NFCC#9 in a few articles, but I suspect that this might be {{PD-ineligible}}. Any opinions? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For this logo to be {{PD-ineligible}}, it needs to be ineligible for copyright protection both in the US and in Japan, am I understanding this correctly? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• For Commons. For English Misplaced Pages, US only. This looks PD-inelligible-US to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am really unsure about this one. I think US copyright office normally refuses copyright protection for logos that can be easily described by a short text. I am unsure how to describe this one. It seems to be essentially a blue half circle with a bit cut out at the top and two quarter circles attached to the bottom ends of the first circle so that they meet in a single point at the bottom. It possibly could be described more accurately, but since such a description is possible in only relatively few words, it appears to be simple and thus ineligible for copyright protection. Just a guess on my part though, I am not a copyright lawyer. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• IANAL either, but it's monochrome and consists of what is essentially a Y forced into a circle. You could double check at WP:MCQ, but I'd feel safe with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, tagging with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} seems like a reasonable solution. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is that consensus? It was tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} a few days ago, but that was recently reverted with the comment "more informed evaluation required". Cckerberos (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion it should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} again, as the logo seems to be ineligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is one of those cases where US copyright office might rule in either direction. So maybe we should just treat it as non-free to be on the safe side, as there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that the logo is ineligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this looks like a pretty obvious ineligible logo to me. This can't even begin to compare to File:Best Western logo.svg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This one and Best Western logo are quite different. Best Western logo is essentially typefaces except that red figure, which I suspect is too insignificant in order to affect the copyrightability of the whole logo. Osaka University logo is not typefaces and thus might be eligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I find the level of originality to be at most that of the crown. But not only this: at commons:COM:TOO#United States, you also have File:Nikken Logo.jpg, File:Jeff Ho logo.png, and others. As the Osaka logo is merely the combination of four thick curves, I don't think it is above the threshold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think a clear consensus has formed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Four simple linked arcs appear to be exactly what {{PD-shape}} defines. Certainly it does not pass the threshold of originality per US. ww2censor (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Women's World Squash 2008.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2008 Men's World Open Squash Championship. Might not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Geelong2008Logo.svg

Rationale for Geelong Football Club lacks components necessary per Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline and is insufficient in its current form. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "The image is only a small portion of the commercial product." Really? Looks like the whole logo which is present in the top left corner at http://www.geelongcats.com.au/. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I can get a perfect rendition of the image with a width of ${\displaystyle 2^{20}}$ pixels. This seems to be against WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events.

Not sure if it additionally violates WP:NFCC#1 because of the somewhat complex art on the helmet. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The logo might be sufficiently complex for copyright protection. Not sure whether the use of the logo in this image would be considered de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nippon Oil

The excerpt in the section History according to the information in that section was copied from a press release (seems to be http://www.noe.jx-group.co.jp/english/press/noc/2009/e71_enpr_091225_02.html). Lacks proper attribution to the original source as required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria#Policy and is not indicated as direct quotation. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, since I don't know much about dealing with textual copyright violations, I asked MRG for feedback regarding this matter. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png

The usage of the file in the Brașov article violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c . — Thehoboclown (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Gnnsjb001.jpg

The image is claimed to be the uploader's own work ("own photo taken at site"), but under magnification you see what looks just like a colour print raster, strongly suggesting this image was scanned from a publication in print. The presumption must be, therefore, that this is non-free content.  --Lambiam 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It says in the summary "Hari Singh own photo taken at site for Sikhiwiki.org scanned" I'd be prepared to accept that as face value, absent of evidence of previous publication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• This really belongs at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files. However, I concur that it appears to be scanned. That doesn't mean it's not the uploader's work. However, I did find this, indicating the image belongs (and is copyrighted to) a person with the pseudonym "jeevan21" which is not the same as the uploader here. However, that upload postdates the upload here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of websites

