Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

No clear consensus that it's PD, so tagged as non-free to be on the safe side. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2012 (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 new to Wikipedia images so please excuse me if my terminology below is incorrect. Also, if this section should go somewhere else, please tell me.

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag and its use rationale is not at all clear to me. I'm not advocating its deletion but couldn't someone repair this file page, possibly starting with {{Symbol rationale}} or something else. Or would it be better if it was claimed as a minor, no-original-content modification of the Betsy Ross flag and therefore PD? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be PD. The only difference is inserting "II" in the middle of the blue area, which involves no creative thought. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Toshio on this. Standards of creativity aren't particularly high. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't really matter what our definition of creativity is; the U.S. copyright office has rejected images with far more creativity than this, such as File:Best Western logo.svg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless we get an official statement from U.S. copyright office, I suggest to add a better rationale to comply with NFCC#10c and close this discussion. The use is likely appropriate given that there is sourced commentary discussing that flag. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, File:Flag of the United States.svg is PD, so if File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg qualifies as a derivative thereof then it is likely also PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems to be a derivative of the Betsy Ross flag which seems to be PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Rainn Wilson.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Kept. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2012 (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 non-free image is too dubious to use because there is a free image in the Casting section: File:RainnwilsonOct07.jpg. I can't find any hint of characterization from this picture other than his usual suit. Moreover, claims of irreplaceability are too flimsy to consider reliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is often allowance - particularly if they are press/media kit images - to use the non-free pictures of characters even if a free image of the actor exists and is substantially similar to the character. The rationale follows from cover art when these come from press kits : this is how the producers/broadcasters want you to envision the characters, so it has implicit branding/marketing associated with it. That becomes less a problem when we're using character images taken from screenshots as now we're putting our own spin on the character. Importantly there is no consistent application here, only that we seem to have less a problem with press kit photos being used in lieu of free photos. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this image specifically. Generally, yes, a non-free photo and a free photo are different from each other, like Batman and Robin. This image.... only substantial things are the suit and the production set. I don't see any much difference between two photos of the same actor, as far as I'm concerned. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am describing the general trends as to qualify why I think this is okay and avoid similar questions. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep The image of the Dwight character is used in the Dwight Schrute article; the image of Rainn out of character is not to a real replacement.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:CBI logo.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed from all articles as a violation of WP:NFC#UUI 14 and deleted. Main article retains File:CBI Logo.png. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2012 (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.

Use in 2008 College Basketball Invitational, 2009 College Basketball Invitational, 2010 College Basketball Invitational and 2011 College Basketball Invitational violates WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Bane Tom Hardy5.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Image size reduced and removed from one extraneous article. A FUR was provided for Bane in other media and problems with its inclusion there was not otherwise directly addressed. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2012 (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 am nominating this image for review because I believe that it fails the low resolution criteria. An editor believes that it meets the guideline, while my position is that it is double the recommended resolution size. When I try and put in a lower resolution I am reverted. I do not find the image itself in necessity of a higher resolution, because it is only being used to illustrate the basic design of the character Bane from the film The Dark Knight Rises. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for the image to be that large. Understanding how the character looks is sufficently done at half the resolution (eg quarter size). --MASEM (t) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! This image is used in Bane in other media without rationale. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason for it to be any larger than the resolution used in the article The Dark Knight Rises. If there needs to be focus on the mask, the image can be cropped, and remain at 300px. Also, it needs to be removed from Bane in other media and Tom Hardy, not just for lacking a rationale for either use but because a valid rationale can not be written. The image has no business being on either article under our policies and guidelines on fair use. Also; Bignole; you should have brought the issue here before the recent reverts. Lock Cole should have done so as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Had I known this place existed I would have. Masem directed me here after I posted a question on WP:FUC. I don't believe that Lock Cole feels that there was any problem, as seen by his responses to me on his talk page when I first initiated a discussion about the image after he started reverting it back. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to reduce the resolution further. It's far below the resolution listed in the policy, and it is definitely too small to be useful as an infringement for the copyrighted work. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of it being far below anything. That's the inverse of how we should be viewing it. It's how small can we get it to be and still maintain its encyclopedic value. Since it's not used any larger than as the default thumb size in the one article where it belongs, there's no need for the image itself to be any larger. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that argument doesn't make much sense. The image is used at thumb size because it can be expanded and seen at full detail. Given that the point it illustrates is the "three-dimensional model of actor Tom Hardy's face and skull to design the mask", an overall resolution of 300px wide would be too low to display the mask details. But since it's also used to describe the overall appearance of the character, you can't just crop the mask and leave out the rest. There are several ways to display the mask at high resolution and the body at low-res, but those seem over-complicated with respect to just leaving the image as is. I agree about removing the non-free image from the other articles. Diego (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The point that is being made is that if you look at the lower resolution that was there, the image is still just as visible and still conveys the same illustration for the text that it is being used with. There is no point to expand it beyond the necessary range. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Diego sums up my feelings on this specific image, but I'd also like to add that I don't see the need for the image to be the same size as the thumbnail. The thumbnail generation is a feature of the MediaWiki software; that it allows you to click through to see the detail not available in the thumbnail view seems to be important enough and encyclopedic enough to me. Not unlike pulling the physical page of an encyclopedia closer (or using a magnifying glass) to discern details not visible by holding it at typical reading distance. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need a larger resolution image to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need a smaller resolution image when this image complies with both policy and guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The only appearance detail that is discussed among the articles on the live-action rendition of the characters is the mask being digitally mapped to the actor's face. This would justify a close up of the actor-in-character head shot to show the mask in detail, but nothing about the entire body. A low-res of the body would be acceptable as a means of how the character is represented in this iteration of this movie (the size that Bignole has posted), but there is no support for any high res anywhere else based on the text. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why, I uploaded the new image that closes in on Bane's face. It was constantly being reverted and that makes no sense. So I reverted it back. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Under the "Cast" section is this quote, which goes to lengths to describe the character physically (but which, IMO, does not convey the menacing nature of the character as well as the image does):

“

The character was chosen by Christopher Nolan because of his desire to see Batman tested on both a physical and mental level. Bane has been described as "a terrorist in both thought and action" and is "florid in his speech, [with] the physicality of a gorilla". Hardy stated that he intended to portray the character as "more menacing" than Robert Swenson's version of the character in Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin and that in order to do so, his portrayal entailed creating a contradiction between the voice and the body. Hardy gained 30 pounds (14 kg) for the role, increasing his weight to 198 pounds (90 kg). Hardy based the character's voice on several influences, which include his intellect, Caribbean heritage, and Bartley Gorman.

