Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

File:Weapons_301.jpg

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, which illustrates TrueCombat:Elite, fails criterium #1 as we have free screenshots available in commons:Category:TrueCombat: Elite. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are all OTRS-verified freely licensed screenshots, so there's not even a question as to replaceability. I've replaced the image accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff Conaway ABC Taxi.jpg

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 have recently uploaded this image and then inserted this image into Jeff Conaway. Does this file meet the requirements met? --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns about this image we should consider? Begoon ^talk 15:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this image follow WP:NFCC, including #8 and #1? Finding a free image of the earlier appearance of Jeff Conaway is obscure; this non-free image should follow all NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure. I remember Jeff from Babylon 5, and I was surprised a bit to remember he was also the guy in Taxi. However, at least you've given something to look at, so hopefully that will help Begoon ^talk 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Conaway is deceased, and given his life history, he looked very different at the start of his career to how he looked at the end of it. I would think that image is probably OK, particularly if there's some commentary about it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

His appearance is not discussed in the article. As this has been open for over a month, I am moving this to FfD. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg‎ vs File:Pauline Fowler.jpg

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.

---

Which one of them is more preferable? I have turned both files into twins, but one has superior quality and longer history. One is orphaned, but I will not have one of two deleted until both are reviewed. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) By the way, GSorby's description is in the file's history log; you must judge his file by his description, not the one I have substituted. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewer - please see also: this related discussion, and also this one at WikiProject Soap Operas. Thanks Begoon ^talk 06:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Pauline Fowler#Adding File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg and User talk:GSorby#File:Pauline Fowler.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• What is the difference between them? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and File:Pauline Fowler.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should help. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see them George - you already put links in the title. It looks like GSorby replaced an image he had uploaded in April with an image that is the same as one that you uploaded a few years ago. What's the difference between the two images - is one larger, crisper, better file format?? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Yes, I uploaded the file first; look at history: that was... days ago, not years! However, the other guy uploaded it with extra portions. Both formats are just JPEG. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the 'years', and the 'PG' instead of 'PD' somewhere else on this page. I'm full of typos tonight. I would have thought the smaller version would be better, indeed you could probably crop it down a bit further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

File:General Hospital Luke Laura Wedding 1981.jpg

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 have recently uploaded this image and included it into Luke and Laura. Does this image and its image description meet the standards of non-free content? --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns about this image we should consider? Begoon ^talk 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Does inclusion of this image in that article follow any criteria of WP:NFCC besides #7, which this image follows obviously? Does it follow NFCC#8? --George Ho (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, whatever. Maybe meets NFCC #8, if it dosen't, it's not a clear case. Closing for inactivity. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:I Love Lucy Titlecard.png

File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This image is included in I Love Lucy. However, it consists of a title logo, which may be ineligible for copyrights. What are your opinions? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A free element included in a non-free work is non-free. The title card will be non-free (presuming the show is still under proper copyrights). --MASEM (t) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How will the free logo be uploaded? SVG would make that effort more than PNG. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to replace that title card. The background is part of it. Arguably, yes, one could make a png/svg of the text part only of the title card and have that as free, but we're talking a TV show: its identifying mark is the title card; taking the title as a logo out of that is not a fair representation of the show. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce that, here's my take:

• Yes, an svg could be created from that file of just the logo. I could do it easily.
• It would almost certainly be of very little use since it seems it would be a derivative of a copyrighted file - that looks and sounds complicated to me, copyright-wise, and a discussion I would not want to have unless I needed to.
• You haven't told us why you would want it - that's almost certainly relevant to any answer you are going to get here, and without that information, we're guessing...
• Tell us what you want to use the logo for - there may be a simple answer.