I noticed recently that {{Infobox website}} displays an initially collapsed screenshot of the website. As most websites are copyrighted, we are both saying (under NFCC #8) that the image is so critical to the reader's understanding that we need to have a fair use screenshot, but the screenshot is so unimportant that we can show it as initially collapsed. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_website#Collapsed_screenshots and opine if desired. Thank you. --B (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

excerpt from famous music review

Hi, I am fairly new to the NFCC policy, but when I uploaded this image, it seemed like it may have been consistent with NFCC #8 ("non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.")

this particular image is taken from a famous review of Illmatic in 1994. Here, for the first time, a debut artist was awarded the coveted '5 mic' rating. This review has historic value for hip hop music, given the prestige of The Source at that time. As you can see, this particular publication is very important to the topic - important enough to receive its own section in the article. Lacking visual commentary, however, I fear that readers could potentially be confused as to what the '5 mic' rating actually is.

Why? The 5-mic rating system is entirely unique to The Source. It is fair to assume that many readers won't be familiar with it, especially those who unfamiliar with hip hop journalism. And while the 5 mic rating is parallel to the the traditional five-star rating scale used by other music publications, it shouldn't simply be conflated. It just seems to me that a reader (absent some visual representation) might potentially confuse something like a '5 mic' rating with a '5 star' one - if it's only expressed using text. A visual symbol, on the other hand, could help make the distinction a lot clearer -- especially for an article like Illmatic, which contains so many other reviews and ratings.

So in terms of relevance to NFCC #8, I feel having a visual representation of the '5 mic rating' would help to avoid any confusion -- by visually delineating the difference between "5 mics" and the traditional "five-star" symbol used by other music publications. Without this, I feel the reader's understanding might be obscured.

What are your thoughts? Chubdub (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this logic applies, at least for its use on a song/album article. Just doing a quick check of sources shows that the Five-Mic rating itself is a noted feature of the magazine, so highlighting that is fine, no problem, and in fact can be stated as a "coveted" review. However, once you say that in text, then the visual aspects of how a 5-mic rating are shown isn't necessary on an individual song/album article, as by stating the prestige of getting five mics, you've distinguished it from other, less impressive 5-star rating systems so the conflation you anticipate is not there.

That said, you may (I'm not 100% convinced but you could justify it better) be able to use that image on the article about The Source. You just need to boost that section in that article to explain how the five-mic rating was coveted, etc. from other reliable sources than The Source itself. (Again, my quick check of sources show that that is certainly something that can be done). It's still a weak rational because the image of five iconographs of mics in a row isn't too hard to envision, but its a far better shot there than on any individiaul song/album page. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please note, that every album on Misplaced Pages already features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Judging from these other pages, I would say that readers generally expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough or even acceptable, but for most readers, it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. It gives ratings a certain profile within the topic, and it helps raise awareness about important jouranlistic distinctions in terms of how albums are evaluated. .

I think there's genuine enyclopedic value in including this image, for the sake of enhancing a reader's understanding of this topic -- and avoiding potential confusion. In the case of Illmatic, the absence of visual symbols makes it extremely vague to distinguish between 5 mics and 5 stars - especially because under the 'Professional Ratings' box, The Source is listed alongside Allmusic and The Rolling Stones as conferring 'stars' That alone invites the possibility of confusion. It would be helpful for readers to know that while the two rating systems are parallel, they are not the same. The star system is quite universal, but mic ratings are a lot more obscure, and I only want to help "increase reader's understanding" by offering some sort of visual commentary that will familiarize them with it.

You make a really good point though: Having to explain a rating system for a reader is far more relevant for a wiki page dealing with the publication itself - rather than a particular album. Fair enough! But we should also remember that ratings have the potential to be relevant not just to the publications themselves, but also the albums that receive them -- especially when the legacy of that album has been shaped by the acclaim it received.