”

And I doubt those are the only examples of discussing the actor and characters complete physical appearance in the article.. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And even then, those details are obvious at the smaller resolution, but to me (at least when compared to The Dark Knight) the facial aspect is more interesting since it somewhat mirrors what they had to do with Two-face; a person gaining weight to get to 198 lbs isn't hard to visualize however. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It was already small enough. This was the original issue. It's well below what the policy and guideline calls for (below even what the text says would require an expanded fair use rationale). I'm not sure why there's a "race to the smallest size possible" (really, a race to the bottom) on non-free images, especially images that already meet the requirements. This is especially troubling given that display resolutions continue to increase, and even portable devices (smartphones, tablets) have super-high resolutions where extremely low res images like this will likely cause problems for readers as we move forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This. The fair use low-resolution requirement has to be balanced with the need to provide a quality encyclopedia. As long as the image use is unlikely to impact the copyright owners' ability to profit from the work, we should strive to get the highest possible resolution that doesn't allow for professional reproduction. There's no need to have blockiness for the sake of it; the current image has enough pixel grain and compression artifacts at the current resolution, that it is enough to qualify for the low-res requirement as is. Diego (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these statements show clarity with our non-free content policy. US Fair Use law is what deals with corporate copyrights; our non-free content policy is about trying to make this a free content work and minimizing the amount of non-free material needed to support it. Everyone else here has shown how the smaller reduced image does the equivalent job within the bounds of the article to show the non-free content, thus meaning we need to use that smaller version. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given various examples of why the larger image is necessary, from the technical (displays on devices used to read Wikipedia are only increasing in resolution, not decreasing) to the relevance to the article (I can see details in the higher resolution image that I don't see in the lower resolution image). But using your logic, why don't we shrink it down until we can just make out the shape of a large guy with a mask? It was already within policy/guideline as far as size goes, but I guess we need to be crazy reflexive about downsizing images and make them postage stamp in size... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And we're rejected those reasons. The only text in the article that suggests the need for "higher resolution" is the face mask, meaning that a cropped image at the current resolution would be acceptable. The overall look is readily distinguished to the level of detail provided by the text by the lower resolution, full body shot image. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

“

Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

”

Nobody would pay for this in the role of promotional art for professional media, so it's safe use with respect to Wikipedia:FUC 3b and WP:NFC#UUI 12. Diego (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyrighted vid

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Resolved -- free license release provided in a roundabout way on youtube. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (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 question is about a video on YouTube. I would like to use a part of the video (where the shooting happens) and maybe some screen-shots from it. Does it fit Wikipedia policy on non-free content? (I have asked the uploader to modify the license, s/he said YouTube wouldn't allow him/her to do so.) Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need YouTube's permission to change the license. The original copyright holder can change the license if they so choose, providing such proof to the m:OTRS team. There's instructions on how to approach the copyright holder, and the process to follow at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I tried it before, the uploader doesn't seem to trust or understand the process and has not responded to a similar request, therefore I'm trying to use it as non-free content. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On what article and for what purpose? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In this article to show how the incident occurred. I believe the footage to be very important in understand the event, because the government accused protesters of faking injuries and army said they only fired to air while witnesses and journalists said it fired directly on protesters. Also, the same video was spoken about in a number of reliable source including this "Their accounts are apparently corroborated by a YouTube video of the incident". Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Toyota-SaveMart 350 race logo.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Removed from annual events. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2012 (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.

Use in 2008 Toyota/Save Mart 350 violates WP:NFCC#10c. All uses except the use in Toyota/Save Mart 350 fail WP:NFCI#2 and thus are likely in violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeating non-free logos for yearly events is inappropriate. Agreed on this. (If each year had a unique logo, that would be different) --MASEM (t) 12:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of Nigeria.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Retained in Coat of arms of Nigeria and Nigeria. Removed from all others. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2012 (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 fails WP:NFCC#10c at multiple places:

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#9 at multiple places:

This additionally fails WP:NFCC#8 at multiple places:

Finally, this fails WP:NFG in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed from the user-pages. Agree other uses are NFCC#8 vios. (Are we sure all the coats of arms are free?) --MASEM (t) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to find out if the other images in Coats of arms and emblems of Africa are free or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can click on the images to see what the claimed license is, but that needs to be checked further. None of those fail the threshold of originality, so they either must be PD due to age or due to being a work of the government (like PD-USgov is). These images need to explicitly state that here or on Commons for that to happen. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) to take into account which makes everything more tricky. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We've never really closed the circle on this one. Yes it ought to be the case that many coats of arms are replaceable with a free equivalent, of sorts, but I think we've essentially informally recognised as exception as this would require a new creative work, unlike, say photographs of living people. When people argue against non-free files, I'm not convinced this is really what they have in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Ghana COA.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

Removed from all uses except Ghana and Coat of Arms of Ghana. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2012 (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 fails WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and presumably also WP:NFCC#8 at lots of places. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is ok at Ghana and Coat of Arms of Ghana but nowhere else. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How is the use in Ghana ok? Seems like a clear violation of NFCC#8 to me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Showing what the coat of arms is for Ghana in the article about Ghana is perfectly reasonable. The fact there's a separate article on the coat of arms itself is inconsequential here. It would like showing the flag of the country (I don't know immediately if its NFC or not for Ghana) in both the country article and an article on the history of the flag, even if the flag is never discussed. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see which point at WP:NFCI would allow such a use. I also do not see how a readers understanding is significantly increased by the logos presence, nor how the absence of the logo would be detrimental to readers understanding. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's part of identifying the country in question, sufficiently central to the role of the Ghana article. Like the logo of a company, only that the identify is stronger but is split between flag and coat of arms (or emblem). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There already IS an image to identify the country, namely the flag. The additional use of the coat of arms clearly goes against NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree: the coat of arms seems to be redundant to the flag and the map. Strictly speaking, it's also replaceable, per Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(undent). In my opinion that's not the remit of 3a, which is about comparable images. The coat of arms and flag are separate ideas and are both, separately, important to the identity of the country and both are valuable to the article. Stefan, as I say above, if you want to enforce the COA idea I suggest you draw up a deletion discussion for the thousand(s) of coats of arms used under the NFCC because I don't think its possible to defend a "halfway" position. I would very much like to see the result of a discussion being keep, because such files aren't within the idea currently represented by the wording "replaceable", but a deletion result would be far more logically consistent that applying the principles merely to make as stricter as regards some other criterion, as in this case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"The coat of arms and flag are separate ideas and are both, separately, important to the identity of the country"

Perhaps we are also going to include File:BP Logo.svg in United Kingdom then? I mean 20% of the population work there for a living (see the article) and I think it's fair to assume many of them see the company as important to the identity of the country. Oh and what about including an image of a glass of beer in the infobox in Germany? As Beer in Germany says "Beer is a major part of German culture". -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are unsatisfactory examples, Toshio. They deviate somewhat from the question in hand, which is over the files' NFCC status rather than their position in the infobox. Coats of arms positioning in the infobox is an entirely separate matter, and it one where the current consensus has been in favour of having them. If you want to have them removed from the infobox and put, say, in the government (or equivalent) section that would be an idea worthy of merit, but it doesn't really affect their non-free status.

Just to elaborate on the examples point - if BP were really important they'd get somewhere in the article, but of course that is their international number of employees; their British influence is much, much smaller. Just like the positioning of Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte in the Germany article, something like that could have merit in the article.