Begoon ^talk 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This logo is free: that's the reason, right? Title card is copyrighted, yes? Does the svg version of the heart-shaped logo without background replace the title card? I just want a free image, so no need to extract a screenshot from copyrighted material, right? Here: I Love Lucy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and (for administrators who have access to "deleted" pages) File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I want the logo without backgrounds just for the infobox. Therefore, if logo is proven to be {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-textlogo}}, then this logo is easier to share in Commons, as long as trademark laws are followed. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok - if you can tell us what you'd use that logo for (ie where you would use it, and in what articles), it might be worth thinking about how we'd deal with the copyright/free use issues, but until I'm clear on that question I don't have much to add here, sorry. If you're trying to work out a way to get a non-free image in an infobox I can't help - but if you have a real plan for using the logo, and an idea of where you want to use it, hit us with the details - it'll help. Begoon ^talk 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This heart-shaped logo of I Love Lucy for I Love Lucy and its infobox to identify this familiar show, right? I hope: a free image of a logo does not infringe copyrights, correct? Or maybe I'm not specific enough? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TV shows generally don't have "logos". They have title cards. While you are probably right that extracting the written text and the heart into an SVG to use as the "logo" is creating a free work (as alone those elements aren't copyrightable), that's no longer a proper representation of the show; its value as an equivalent free replacement is not there, and thus it would better to use the original title card and still pass NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

George, it's the 2nd of Jan here, which i guess means bedtime. I hope you had a good New Year's day. I've been up for about 20 hours. You seem to be missing a question I think I've asked a couple of times. It's important. I'll bold it for you - What do you want to use the (theoretical) logo for? In what articles? Where in those articles? You're not making it easy for us here, and we are trying to help. Begoon ^talk 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Begoon, I think I've already answered it to you and Masem: I wanted the free logo to replace the non-free image in I Love Lucy, and Masem rejected the idea for the identification purposes, unless you, Begoon, do not see it as an answer to your question. To make everyone happy, what if both the free exists in Commons and non-free in English Wikipedia at the same? Then anybody can use the free image for any purpose, while the non-free is used for just one. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you cannot replace the title card with an SVG version of the logo, any more than you could replace the image in the infobox of Sound Affects with an SVG of the title, just because the title would be PG. There's no point creating an SVG version of the words "I Love Lucy" and uploading it to Commons (nothing to stop you, just no point, because it won't be the titlecard of the Lucy show) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this discussion, about three files up [1]. I think you missed the significance in that discussion of the bit about there being no point of creating a version of the non-copyrightable text because the entire title card was copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's different, isn't it? The Golden Girls is too complicated to imitate, and substitutions is too impossible. I Love Lucy, on the other hand, ...well, the background is creative and impossible to create yet uninspiring. Originally, I wanted to replace it, but objections went too strong. How can we explain the deletion of JPEG image: see again I Love Lucy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Haven't I mentioned already: the title card and the free logo can co-exist separately? One title card in I Love Lucy article, and one free logo in Commons without replacing each other. Maybe I'm not making sense, am I? And what's a PG, by the way? --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of that jpg was done by an F7 but that was likely an improper process, given that, again, TV shows don't have logos, they have title cards. You're right that you can have the free logo, but again, title cards are generally the identifying work of a TV regardless if there's aspects that are free on their own. There's a larger problem here that probably needs the TV project involved. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the jpeg file as it is in a preferred format for screencaps. I believe the argument that it could be replaced by a re-created svg is not valid, as it wouldn't be the titlecard. If you guys decide which version is better, the other version can be orphaned and deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also left a message at WT:TV to see if NFCC#1 applies here when a free SVG can be made from the title card as a equivalent replacement. Also, we should definitely keep any free images : they can be used in template nav boxes for such shows without harming the NFCC work. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