In this specific context, we are not just referring to a generic system of rating (which, in the grand scheme of things, is only a mundane concern), but we are citing a specific historical and symbolic moment that shaped how this album has been perceived. That's why I specifically chose to excerpt the review itself (or at least a segment of it) - rather than just include a generic logo of 5 mics. The review itself -- which of course, prominently features the 5 mic logo -- is fundamentally intertwined with the legacy of this album, in terms of its history, scholarship, and memorabilia. Most documentaries that allude to Illmatic will also mention this review; one major book even includes it in its appendix; and the review itself has even been featured in a recent deluxe edition of Illmatic, as part of a collector's set.

To sum up my logic then: Understanding the rating is secondary to understanding how this rating impacted the album's legacy - but in order to understand the album's legacy, you have to understand the rating, and if you don't, you will only have a partial grasp of Illmatics significance.

Again, I'm not that well-versed in NFCC. I must admit, much of this is new to me. But logic wise, it seems that the concerns I've raised fall under "significantly increase a reader's understanding" and "ommission... detrimental to the understanding" Furthering the understanding of Illmatic (which is the stated goal of NFCC #8), requires an explanation of its critical reception (by taking steps to clarify the differences between each of the publications, and assigning greater weight to to ones that are 'coveted', 'prestigious', or quite simply 'unique'). Including visual commentary is the best way to enhance a reader's understanding, and it also helps to avoid potential ambiguities by making it significantly easier for a reader to distinguish the '5 mic rating' from other publications. Omitting a visual commentary, on the other hand, makes it harder to do so, and might potentially detract from a proper understanding of the album's historical and symbolic significance. Chubdub (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're entering an area where you are putting a lot of undue weight on one single review over the others. This is not to call out the Source's rating (being the first 5-mic to a hip-hop) as being unimportant - it seems, on my reading, to deserve that section that is there. Just that the importance of the 5-mic compared to other 5-star ratings as to require a picture to show that. I understand that in that field that a 5-mic Source review is considered far more prestigious than, say, 5 stars from Rolling Stone or a similar publication, and the fact its one of the few such works to get one should be called out. But at the same time, it is just another review that uses a 5-star-like system. It is just that the Source appears to be a bit more critical compared to other works. This concept happens all the times in other areas - for example video games , the area I work mostly, there's a few publications that are known to be tough reviewers and getting a perfect score on whatever scale it is is something to call out in prose, but in terms of a score relative to others, its just listed there (though these sources still use numbers or a plain 5-star system).

There's also another problem with the image, in that we also have something here that is easily described by text: that is, the 5-mic you have shows, pretty much what one can envision when you say something received a 5-mic rating: a picture of a microphone, repeated 5 times over. While there could be argument on NFCC#8 being met (as you are trying above), this aspect fails NFCC#1 since simply saying "the source gave Illmatic a 5-mic rating" describes exactly what that picture shows. And even moreso along that line, that picture doesn't help the reader, who may be unfamiliar with the Source and their 5-mic scale, to understand the importance of the Source's rating system over anyone else's. There may be other graphics that show this, but this is really something that can only be understood by text - and that means prose is the way to go. So I really don't think you can use this image on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I don't want to belabor the points I've made already. I just feel there's some genuine encylopedic value to including this image. I think you're right to point out that the caption is basically redundant - might we simply change it into some more in-line with NFCC 1? Chubdub (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:BBC News titles.png

This has a fair use rationale for one article but is used in three articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The image is of the generic titles to BBC News summary's, weekend news, and the BBC News channel. BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, and BBC News at Ten use a version with the number in the titles. Hope this help. --] 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original comment, rationales could have been added quite quickly for each of the articles. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter

This concerns the following three images:

• File:Ultima2 CompVsRGB.png
• File:KQ CompVsRGB.png
• File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png

All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like. Diego (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1930 Rover Light Six Sportsman Saloon by Weymann (Photo).jpg

We have File:1929RoverLightSixTM6124.jpg on commons which is virtually the same vehicle in colour even. Do we need a fair use b/w just because it shows a road and people for five articles? It is used in a gallery in two articles which is also a no-no, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was, say, the photo of the car after winning that race (the first rationale listed), there might be reason, but all the uses seem to be "I want to illustrate this model of car, but this is the best I can find due to age). The free photo is sufficient replacement and this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:WWE Undisputed Championship Belt.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in WWE Championship. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg

In the article Scrabble. The NFUR states "The image is used for identification and clarification in the context of critical commentary of the work from which the screenshot is taken. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Commentary in the article about the screenshot itself: Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original work, a single frame, being of comparatively low commercial value." The section of Scrabble (Scrabble#Television game show versions) where the image appears does not have such critical commentary; the image appears to merely show the logo decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the show had its own article (assuming notability) it might be reasonable there. But the show doesn't appear to be notable, and just to show its title card on a larger subject is inappropriate. Agree it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The show does have its own article at Scrabble Showdown for which the use of the image of the nonfree titlecard falls within WP:NFCC, which is why I went here and not to WP:FFD. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Then its use on the main Scrabble game is completely out of NFCC allowance. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Misplaced Pages first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Misplaced Pages with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Misplaced Pages. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide", that Microsoft released with the Beta "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Rangers.svg

If non-free, this violates WP:NFCC#9, but maybe it is below the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free (copyrightable) due to the shield shape. Even so, since it is tagged non-free, it is unallowable except in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is not below the threshold of originality. An example that Stefan once showed me on Commons was a crown shape on a logo which copyright review office had rejected as being too simple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to commons. If it is below threshold it should be moved to commons and discussed there. I don't see why we should host images here that are PD with a fair use rationale. If it passes there then delete here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we are absolutely assured outselves it is below the threshold, we start with the assumption of non-free. If we do say it is below the threshold, then yes, we can push it to commons, but we have to figure that out first. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons has more experts than us on TOO. I will upload it there, tag it for deletion review, and if it passes we can delete it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New_York_Rangers.svg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This one can be closed. It passed deletion review at commons not as below TOO but published before 1977 without proper notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see and for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we should seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with WP:NFCC#1 (we have free images that show who is is) and WP:NFCC#3a (already numerous non-frees on that page, though arguably on her more famous and critically acclaimed awards). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is zero discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Misplaced Pages. Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does not require illustration without commentary. That's the failure of NFCC#8 here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks nude which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources. Diego (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's zero discussion critically about how she looked nude. NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it. Diego (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No, that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Every time someone says "but this can be explained with text", Jimbo kills a kitten. So please don't. Diego (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Bullshit. This is exactly a case where, as there's zero discussion (sourced or otherwise) about how she looks without clothes on, the existence of nude photos (which is documented) can be explained in text. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Too bad then that WP:NFCI#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. Diego (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced commentary, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is PD, that's fine. As I've made clear, it's not the fact its a nude, just that its a piece of non-free (presently) that is not needed. As PD, there's no question that it could be included. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg. I uploaded it to commons and put it up for deletion review if anyone wants to join over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It can't be on commons. It can be used 1 time in 1 article per WP:NFCI 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance. Theworm777 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Changed vote to delete cause I now feel this gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fact she posed in the nude and I am not sure it is needed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.Diego (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will should be deleted then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• DeleteNon free fair use images should only be used when an image is absolutely essential to the article, this image is not.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of NFCC#8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Totally amazed. We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Misplaced Pages not being a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I give up. Now the prudes have changed it to the fair use cover of the 1953 Playboy where she is dressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that up. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame. The 7 Year Itch, Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The River of No Return helped as well of course. She was very talented and the Playboy, calender picture opened the door...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM," which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period. This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Illmatic and the Source excerpt image

I'm not sure if this is where I need to have images approved by an admin, but it seems like there are still issues to resolve. So I'm putting this image up for review for a second time. As I mentioned in the earlier review], the intention of the image is to serve an enyclopedic purpose, by offering visual commentary that enhances the reader's understanding - the absence of which would otherwise be detrimental to article.

NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image here satisfies the the first prong, because it "significantly increases the readers' understanding" by illustrating a rating that is entirely unique to The Source magazine. The 5 mic scale is not at all common in the world of music journalism (it departs from the more universal, 5-star system). And so, including its image would help aid readers who are unfamiliar with the The Source. Keep in mind however, that the goal of the image is not to inform the reader of this scale per se, but to illustrate the coveted rating given to a specific album. It is not meant to illustrate a generic logo, but is intended to represent a journalistic event -- hence, its inclusion in the Illmatic page, and not The Source article. That being the case, I've made the image appear less generic, by adding more specifity to the image's original source (as a column review excerpt) and by including a caption that suggests its enyclopedic purpose (which is to help the reader identify what a "5 mic" rating is and what it looks like.)

As for the second prong, I think this image helps to prevent confusion for the reader, who may otherwise conflate the source rating with that of another. Visual commentary allows the reader differentiate the 5-mic rating from other magazines. Without this image, however, it becomes a lot harder to distinguish the differences. My intention here isn't to elevate the "5 mics" above other ratings, but to simply highlight its significance. As it is, there's a sizable amount of text devoted to explaining this journalistic event, within its own separate section. Because it is a very crucial component of Illmatic's legacy, there needs to be some visual aid to help readers become familiar with it (in the context of the album, and not generically vis-a-vis the magazine); and to help them distinguish it from other publications who adopt a more, recognizable symbol. Otherwise, we risk having readers confused.

Also, I believe this image offers commentary that cannot be illustrated by text. As warranted by NFCC #1, you could argue that it should be easy for the reader to envsion the 5 mics without an image But I would say that most readers expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. That's why every album on Misplaced Pages features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough, but it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. In any case, it should not be the burden of the reader to have to locate what these ratings are; when possible, the article ought to include the symbols for their consideration. Chubdub (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to stretch the allowance of non-free here. Should we include all 4-mic and 3-mic and 2-mic images on articles rated by Source as such? It's a proliforation of non-free that's simply not allowed, and the confusion you believe is there simply doesn't. Text is perfectly fine to say "The Source awarded the album a coveted 5-mic review, stating 'blah blah blah'". On the article about The Source itself, one example of a 5-mic rating may be appropriate, but definitely out of the question on any album pages. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'm not suggesting that the image be used for all albums rated by the Source. The primary goal of this image is not to describe a rating, but to illustrate an event and legacy that's being described in the article. Being the first rap album to receive 5-mics was considered a cultural achievement within the hip hop community, and it was one that generated considerable controversy at the time. I think once something's been made out to be that important, it helps to clarify what's actually being discussed, especially for those who aren't familiar with it. It's a form of visual commentary whose inclusion would help a lot of readers, and who's omission might lead to some confusion. Isn't that valid enogh for fair use? Chubdub (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to emphasize a generic system of rating here...the only goal of the image is to serve as a commentary of an event/legacy being described in the text. Chubdub (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing an image of five mics does not help that. Describing the controversy of the Source rating is fine, but it does not need to be illustrated to understand the rating system. We can assume readers are smart enough to figure out it is similar to a star rating, and if they need to learn more, to go to the Source article to learn about that, but they don't need the visual indicators to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. Is there an approval proccess for non-free images, so we can open this up for others to consider too? Chubdub (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I still feel there's a legitimate need to describe what the 5-mic rating is and what form it took when it was awarded to the album in question. But I don't know if its gonna help to go back and forth. That's why I'd like to open it up for more input, and see if we can get some official approval Chubdub (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, , or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Misplaced Pages's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png

This image was tagged as F7 and then disputed, so I feel it's more appropriate to discuss this in an open forum. If use is to be allowed, two things must be established:

1. Irreplaceable. A good-faith search should be done on Flickr and other places to see if other versions exist, and whether they are freely licensed (or their owners are willing to freely license them). It's actually possible it is indeed irreplaceable, given that the explosion happened in a few seconds and you'd probably have to be continuously filming the area to get a shot of it. But we need to check whether free images can be found first.
2. Contextual significance. Is an image of the blast important enough that a later image of rescue efforts will not be suitable for the same purpose?