To tie that up, a COA would have merit in the article; consensus has it in the infobox instead, where it contributes as much to the reader as anywhere else, as relevant for NFCC purposes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind pointing me to the guideline or the page where a consensus was reached that such a use of a COA is acceptable? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that any discussion was probably lost way back in the old days: coats of arms have been in country infoboxes since 2004; they're mentioned various other contexts - for example, about how big they should be - every so afterwards. Now of course you may well say that no matter how long non-objection is not consensus, which is of course correct. But in this instance there has been the passage of eight years and numerous discussions which could have launched an objection. You're welcome to open an RfC on the subject if you object but that would be a separate matter to this NFCC issue because at current it does appear to reflect some value placed upon them consistent with the aims and limtiations upon NFCC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"But in this instance there has been the passage of eight years and numerous discussions which could have launched an objection. You're welcome to open an RfC on the subject...."

I am not required to launch an RfC or anything. Per WP:NFCCE the users who want to use or retain a file have to demonstrate it complies with policy. Unless we have an active policy or guideline page that was agreed upon by consensus, that there once was a discussion regarding COAs in infoboxes which has since been lost means nothing. The current policy that is supported by consensus is WP:NFCC and there is no point at WP:NFCI that says such a use is acceptable. Thus the use of the file in Ghana violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(undent): you're conflating the two issues here. Infobox country has long included coats of arms, which justifies until consensus has changed, the inclusion of free coats of arms in the infobox. It was overturning that which I suggested an RfC.

In terms of non-free content, this is merely evidence that contrary to your personal view, such coats of arms are valuable to the reader regardless of whether there is a flag, which is different. There are other arguments to be made in that regard, some of which I outlined above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Infobox country has long included coats of arms, which justifies until consensus has changed"

Bullshit, a local consensus in some WikiProject cannot overturn WP:NFCC and there is nothing at Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions that says country infoboxes are exempt. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make clear again why I am so against this use:

I have yet to see a policy or guideline that represents a community consensus on that the use of COAs in country infoboxes is acceptable.

Per WP:NFCCE I do NOT have to launch an objection to such a use. The burden to prove that the use of a file satisfies the non-free content criteria is on those who want to use the non-free content.

That the COA should not be in the infobox is NOT "my personal view". It easily follows from NFCC#8, which says NFC is only acceptable if its "omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding". The Ghana article can clearly be understood without the COA in the infobox. Nothing at WP:NFCI says that such a use of a COA is acceptable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because there's no affirmative statement of accepted use in an infobox doesn't mean there's no allowance for it. (The lists on NFC are purposely incomplete).

I have tried a similar line of reasoning with removing cover art from infoboxes because of primarily NFCC#8, but the consensus has shown that cover art carries implicit branding and marketing that most believe is necessary to be included.

The COA aspect is not quite the same because certainly it's not branding but its the same idea that it likely carries implicit information about a country; we also know that it is a very limited subset of articles that would have a country COA or its official seal in the infobox (around 200 or so), and certainly not all of them are going to be non-free. So at least here is a case we can manage compared with (I think Hammersoft has the exact number) 100,000s of cover art works that continues to grow. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is it written down that there is a consensus that COAs in country infoboxes are acceptable? I don't understand your statement "Just because there's no affirmative statement of accepted use in an infobox doesn't mean there's no allowance for it.". To quote WP:NFCC#Policy: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." And further "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." The use of this file in Ghana clearly violates NFCC#8. I would accept it if there were a consensus that such a use is generally regarded as falling into one of the cases in the list of "acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia" at WP:NFCCEG. I do not see which of the points at WP:NFCI implies that this is the case. Ergo this use has to go. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The lists at NFCI are purposely and necessarily not fully inclusive. There may exist situations where there is common type of accepted use of non-free images across articles that isn't yet documented at NFCI. Case in point: flags of countries/states/Providences/cities, etc. No NFCI says anything about flags, but I bet if you try to remove said flag images from infoboxes, you'd be reverted in an instant. Note that flags tend to be PD by lack of originality or age, but that isn't true for all flags (I believe for example the EU flag is copyrighted). Is the flag image necessary to understand the article? I'd put my vote in for "no", but I would never think of trying to enforce that without gaining consensus first. Seals and COA for countries fall into the same type of identification issue. Yes, they likely don't meet NFCC#8 but good luck trying to remove them without gaining consensus beforehand. It is an implicit consensus that hasn't been documented at NFCI but we know exists even if we that try to enforce NFCC see it as a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the same type of consensus that has determined that making more than 4 edits per minute in any 10 minute period of time constitutes automation, LOL. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, but if that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, that some group of editors can act on an undocumented consensus, then so be it. I propose a dark future for Wikipedia. Newbies have already enough trouble following the many rules we have (including NFCC). I don't see how they are supposed to follow some undocumented consensus that only exists in the mind of a group of editors. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called using common sense. Do you think that we would be a complete encyclopedia if on one of our core topics (a nation of the world) that we would omit its official seal/COA and its flag, just because they are non-free? It's one thing to ask if we need cover art for every copyrighted work out there (they are far from being core articles), but here we're talking articles that every other encyclopedia is likely to have, and omitting an official representative image of the country just because we're trying to be a free content encyclopedia. Again, anywhere else beyond the country and a dedicated COA article like there is for Ghana, the COA image should absolutely positive not be used, but its absence on the country article will make us look stupid. Again, we're not 100% free per VEGAN, and we shouldn't be arguing over probably the most obvious cases where allowance should be given even if we can't answer NFCC#8 in as many words. But again, we're talking very isolated, highly discriminate number of cases here with country articles. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the page where a consensus was reached on what constitutes a complete encyclopedia. In that sense I believe that completion is already achieved by having the COA at Coat of arms of Ghana. Any further reference can be made by linking to that page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I admit that it could be argued that if we link to Coat of Arms of Ghana from Ghana, we could also simply include the whole image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider that in a printed encyclopedia where article length is not necessarily limited, the history of the COA would be part of the article about the country, and thus would only be published once. We, unfortunately due to the efforts to be friendly across a wide range of electronic devices, have to split them, but again, these are the only two articles that have clear and obvious allowance to use the COA.

Yes, one could argue that we could simply link the COA article from the country article, but the same arguments can be made for flag images as well. And I really don't think one can argue which is the most important symbol of a country; flags may be more recognizable by some, but in some cases the COA carries more history with it. So flags and COA have to be treated in the same manner. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removing the file from all pages except Ghana and Coat of arms of Ghana. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in all uses: What's the point? You remove it [1], and it will be added back again. And who cares? This one isn't even in the top ten of most abused non-free files on the project. Hardly worth even mentioning. Plus, it's been added to a template which I'm confident will soon be transcluded to Kwame Nkrumah, Edward Akufo-Addo and many more. Our usage of the COA here is well within fair use law, especially since we've an educational purpose. In practice we abandoned our mission long ago, so any pretense of adhering to some lofty notion of reducing non-free overuse is laughable. Of course, I'm confident making such a statement will be viewed as extremely silly. And just to be clear, no I am not in jest. It's time to get off the damn fence and pull the splinters out of our asses. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Republicanlogo.svg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Resolved by GrapedApe. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2012 (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.