:And George has improved the FUR (nice one George), and pointed people to this discussion. I hadn't thought of nav boxes, that would be an excellent use of an svg of the free portion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at The Cosby Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They have the copyright-ineligible logo in SVG format. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I asked the TV project to help. There is a question here specifically on NFCC#1: equivalent free replacement. Many TV show titlecards have logos that can be made into a SVG logo that as you note is ineligible for copyright. The question is (and I don't know the answer to this) is whether the logo is an equivalent free replacement for the show's copyrighted title card. I can see where it can be considered as such, but can also see where it can't be. Thus, let's pull in the experts on TV shows into this discussion and determine if this is the case. If it is the case that logos are equivalent to titlecards in terms of NFCC, then we should be doing replacement en masse across all TV shows where it is possible. If it is not universally true, then it should be up to consensus per show page whether to do it that way or not. So let's get some more input for that before we do much more changing or deletion. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool - that sounds like a plan. If it turns out that any help is needed as a result of those discussions, creating SVG logos from originals, give me a ping on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. Only fair that I should help out with the solution if I'm able. Begoon ^talk 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The I Love Lucy DVDs use the heart and "I Love Lucy" text as the show's logo (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q8MV5PDEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DAWJ22JPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WW26287ZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg). OK, so it's not the title card, but obviously it's still a suitable identifier of the series if CBS use it on the packaging. MOS:TV doesn't disallow the use of Logos for identifying TV shows, although it does say a titlecard is preferred. And while I'm not anywhere close to being an expert in these matters, but surely placing the logo on top of what appears to be randomly and loosly placed cloth does not meet the threshold of originality? Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The cloth aspect exceeds the threshold; the threshold is limited to text (regardless of font) and simple shapes. "I Love Lucy" + the heart, alone, fails originality, the cloth background does not despite its generic-ness. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Without being confrontational, how so? What makes it that someone spreading out a piece of cloth is creative? Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun of intellectual property law. Unfortunately, we can't redefine those rules. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Estelle Getty Sophia Petrillo.jpg

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 have recently added this image to Estelle Getty. Would this pass all criteria of non-free content? --George Ho (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not acceptable. Not only does the character which Getty played have its own page, we already have a free image of the actress on her page, so unless there is detailed critical discussion of her appearance in that role, the non-free image is improper to use. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So this appearance of Sophia Petrillo is not acceptable, unless the article mentions her appearance, correct? Which criteria does this image fail? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#1 (free replacement, the actress' image itself), and NFCC#8 (significance), and to some degree NFCC#3a (minimal use, since there's already a character page). --MASEM (t) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sophia Petrillo's page is a mess. I don't know how I can see its chances for deletion; I know: no cultural impact was made in that article. Full of plot-only background; I couldn't use it there. However, if that character follows GNG, does it imply that this image is good for this or that article? --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If the article on the character is appropriate, there's already the image of the character on that page, and you don't need two of them. But even in the case that the character's article page was deleted, the use of the image on the actress' page is unwarranted due to NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All right, what if I can replace the current image of Sophia Petrillo with my photo? That photo is a screenshot; my image has crisper, clearer quality. Then I can remove my image file from the actress's page. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a question to ask at the character article's talk page. NFC doesn't have any immediate guides with respect to quality of the image. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is already a free image used in Estelle Getty and unless there is critical commentary about the image or the specific character attributes, it will always fails WP:NFCC in this article. In the character article Sophia Petrillo we already have a non-free image. To comply with minimal use, you could always substitute this one for the one already there but that is a content issue which other editors may not agree to. Right now this image should be deleted and I don;t see any way it can easily be used without removing something else. ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed image from Estelle Getty because #8 is not followed, although I thought it did? Happier now? --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now it is used in Sophia Petrillo. I waited for reply long enough from other image's editor. --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Multiple files: episodes of 30 Rock

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.