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the question is what purpose the image of the instant of detonation serves? I'm reluctant to support its inclusion, because there are so many high-quality images of the aftermath that I'm struggling to find a special use for the image. -- Veggies (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the image was removed and the article has been fine without it for about a day now, I say get rid of it per NFCC#8. Ryan Vesey 00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the broader point, if the image met NFCC#8, the fact that the event occurred in a second or so means that it is unlikely to expect a free image to be made - though yes, as a highly visible event, we should see if there is one, but this would not block NFC use. But I agree NFCC#8 so far isn't met, and thus that test fails. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously to me it is a unique and historic image, the only one that shows the exact moment of the explosion with the marathoners still running, there's no proper replacement to that. It is not one of the "Aftermath" images as said above, there are a lot of them, it is the bombings itself. MachoCarioca (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Certainly, we have plenty of free "Aftermath" images, but I this one is unique in that is actually shows the blast in progress. Consider the probability of a free image existing depicting this exact moment in time (as the explosion only lasted for a couple of seconds). Canuck 03:58, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Agree, also, too. It's very unlikely for anyone to have a shot of that unless it's a still from a video, and all I've seen so far indicates that that video is the only one of the finish line that's remotely good. There's a video from a runner at this Telegraph article (first video, second 17) which might work—but again, seems the Telegraph got rights, or something, or at least they've got their graphic on it. Then there are seventeen gabillion copies of this image floating around, but I don't know how you'd track down the original. I think we're better off sticking to the one we've got. It's low-res, it's iconic. Ignatzmice•talk 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The above image states: "...the finish line of the race in this photo exclusively licensed to Reuters by photographer Dan Lampariello after he took the photo..." I doubt Dan Lampariello would be able to have us upload a 'free licence' image because he gave Reuters 'exclusive' rights which probably includes his own rights as well. If we could track a photographer that hasn't signed rights away then we may be able to find a free licence one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found his contact info: http://bostontoat.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html . Does someone want to email him and see if the rights are actually exclusive? Reuters may not be accurate on that fact.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I uploaded this picture is that it shows the race time very clearly, and initially it depicted the actual finish line on the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in ptwiki (as enwiki, with a local image policy, more restricted compared to the "fair use") we have a similar discussion about the identical image = pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Ficheiro:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png (uploaded by MachoCarioca (talk · contribs · count), who - being advised by me - now also defends the image here - see above). I really don't care what enwiki will decide about this image (and personally I would say: the realtime moment of the explosion(s), the fire flash, or whatever, is irrelevant. For educational use, the impact of these bombs are more relevant, showing desparated (injured) people miliseconds after the detonation(s)). commons:Category:Boston Marathon explosions increased now to over 110 itens, presenting the entire spectrum of this attack --> including a video of Voice of America (VOA, russian version), showing in a similar way the 1st explosion in realtime (which could be cropped, at around 11-13s). I confess, that I am still not convinced about the "free" licensing at Commons because: the whole video might be produced by VOA, but it seems that they have included material from external sources which might be copyrightable by others... --Gunnex (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

VOA will include copyrighted materials in their works; they have this on their copyright page (anything else that is otherwise directly produced by VOA will be public domian). It is highly doubtful that VOA had their cameras there at that point to take the footage and we should assume it borrowed from CNN or the like. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:GG Allin sshot.jpg