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in New Hampshire Republican State Committee. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this logo does not meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright protection. The logo seems similar to File:Jeff Ho logo.png, where registration for copyright protection was refused because "copyright does not protect familiar symbols and designs or minor variations of basic geometric shapes". The letter also states insufficient "original and creative authorship" as a reason. The same seems to apply here. The logo essentially consists of some kind of blue half oval, a simple red geometric shape and three red stars, which are combined to create a new work, which doesn't seem to be much more than just a combination of those three basic ideas. I guess copyright protection would not be granted for this. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but check this page. The man with the briefcase is obviously sufficiently complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I found this (registration number VAu000972916), but I don't know whether that's the same logo as File:Republicanlogo.svg or whether it's including the background as seen here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved: I uploaded the logo New Hampshire Republican State Committee to replace this image.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Oka stare down.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Removed from all articles except Oka Crisis and Military history of Canada. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2012 (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.

File:.jpg appears to be suffering from overuse, five articles in total, and I'm not sure if any/all of them meet WP:NFCC#8, as none of the articles, as far as I can tell, talks about the incident depicted in the photograph. --Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the situation is as follows:

History of Canada - violates NFCC#8, use is decorative, no reference to the image in the text
History of Canada (1982–1992) - violates NFCC#8, use is decorative, no reference to the image in the text
Military history of Canada - violates NFCC#8, use is decorative, no reference to the image in the text
Oka Crisis - violates NFCC#8, use is decorative, no reference to the image in the text
Patrick Cloutier - seems to fail WP:NFC#UUI 1, given that Patrick Cloutier is still alive

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Question - your saying "no reference to the image in the text" do you mean that the image is not relevant to the oka topic mentioned in all the articles - or that the people in the image are not mentioned in the articles? How can this be fixed as the image is very very well know with this topic. During a GA review of History of Canada there was no problem with the image metioned.Moxy (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The only place where this image makes sense as a "historic image" appears to be for Oka Crisis. Its use in Cloutier's article is clearly never going to be allowable while he's alive so that's out. In the various History articles, these tend to act like lists, and we usually avoid non-frees on list articles unless there's real need to have it, and I just don't see this image being that critical to have. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok that sound reasonable - I only care about the History of Canada article so if we talk about the image its self more could it stay? The image is probably the most recognized image of the decade - so much so that the image has been studied for social impact as seen here. To Canadians this is an "ICONIC IMAGE". This is a little worrying as we have 5 images of this type in the article.Moxy (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources that label the image as iconic, or is it just the event that is iconic? There's other ways to represent the event without necessarily using the non-free image (particularly as it is also a press photo). --MASEM (t) 19:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes to refs about being "iconic"... It’s a photo so iconic.. and In this iconic image of the Oka Crisis.... Would like to point out that at the last ref it refers to the image as "(Fair use)". I can provided many more refs if asked.Moxy (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We are purposely stricter than fair use as to encourage free content use. That said, in addition to the Oka article, I could see that image being used in, as best I can tell, the military history article, but nowhere else as it starts to become more decorative than transformative. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

2012–13 OHL season

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Images removed. As Stefan2 said, "image use on German Wikipedia is a matter for German Wikipedia". VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2012 (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.

All non-free files in this article fail WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c and should be removed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. Outright failure of NFC use. Removed from that page. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, make sure the German version of the 2012-13 OHL season page has it removed also, considering that's where I got the idea from. Frontsfan2005 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia has different rules for non-free use. I'm not sure what the german one requires or disallows, I can only speak to en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Images de:Bildrechte#Fair Use says that images which are acceptable under fair use on the English Wikipedia don't satisfy the rules of the German Wikipedia and cannot be used and should not be uploaded there. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that German Wikipedia treats images as being in the public domain if they are in the public domain in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, whereas English Wikipedia treats images as being in the public domain if they are in the public domain in the United States. Commons:COM:TOO#Germany is more permissive than Commons:COM:TOO#United States, so the images might be in the public domain in Germany. De facto, it seems that German Wikipedia largely ignores Commons:COM:TOO#Austria. Anyway, image use on German Wikipedia is a matter for German Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Abdi Farah Shirdon.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (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.

To my understanding, this violates WP:NFCC#1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created). A prime minister is a very public person, so there should be plenty of opportunities to catch a photo of him. If there happens to be no wikipedians in Somalia that can take a picture, there will also be opportunities during his travels abroad. A free picture of the previous prime minister, Cabdiweli Maxamed Cali, was for instance obtained during his visit to Norway. – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Tagged as di-replaceable. --MASEM (t) 11:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Sollys Volleyball logo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Removed from all; placed in the club's article. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (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.

Uses in 2009 Women's South American Volleyball Club Championship, 2010 Women's South American Volleyball Club Championship, 2011 Women's South American Volleyball Club Championship and 2012 Women's South American Volleyball Club Championship violate NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Links corrected. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but you should check the years in the links above. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:W cover Unguarded.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2012 (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 are 4 different covers to the album Unguarded, I don't think it counts as "minimal use" if we have an article on an album with 5 non-free images in it. The 4 images listed below are in a gallery in the article and the "D cover" is the same as the image in the infobox (File:Unguarded.jpg which I am not calling into question). James086 ^Talk 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I agree - excessive - and unnecessary - one is plenty - the one you have not called ito question - regards - 20:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan

Delete four covers. Extremely excessive and the article currently fails WP:NFG. Only one cover is needed in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above, but I will note that if one can find a composite of the four covers published by A&M themselves (and no other entity), that would be satisfactory (the montage being only a single image). --MASEM (t) 20:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Aarons499 logo.gif

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Removed from all annual events. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2012 (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.

Uses in 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499 violate NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So, this image which is used in those articles violates some rule. But why not 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, then? The image's page has the same "Non-free media information and use rationale" for them also... 82.141.66.248 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time I tagged the file, it only had rationales for Aaron's 499, 2010 Aaron's 499 and 2011 Aaron's 499, but lacked rationales for 2008 Aaron's 499, 2009 Aaron's 499 and 2012 Aaron's 499. NFCC#10c requires that the file has a separate rationale for each use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationales for all uses have been added. Still the uses in the yearly articles seem to violate NFCC#8. Can I have some more opinions? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Uncceptable image uses. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:CliffhangersDebut.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (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 List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Cliff Hangers. However, I don't think this image helps readers understand. Rather the image has not been commented in this article. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecesary. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Rachel green.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Image deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (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 under review. It lacks rationale, and the image is not appropiate for The One Where Estelle Dies. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate in the episode article. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth not? We do it all the time? Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager), What Is... Cliff Clavin?, Here Comes My Girl (Cougar Town). I updated the rationale to reflect the article where it is used. Problem solved, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Even when rationale is added, the issues are not yet resolved. As for the Cliff Clavin part, I used the still image of Cliff's losing all winnings to help readers identify the episode and to illustrate what is already in the critical commentary. Other images I must put under review. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd no idea you had any connection to that episode. I just randomly picked. It's common practice to use a screenshot from an episode on the article about that episode. I see no reason to not include this image on the episode article, and given that it is such common practice... --Hammersoft (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you've a long road in front of you. Looking at List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, a vast majority of the episodes have a screenshot I think. Oh, and that's just one TV series. One. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlike cover art which there is consensus to include as long as the work is notable, there's nothing equivalent for episodes, particularly when it is talking heads, like this image. There's nothing that can't be explained by free media or text. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Avanu

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Consensus supports that this is a trademark issue, but not a copyright one. In any case, the ASCII art has since been removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2012 (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.