Image is a still from a film, and is not being used for "critical commentary" on the film, but for a headshot on the artist's article. If this use is inappropriate, it will fail NFC7. czar · · 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be probably be deleted. There's already a non-free image in the article (further down). While Allin has been dead for 20 years, and thus there is very little likelyhood of a free image appearing, there's no compelling reason for the use of two non-free images, and thus one of the images should go. No real preference for which, but one non-free image is enough to illustrate any biographical article. --Jayron32 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all five articles where it is currently being used. Possibly below WP:TOO (essentially a textlogo next to a red square with a white figure trying to hit a tennis ball). Don't know how much of a difference that reflection effect on the square makes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure of the woman puts this well above the TOO. (Same with the logo on Women's Squash Association). Bu agreed that on the individual tourney pages, the logo is not appropriate. There's no overall article on the general tourney, but all those details are in the above Women's Squash Association, where a logo that is close enough (same graphic and block letters, just different subtitle) is used. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Watson's avatar.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Watson (computer) and 2011 in science. The first violation was created through this page move. I don't know whether that use might be appropriate under one of the points at WP:NFCI. The second use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Watson (computer) is fine with regards to 10c; the rationale is referring to that article back when it had a different name. But I agree it should be removed from 2011 in science. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the rationale for Watson (computer) is valid, the current rationale links to Watson (artificial intelligence software) which redirects to ] making the rationale completely valid still. as for 2011 it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No, 10c is not met. While a wikilink to the article is not required, 10c explicitly requires the name of the article. The image is not being used on Watson (artificial intelligence software) and a rationale for Watson (computer) is lacking. Yes, I could simply correct the name and wikilink in the rationale, but as long as WP:NFCC still means something it is the duty of those wanting to use this image on that page. The current rationale for Watson (computer) is invalid. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I dont have a link handy but a redirect still meets the requirement for 10c, if you want to debate that, raise the discussion at WT:NFC. You will find very little support for your position. A redirect name is equivalent to the article name. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Redirects as article names in non-free use rationales. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in 2011 in science. That article shouldn't have any non-free images at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Adaptations of Les Misérables

A user keeps adding lots of non-free images which so blatantly violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6. They all need to be deleted from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, thanks for starting this discussion about the images in Adaptations of Les Misérables.

Les Misérables has been adapted so many times, by so many different people.

So it's great to have these images there, because they serve the purpose of illustrating the point that there have been so many different adaptations by so many different people with different ideas and across various media.

All the images are low resolution and each of them has a rationale addressing the inclusion in this article.

I sincerely hope we can find consensus to keep them there, as I feel the article would not look as good as it does now without them, and also readers wouldn't get the instant level of understanding of the main point the article makes.

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The ones that are non-free have their own articles, and thus users can see the images there. We don't allow non-free content in lists (which this is) because like this it tends to be decorative. Here, your argument that the images help the reader to see how many times the work has been adapted is unnecessary as you have dozens and dozens of text entries showing the same thing. Unless the non-free images are discussed in the article and not just the fact that the remake is on the list, they can't be used. Free images are fine and it looks like you have a few there. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and explanation. I know what you mean, there are lots and lots of text entries. But images make articles more much more powerful and also there's the good old "an image says more than a thousand words".

As regards leaving only the free images, the problem is that there is only one afaik.

Do you think if we discuss the images in the article we could justify keeping them?

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Burn it with fire; none of them provide adequate contextual significance for use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between discussing a copyright issue, and having a "burn it with fire" attitude. List of book-burning incidents , Death by burning Azylber (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is also a difference between reading the policies and guidelines and using non-free images willy-nilly, which appears to be what happened here. "Delete/remove the non-free images with extreme prejudice" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why? Masem and Hullaballoo have made this perfectly clear; no contextual significance which requires non-free images. One mentions Jaws in a list, one need not see the poster to have an idea of what it is about, or that it exists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious NFCC violations -- gallery of nonfree images illustrating list entries Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• The images should be removed and stay removed. They are decor. They are not discussed, nor should they be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, consensus seems to be very clear here, so I agree that we should delete the images. I reckon we should give it a couple more days in case someone else has anything else to say, and then delete them.