Regarding the image of a Coke can at the top of this user talk page, would someone neutral please inform the user that represntations of copyrighted items, such as a Coke can, are derviative of the original copyright, and therefore cannot be considered free by WMF policy and NFCC rules, and that non-free images cannot be used on user pages regardless of whether they are photographs or ASCII art. I have removed both from the page, ([2],[3]), and the user simply restores or replaces them ([4], [5], [6]) warning me not to edit war. I need to step back and allow someone else to explain to the user. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with BMK's logic on this one. It is a derivative work and I'm sure it's trademarked and copyrighted so would fall under NFC. Sædon ^talk 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Beyond My Ken, you are absolutely right that you need to "step back". You began this little effort as a way to take up a stick immediately after a disagreement on the AN/I page, and after I politely attempted to talk to you on your Talk page, you ordered me to never post there again, which I again, politely agreed to.

Since then, you seem to have made it your personal mission to remove a thoughtful item placed at the top of my Talk page which served only as a welcoming image to encourage people to chat in a civil fashion. Specifically the coke with the message "Enjoy a refreshing beverage while you're here." immediately below it. This is a similar to the various gestures that many people make through 'Wikilove' and various text and image-based welcomes on their User and Talk pages. It is a neutral use, and a minimal use of the subject and conveys no conflict of interest nor the idea that the Coca-Cola Company endorses me as an editor.

This has been on my page, without incident over a year, since 4 March 2011. The only moment it became a big deal, is when you, without discussion, removed it from my page. You chose only to communicate via edit summaries, and so after that happened twice, I asked you to stop and went back to your page and politely asked you to use my Talk page for a civil discussion of the matter. I would be more inclined to acquiese to your request if it were made politely, rather than in a method that seems to be using policy as a subtle way to poke me. I hesitate to think what your next fault finding mission will be, but I would again respectfully ask that you work not merely within the system, but also with your fellow editors in it.

All that said, I would be perfectly willing to remove the image if it in fact does meet the definition of a non-free image. It is something that I have invited Beyond My Ken to explain and justify his rationale, but he seems to be intent on creating a larger drama from it instead. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Coke logo is ineligible for copyright as it fails the threshold of originality. A soda can's design is also going to be ineligble for copyright (it is utilitarian). Thus, it is completely possible for a free image of a coke can to be made as long as the person making the image puts it into the appropriate free license. As long as Avanu created the ASCII art themselves for the coke can, and not taking from anywhere else, it does not fail NFCC in any way. Is it appropriate as a user page element, that's a different question, but it's not one for NFCC.

(To be clear, while ASCII art is "text" and NFCC is meant to cover media files, I would argue that ASCII art would need to be considered as if it was a media file, and thus if it was a derivative work of a copyrighted piece of art, it would run afoul. That's not the case here.) --MASEM (t) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And to further clarify: The original image that I think Avanu had, this one File:New Coke can.jpg, is non-free, that while the can shape, and the "COKE" logo are uncopyrightable, the two swirls up the sides create copyrightable elements in the overall design of the can, so yes, it would fail NFCC being used on a user page. The ASCII art version does not have the NFCC problem since whatever derivative work is is borrowing from are uncopyrightable elements. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While separate elements of a work of visiual design, such as the "Coca-Cola" logo may or may not be separately copyrightable, others, such as the "swirl" may be, and the assemblage of all the elements into a visual whole is quite clearly copyrightable, and has been copyrighted by Coca-Cola. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't do independed evaluations of the legality of the copyright -- when someone claims copyright on something, we act as if it is copyrighted.

Further, while an alumninum soda can is most certainly not copyrightable because of its utilitarian nature, the design on it is another matter altogether, and it is, I believe, I matter of settled copyright law that such designs can be copyrighted.

So, no amount of hedging here is going to make an image of a Coke can anything less than a derviative work of copyrighted material, and, as such, usuable on wikipedia only in articles when accompanied by a proper non-free use statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A question to consider is whether Coke would be able to sue me if I put that design on a T-shirt and sold it. I would think so. Sædon ^talk 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's ASCII image is not the same as a current can being made. It lacks any other art elements, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. If it did include the swirl, then yes, then a copyright argument can be made. But this is not what Avanu's image is; there is nothing that be copyrighted by the design as used by Avanu. Now, the trademark point, that's an aspect to talk about in regards to whether its appropriate to have trademarked but uncopyrighted images there on WP:UP, but NFCC offers nothing to say: NFCC cares not about trademakrs. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Masem: You're seeing the logo in the can as a logo, per se. I do not know if your argument that the logo, as a logo, is not copyrightable is correct or not, but it's actually irrelevant here, since we;re not dealing with the logo, we're dealing with an image of a Coke can in ASCII. When a visual design is copyrighted, the entire design is copyrighted, and use of any identifiable part of the design is a copyright infringement. In this case, the copyrighted can's design includes the vertical logo, so showing that part of the design is perforce a copyright violation. It's also irrelevant whether the ASCII art representation is of a current can or not, since Coke cans have been copyrighted for many years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at it as an image. It has two elements: a can shape, and the Coke logo. It does not have the other aspects like the swirls that would be copyrightable elements on the can. Two uncopyright elements, put together in a non-artistic manner will still not qualify for copyright. As you say, the entire visual design can be copyrighted, but this does not extend to the individual component elements, and that' sthe case here. Remember, the very simple version of the ASCII art here has never be an actual design of a coke can - it has never been that simply laid out. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you're over-thinking it, frankly. The ASCII-art is clearly a representation of a Coke can, and the designs on Coke cans are copyrighted, therefore the representation is a derivative work and subsquently non-free in Wikipedia terms. Further, we rarely go into these kinds of in-depth analyses as to what is and what isn't copyrighted when determining what is free and non-free in regard to Wikipedia policy. If something is labelled as copyrighted by the owner, I believe that WMF policy requires us to regard it (and all its parts) as being copyrighted -- and especially so since we're not talking about trying to preserve something for its encyclopedic value to our readers, but simply the desire of a single user to make a flippant remark on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, we do consider if someone improperly claims copyright on something that cannot be copyrighted; if a publisher tried to slap a copyright on an unmodified late 19th century photo that we sure was taken prior to 1923, we'd laugh that copyright off and ignore said claims. We actually do consider numerous elements regarding copyright.

Now, let's take a better example: if I took File:Green soda can 3d.svg (from commons), and File:Coca-Cola logo.svg (in the PD due to age), and put them together without any other embellishments, I'd still have a copyright-free image, that is based on a trademark (read: I wouldn't be able to sell beverage products with that look, and probably any other product, without Coca-cola challenging the trademark). Making that into an ASCII image doesn't alter the free-ness of the image. There is no originality in the image, and thus cannot be copyrighted. It is as soon as I add in the decorative elements like the swirl to match the existing cans does that being to make the overall image copyrighted, and if it starts to approach the true design of a Coke can does it become a copyrighted derivative work. We haven't passed that point yet. The ASCII art is a properly free image. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In regard to Masem's final point, the ASCII art protrays a Coke can not a Coca-Cola logo. Using the former violates copyright. while using the latter is violating Coke's right to protect their registered trademark. Is this something Wikipedia needs to allo, simply so a user can say "Have a refreshing drink while you're here"., when a photo of a glass of coke or juice or water would serve exactly the same purpose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another point that's pertinent here is that the clear intent of NFCC #9 is to limit the use of non-free images to the encyclopedia proper, and only then when properly justified by explanations that justify the usage. I'm on record as being in favor of the value to the encyclopedia of bending over backwards to allow non-free images to be used in articles whenever possible, but these arguments carry no weight in regard to user pages, which have no educational or encyclopedic need to use non-free images, since their sole purpose is for communication between editors or to carry personal statements by editors. Were the image in question used in an article, then the questions Masem has brought up would be pertinent in determining whether we should allow the usage or not, but since the image is used on a user page, an entirely different standard applies, per NFCC #9. For user pages, we do not and should not bend over backwards to allow usage; instead the most stringent and narrowest standards of usage should apply, i.e. unless an image is clearly and without debate free of copyright problems, it should not be placed on a user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(computer died) Actually the first image I had File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg was deleted co-incidentally enough, shortly after Beyond My Ken first removed it from my Talk page. (16:51, 22 July 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)))

I can only wonder how Malik noticed this so fast right after BMK removed it from my page, maybe he has a tool for that?

Anyway, I originally put the can there because I wanted to have something pleasing to give people a little bit of encouragement to post things with a good attitude. After BMK first began this quest, I did look though the multimedia search to try and track down a suitable replacement. You'd think we might have more nice images of soda. I personally like Coke, who doesn't? But the only image that seems suitably mouth-watering is possibly File:Raspberryade.jpg, but it just looks too tart, and when I'm thirsty I think I'd prefer sweet over tart, and yes, I know Coke is kind of tart itself, but I had "New Coke", which isn't, plus New Coke is more unique. In other words, it was a decent choice for quirky, friendly, fun, hospitable, etc, and I'm not sure why BMK chose just now to make this an issue, unless it is as I suggest above. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hardly want to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company (link); I think we've see what can happen. -- Avanu (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a picture of an aluminum can. The ASCII art is copyrightable, but is not the Coca-Cola Company's. On the side of it is drawn the Coca-Cola logo (i.e. File:Coca-Cola logo.svg), which is long public domain. How is this copyrighted to anyone but Brian D. Quick? A Coke can is not necessarily copyrighted. The pattern on a certain Coke can may be copyrighted, but I hardly see that this image is infringing on any copyrighted Coke cans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with Prosfilaes. Simple text is often not able to be copyrighted, but in this case, there is no ambiguity as it is clearly in the public domain. No other element exists within the art that appears to infringe copyright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Tv jeopardy may 25 2005 board.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Image orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (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 looks like it could be replaced by a table or mock-up image of the Jeopardy! game board, whose layout I don't think is eligible for copyright protection. Therefore, this image appears to fail replaceability (WP:NFCC #1). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Also take a look at Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions. There, the image fails WP:NFCC #8, as it is not necessary for reader understanding of the event. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Jeopardy board layout can certainly be mocked by a free image without any copyright infringement in the derivative work. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
And the rationale is a not-permitted group rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The rationale is flawed in that it claims the use of the image is in compliance with NFCC#1 because "No free equivalent exists that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The purpose of the use of the image in Jeopardy! seems to be the depiction of the game board layout. For that purpose, a free equivalent could reasonably be created, as Masem notes above. For NFCC#1 mere non-existence of a free equivalent is not a determining factor, since NFCC#1 requires the complete impossibility of creating a free equivalent. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think that there is a free equivalent, there's no way that just a mockup would give a real sense of what the Jeopardy board looks like. I think it satisfies all NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a 6x6 array of TV monitors. What "real sense" is being missed?? --MASEM (t) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Georgia_State_University_Coat_of_Arms_Logo.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Image retained in article. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2012 (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 in question is on the Georgia State University article page. My reasons for tagging is that the current image does not meet the free-use. There several logos available for GSU. As I understand it, a fair-use image can and only should be used if all ten of Wikipedia:NFC Policy items are met. The one in use, IMO, does not meet the specific of the ten Wikipedia:NFC, as numbered below. 1.)No free equivalent. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ..." Reasoning: The image used is from "History of GSU", The current logo of GSU is self-described as representing GSU for free-use on the GSU style guide page. It is available in several formats; block with text, block without text, round for free-use. 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." Reasoning: The presence of this image, versus the free-use does not significantly increase the readers' understand of the topic. The omission of this image, and use of the free-use would not be detrimental to that understanding.

I humbly request that this submission be considered under the criteria of Wikipedia:NFC, and that alone as I understand that this is the forum for that consideration. Fomeister (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have rejected Fomeister's arguments in the article's Talk page. In response to these specific points, the response has been that there is no free equivalent of the university's seal as a logo is not a seal. Should others form a different consensus, this will necessitate a larger discussion as that would differ from the current consensus and potentially impact many articles and images.