If anyone thinks we can justify keeping the images by discussing them in the article, please let me know, and I'm happy to write the necessary text. Azylber (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The posters from the 1934 and 1935 films should be more thoroughly investigated before deleting them, since it's highly probable that they're out of copyright and in the public domain now, just like the 1943 comic cover is. Diego (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The easiest way would be to find a high resolution scan and check for a copyright notice. I've used Doctor Macro for that before. Not sure if this film is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If some of the posters from that age are from the United States, then yes, they should be checked for copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The ones I checked had notices (1935). No word on renewal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I have to agree with Stefan's concerns. It was a concern I myself had back around the time the article was created, though I forgot to follow up on it. I think we could justify inclusion of some of these pictures if we turned the article from a list (as it now, essentially, is) into a full-fledged article that summarises the history of Les Mis adaptations, including summary-style synopses of the adaptations' respective articles. I agree with Azylber that images are good for an article, make it more powerful, etc., but in this case we have policies that are strict with regard to our utilisation of fair-use images, and that unfortunately trumps consideration of the impact of the article. We will have a featured article on the main page within the next few weeks that will not be able to have an image of its subject run alongside it, because the only photo available is non-free. As in that case, I wish there were a better way of doing things, but the policy is what it is. Evanh2008  10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 in 2008–09 Indonesia Super League or 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. Also, the image violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The image satisfies 10c now, as it is now only being used in Indonesia Super League and 2008–09 Indonesia Super League. Both of those uses are for identification purposes. The use in Indonesia Super League seems to be acceptable. Unless we have a point at WP:NFCI explicitly stating logo uses in articles about specific sports events are acceptable, the image should be removed from 2008–09 Indonesia Super League for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:OasisTowerRender.jpg

This image is used in five articles, but it only has one fair use rationale, and the fair use rationale doesn't say to which article the fair use rationale applies, so the image currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of those articles. Additionally, the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in most of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does - it points to Oasis Tower, so there's clearly a rationale for it there (its not a template, but the paragraph there does try to hit on the salient points of NFC) (this is not to comment on how valid that rationale is). But separate rationals would be need for each of the other four uses. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It says that it is an "Image of Oasis Tower in Mumbai", not that it is a fair use rationale for the article Oasis Tower or for the article Mumbai. WP:NFCC#10c doesn't only require you to include the title to which the FUR refers; you should also tell that the FUR describes the use of the image in that article. The FUR includes many article titles (Oasis Tower and Mumbai with links, building, information etc. without links), and it isn't clear which article the FUR is meant to refer to. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't require rationale to be that exact - common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower. Yes, it can be more clear, but if, for example, that was the only use of that image on that page, a #10c complaint would be petty. Now, yes, with 4 other images unaccounted for, those need to be very clear for their rationales, and likely the one for Oasis made more explicit. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually this rationale is insufficient in its current form. I disagree that "common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower", as that is not clear from the rationale at all. WP:NFCC#10c explicitly requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". This rationale is not specific and the use of this file does not satisfy 10c as it is currently written. If people think such a rationale is sufficient, then 10c should be adjusted to reflect that, but until that happens the file should either be removed or the rationale improved to meet the requirements of the current version of 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale could be written better, but this is a case where it would be silly to be hard-nosed about #10c enforcement in the use on Oasis Tower since it is the article about the building in the image - an allowable case. All other 4 cases beg the question "why" and thus the rationale needs to be added or the image removed. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should just be left as is. While the rationale could indeed be better, it seems to be kind of silly to try to get it improved, as in this case it is implicitly clear why the image is in the article about that building. The other uses have been removed, so this should just be closed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am just ignoring the fact that this image might violate NFCC#1, since I guess it would be possible to get a free image of the building under construction. I mean, I am not aware of a guideline which says articles about buildings need to include an image of the building in its finished state before the building is even finished. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

India has building FOP, so when it is completed, a free image can be made. That said, it's 3 years away from completion, and even a photograph of the building under construction at this time won't be much. This is a case where a free image can't be had at the present but can in a sufficiently long time in the future that, assuming all other conditions are met, NFC could be used as long as it is subsequently replaced with a free image when that becomes possible. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how much you can see of the building at this time. If three years remain, maybe it is still too incomplete. Once the building is almost complete, a photo of the incomplete building might be sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that once the building is in a state where it is indistinguishably close to the planned rendering, then we need a free image. Three years is likely still a good ways off for it , but maybe in a year or two that will be different. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)