It may be useful to review the rather extensive discussion of this issue in the article's Talk page, including the responses received after an RfC was opened. And now that I've pointed you in the direction of that discussion and reiterated my position, I'll try to stay out of this discussion so others can offer their opinion without significant interference. ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree substantially with ElKevbo above and with Danielklotz's well-crafted 10-point justification at Talk:Georgia State University#Justification for use of seal per Wikipedia policy. To address the issue in my own words: The seal is appropriate under all WP:NFCC criteria. Criteria 1: There is, in fact, no free use logo, as all of the logos on the link provided by Fomeister are copyrightable. (Unless, of course, GSU is interested in releasing their coyright via WP:OTRS, but I bet not.) I believe that he is confused by the Gratis versus libre issue. Criteria 8: There is important contextual significance, as both the seal and logo are necessary for identification in the infobox. (The logo is the contemporary graphic identity, as unis change logos often, while the seal is the long-standing identity).--GrapedApe (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the "newer" (flame symbol) logos are not free (they are copyrightable, passing the threshold of originality), so there's no immediate "free" replacement. The only issue I do see is that the page with the logos does also include the seal image which states "The university seal should not be used as a logo or as a marketing tool." In other words, the seal image should not be used in the infobox, but instead one of the actual logos. It still an allowable non-free image use. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Check that, as I'm not sure the usual standards for college infoboxes - if it is norm to use the seal if one exists, then the seal image is fine. If instead the logo is preferred, then that's the case I discuss above. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The standard practice is to use the university seal at the top of the infobox, and the logo at the bottom of the infobox. I agree care should be taken not to label or present the university seal as a logo, but in my opinion that is not the case here. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The university's internal rule that the seal is not used as a "logo or as a marketing tool" does not apply to Wikipedia.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, especially if they provide both, and as VQuakr states, that there is a distinction made in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does the University get to dictate to Wikipedia? I think that WMF would be very surprised to hear that.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons has decreed that the putatively free logo is not free: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gsulogo.jpg. Hopefully that will end the Criteria 1 "No free equivalent" portion of the argument.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My request for a free image from GSU was responded to yesterday. They have agreed to make their LOGO free. I then forwarded them the link to wikipedia POLICY. They will make a decision on whether to submit email via email, or list CC-BY-SA 3.0 or Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 on the page containing the logo. I humbly submit to all involved in this, that wikipedia is not about winning, but it is first and foremost about using free content. Fomeister (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that Wikipedia is about creating the best free online encyclopedia, which sometimes requires using non-free content.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  - Response appreciated GrapeApe, but my arguments to this point, and my references are to the third pillar, emphasis mine. "Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." I have and continue to strive to find free alternatives. Be it giving rational and common sense of why the seal should not be used, up to and including the request to GSU for free licensing. However some, as noted above that believe that they will include any image they wish, under fair-use without regard to this pillar, NFR, or NFCC. Albeit the intention may be to "make the best free encyclopedia", that is not what wikipedia is about. And to that extent, that is why these pillars, and POLCY exist. It never has been the goal of wikipedia to be the best free online encyclopedia. That being your opinion, I respect it, and sincerely respect your civility, but there is no argument to be found in regards to wikipedia's pillars: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute."Fomeister (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    - Then it is clear that you are against any kind of fair use material and are against all policy in WP:NFCC. That explains why you are so adamently against the use of this image which is clearly within the bounds of WP:NFCC. I would encourage you to start a discussion there to change the policy to be more to your liking.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Innocence of Muslims.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments3 people in discussion

Image orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2012 (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 concerns

First, the image is a screen capture from a TV program and not the actual video or film and violates our external links policy, WP:ELNEVER which states:

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

It is clear that this would not fall under fair use for the channel in question on Youtube (see below for "minimal use"). As a news outlet it could be seen as such for airing, but doubtful as a link on youtube when the original copyright holder still has the video up. If the image was being used to disuss and illustrate the actual program it came from it is possible it might pass fair use but I find it somewhat contentious at best to simply illustrate the film itself. It appears to be undue weight at best and promotional at worst.

Author or copyright owner - is not accurate. Sam Bacile is a known false persona.

Source - Again, for fair use on Wikipedia, the source should be the film/video or the Youtube channel it originates on.

Purpose of use in article - Incorrect reason given. It was not discussing the actor as the actor is not mentioned.

Not replaceable with free media because - "na" is not acceptable. You must give a reason you belive there is no free equivalent available. Without all points explained "fair use" fails.

Minimal use - The reasoning given states "This is one frame of the low-resolution YouTube preview of a two-minute clip which was played by an Egyptian TV station without the author of the film's permission, presumably under Fair Use". Presumming it was used by another is not a rational for use on Wikipedia. Presumtion of fair use by this media outlet is a clear indication that this violates our external link policy by linking to a website that has not licensed use. However this should just be kept at "Single, low resolution frame"...but again the screen shot should be from the film and not from another's use.

Respect for commercial opportunities - Again "na" is not acceptable and must be given or "fair use" rational fails.

Per WP:NFCI: "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criteria; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here."

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria:"(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" It can certainly be argued that no image is required if all it is used for is to discuss a character talking to a donkey.

Per Image use policy[7]: "Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate.

Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Editors who notice correctable errors in fair use tags or fair use rationales are urged to fix them, if able. Voluntarily fixing such problems is helpful to Wikipedia, though many errors may be impossible to fix. Frequent uploading of non-fair use non-free material can be justification for banning a Wikipedia user.

There are actually a few more concerns such as uploading an image with text and copyright concerns with that use but the main concerns are more than strong enough to remove the image from use at the moment. Another concern is the pixilation of one figure and not others, regardless of who and when this was done it shows the screen shot has been manipulated. Another concern is that we are using a specific inflammitory image without good cause. It may actually be a candidate for deletion.

The file is also using an incorrect license.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To quickly repeat my responses from the talk page:

Please explain what is wrong with the Fair Use rationale for that image. I want that image to be 100% legitimate. Note that the image I used was from the 2-minute clip broadcast on Egyptian TV, as uploaded to YouTube by what I believe to be the TV channel itself (at least, the other content from that account seems to be consistently from that channel, and it has "TV" in the name, but then again, the site itself is in Arabic).

Note that the pixelation was done BY THE EGYPTIAN TV STATION, not by me, and it was most peculiar to me, with a simplistic outsider's information about Muslim propriety, that they pixelized a woman because her hair was showing but displayed someone playing "Muhammad". Note that throughout the broadcast the woman was pixelized. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(I posted to the talk page - to bring that response here:) The reason why I prefer the Egyptian TV screen capture is that that is the actual presentation that led to the protests, at least according to [8]. Note that the NYT believed it was acceptable commercial Fair Use to include a 2-minute excerpt of the trailer within their own frame, though they at the time had no idea whose film it was (and I doubt they got permission from the Egyptian station either). So I think I'm on pretty darn solid ground with one lousy frame of it. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The New York Times not merely linked to the YouTube source I used, but actually displayed the video inline on their own page. The TV station broadcast is the topic of conversation; it's the direct link between the blogosphere and the Egyptian protesting public. To be extra clear, this is actually a Fair Use of the station's broadcast, not the film itself; it's for discussion of the violent reaction to the film. (Note that the corresponding text about Al-Nas was since moved to a different section, but it's still in the article) Wnt (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that Sam Bacile using a pseudonym is rapidly becoming irrelevant, if it ever wasn't. Wnt (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of posting copypaste that appear on two other talkpages (at least in part) could you please address each issue and whether or not they can meet standards for compliance for non-free use? As it satnds you seem to be continuing a discussion and not actually addressing concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll make it real easy. It automatically fails NFCC#8. The reader's understanding of the article is not harmed by the absence of the image. Mind you, this is compounded by several other problems (we're not sure of the source, regardless of what the NYTimes does, we are more strict than fair use, etc. etc.), but NFCC#8 is really easy to start from. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. This has been pointed out in numerouse film article's where use of images was and is sometime purely decorative.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It also fails NFCC#1 as the reason given has nothing to do with whether a free equivalent could be located. In my experiance, such low budget films do have free images located in numerous places and there is no reason to believe that something will not eventually be released to PD of CC license, including the film itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#2 as the listed reasoning does not address how this does image does not take the market value or effect the ability of the copyright owner to profit from their work. The very image used does in fact, take away the copyright owners ablity to profit from licensing the image for use in almost anyway, as the televison studio did not license this work to begin with and this screen cap copies this as a still to be freely distributed in such a critical manner as to definitely effect market value and profitability.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ehhh, not really. As Wnt has stated, one frame of a two minute clip of a longer film is not reducing the commercial value of the work. We use movie screenshots all the time, as long as all other NFCC#8 are met. It's more a problem if we were talking a single photo and reusing that whole photo in our articles. Also, your argument on NFCC#1 is not correct, because, until this film enters the PD, there is no free replacement for the film. If we were talking about a filming technique, yea, that's different, but it makes no sense to substitute a screenshot from a completely different film for this one, were it otherwise appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you didn't follow me on the last one, but I can't agree with your interpretation as above. First whether or not an entire peice of imagery is used is a matter of Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3). Whether or not a free screen cap or photo from the filming is or isn't available the reasoning given is simply not a addressing use for a screen cap from the film but for a screen cap from an unrelated TV PROGRAM UNLICENSED FOR USE. The image is not a screen shot from the film, It is a screen shot from another company using the screen shot in a critical manner and does not at all expalin how the market value is not being taken or effected and again in this manner and use it violates contributing to copyright violation in two ways, by using unrelated imagery combined in the screen cap and linking to the Youtube channel that is hosting the copyright violation. This absolutley does effect the market use and the ability of the copyright owner to profit from their work. But is absolutey does fail NFCC 8 as it does not even address either.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In order to speed this along I am going to take a good faith step by adjusting the rational as I believe is within image use policy. I am not unfamiliar with the steps required for adding fair use images. However, this step is being taken in an effort to show how the image does not fit within the guidelines for non free use on Wikipedia. I will add a caveat, that is, that we have already established that the image failss one criteria in that it does the reader's understanding of the article is not harmed by the absence of the image.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As best as could be managed, I have adapted the fair use rationale. However this does not effect the numerous issues involved with non free image content. Specifically the issue of copyright involving the use of the screen cap from an unlicensed source. The reality is that this really does effect the copyright owners ability to profit from their work, which I really am going to have to see an arguement against within guidelines and policy to understand how it doesn't. My main arguement with this issue is that the screen capture is not being used from the film itself (owned by Media for Christ [9]) but from a specific broadcast outlet using the film and imagery without license, which absolutley DOES take the market value of the clip and the still in an unauthorized manner which we as Wikipedia are facilitating against policy and guidelines as well as violating copyright per contributory copyright infringement . We have established that the image is not needed for the readers understanding of the film itself ((WP:NFCC#8). I believe I have established that the market use and the ability to profit from the copyright holders work is effected (WP:NFCC#2) and that it also violates Wikipedia image use policy for contributory copyright infringement. It has also been established that there is Original Research and sythesis involved in the description (which I decided not to remove). It is my belief that this file and image should be deleted from Wikipedia as not meeting Non-free content criteria for use.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue 1, Copyright

The image itself contains copyrighted text and emblems from a television program not associated with the production and links to a youtube channel against external link policy per WP:COPYLINK for "contributory copyright infringement". Under the fair use rationale "Minimal use" it clearly states that the presumption is that the show itself did not have license to use the video. This indicates a clear violation of this guideline. I see no way this can be fixed without deleting the image itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to youtube are not necessarily bad - but we have to have assurance of the authority, and that's not necessarily the case here. If it is the original station's youtube channel, then no, its not a problem, but that claim is unclear, and in the lack of clarity, we assume the worst case. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But would the New York Times have embedded it on their page if it weren't the legitimate publisher? And even if not -- would it truly matter, if the Times attested that the thing I copied is a genuine copy? Wnt (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The NYTimes can use it under terms of US Fair Use like that. We can't under non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue 2, manipulated image

The image itself is not an accurate depiction of the film or scene as the TV production has manipulated the image by pixilating out one actor for their own reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, the discussion - the relevance - of this picture is to the actual broadcast that started the riots. The fact of which parts were pixillated is very interesting to me. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated topic and subject. Again, this is about the film not the TV program that started the riots.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What does stand out, but absolutely needs addressing, is Wrt's statement about what actually was pixelated and what wasn't. It is curious. But it is not our place to note that curiosity to allow the use of the image. If, as events start to become analyzed, experts point to the weirdness of what was pixelated on the broadcast, then there may be cause to use the image per NFCC#8. Right now there isn't. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm only saying that this is the image as broadcast. The broadcast was a topic of the article. Reading this "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Seeing this image, knowing that it had the quality (or lack thereof) that it did, seeing it was broadcast the way it was, that increases our understanding. Wnt (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point I'm making is that if sources do come about to note the pixelation (and lack thereof) as broadcasted as part of the reason this film starts the riots, that would help an NFCC#8 arguement. Saying, right now, here's a shot of the show as broadcasted with no sources to explain it further (outside of it being the broadcasted, pixelated version as already explained), there's really no backing of a NFCC#8 reason, because talking heads on a screen is really nothing hard to describe. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would aslo note that this does not effect use on the article for the film itself, but would be something to use on the article about the protests if there were secondary sources discussing it. Right now this is OR and synthesis.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue 3, incomplete, lisleading and innacurate rationale provided

The Author or copyright owner is not Sam Bacile which is a know false persona. The copyright holder is the production company itself and not a single individual and certainly not a fake name or persona. The Purpose of use in article is simply not accurate at all and does not discuss the actor but a character and not in an encyclopedic manner. Two other required rationale points are simply "na" which is not acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The way I understood it, Bacile (Nakoula) occupied all the important roles on the film. The only other person I know of is an advisor. Who/what holds the copyright if not him? Wnt (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll those n.a.'s weren't right - thanks for pointing it out; I didn't realize what you meant at first. I thought I had had to fill out every field in order for the option to upload the picture came up, but apparently those two weren't required for the upload. (Not sure I saw them at all...) Anyway, they were easily filled. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem if the person is specifically going by a pseudonym, to name the pseudonym as the source, as long as we have assurance that that is the source. I do agree that the copyright is held by the production company as best we can tell, so individuals - unless acting in official capacity as the production house - can't do that. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand. What evidence is there that there is a production house? Are there people making calls to kill them too? Wnt (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing something of a pattern with your concerns here. You want this image precisely because of its contentious subject matter. What does any death threat have to do with using this screen cap sir? Seriously? And there is a production company. One doesn't film on the Paramount lot without one.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I have someone changing (greatly reducing) the rationale in order to show it isn't sufficient? Wnt (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you are assuming bad faith? It was done in order to put the rational in line with guidelines and policy in order to show that even with a "good faith" edit to the image rationale, it still does not meet criteria for non free use. In other words, even when complying as much as possible...it still is not within Wikipedia policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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