---

Season	File	Episode
Season 1 (all)	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 1.png	Pilot (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 2.png	The Aftermath (30 Rock)
	File:1.3 Blind Date.png	Blind Date (30 Rock)
	File:Walk and Talk (Jack the Writer).png	Jack the Writer
	no file	Jack-Tor
	File:1.6 Jack Meets Dennis.png	Jack Meets Dennis
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 7.png	Tracy Does Conan
	File:1.8 The Break Up.png	The Break-Up (30 Rock)
	File:1.09 the baby show 30 rock.png	The Baby Show
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 10.png	The Rural Juror
	File:The Head and the Hair 30 Rock.jpg	The Head and the Hair
	no file	Black Tie (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 13.png	Up All Night (30 Rock)
	no file	The C Word
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 15.png	Hard Ball
	File:Source Awards.jpg	The Source Awards (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 17.png	The Fighting Irish
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 18.png	Fireworks (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 19.png	Corporate Crush
	File:Phoebe (Cleveland).png	Cleveland (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 1 episode 21.png	Hiatus (30 Rock)
Season 2 (all)	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 1.png	SeinfeldVision
	File:202 Jack Gets In The Game.png	Jack Gets in the Game
	File:30 Rock Season 2 Episode 3.PNG	The Collection (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 4.png	Rosemary's Baby (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 5.png	Greenzo
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 6.png	Somebody to Love (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 7.png	Cougars (30 Rock)
	File:Josh, Tracy and Jenna (Secrets and Lies).png	Secrets and Lies (30 Rock)
	no file	Ludachristmas
	File:30 Rock Episode 210.png	Episode 210
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 11.png	MILF Island
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 12.png	Subway Hero
	File:213 - Succession.png	Succession (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 14.png	Sandwich Day
	File:30 Rock season 2 episode 15.png	Cooter (30 Rock)
Season 3 (all)	File:30 Rock season 3 episode 1.png	Do-Over
	File:3.2 Believe in the Stars.png	Believe in the Stars
	no file	The One with the Cast of Night Court
	no file	Gavin Volure
	File:3.5 Reunion.png	Reunion (30 Rock)
	File:3.06 christmas special.png	Christmas Special (30 Rock)
	no file	Señor Macho Solo
	File:Flu shot.jpg	Flu Shot (30 Rock)
	File:3.9 Retreat to Move Forward.png	Retreat to Move Forward
	File:Generalissimo 30 Rock.jpg	Generalissimo (30 Rock)
	File:Elisa and Jack St. Valentine's Day 30 Rock.jpg	St. Valentine's Day (30 Rock)
	no file	Larry King (30 Rock)
	File:Goodbye, my friend.jpg	Goodbye, My Friend
	no file	The Funcooker
	File:Liz Lemon and Drew Baird.jpg	The Bubble (30 Rock)
	File:Liz on Phone.jpg	Apollo, Apollo
	File:3.17 Cutbacks.png	Cutbacks (30 Rock)
	no file	Jackie Jormp-Jomp
	File:3.19 The Ones.png	The Ones (30 Rock)
	File:3.20 natural order.png	The Natural Order
	no file	Mamma Mia (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock season 3 episode 22.png	Kidney Now!
Season 4 (relevant)	File:30 Rock Season 4 Episode 1.png	Season 4 (30 Rock)
	File:30 Rock Season 4 Episode 2.png	Into the Crevasse
	File:File30 Rock Season 4 Episode 3.png	Stone Mountain (30 Rock)
	File:4.4 Audition Day.png	Audition Day
	File:30 Rock Season 4 Episode 5.png	The Problem Solvers
	File:30 rock dealbreakers set.png	Dealbreakers Talk Show
	File:Secret Santa - 30 Rock.jpg	Secret Santa (30 Rock)
	File:Liz Lemon Black Light Attack!.jpg	Black Light Attack!
Season 5 (relevant)	File:30 Rock - Live Show.jpg	Live Show
	File:30 rock Reaganing.jpg	Reaganing

This would be the relevant clause under WP:NFCI which might justify use of these images:
5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question.

I don't see the need for any of these images. They appear to me merely to be used ornamentally. I can't see any of them being used in the context of "critical commentary and discussion of the work in question."__meco (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

File:TheTwilightZoneLogo.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This hasn't gone anywhere in a while, so I'm leaving it as non-free and closing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Is the logo itself eligible for copyrights? The title card itself is copyrighted, but I simply asked for the stand-alone logo. This is used in both The Twilight Zone and The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series); however, The Twilight Zone also uses other two images: File:The Twilight Zone 1985.jpg and File:Twilightzone2002-logo.png. If this 1960s image is ineligible for copyrights, would the SVG logo be possible? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The lettering alone would be PD-ineligible; with the star background it's copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So what about the 1980s and the 2000s images? --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

2002 would likely be ineligible; the 1985 one starts getting on the iffy side but still seems to be (when you subtract out the background starfields, of course). --MASEM (t) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As the uploader of the image, I don't understand what's wrong. Essentially every single television show article has its logo/intertitle in the infobox, so why is this one singled-out? I understand that it only has one rationale for its use in the main article, and, well, it could be resized. Is that all that is wrong, because it'd odd this is singled-out when there's thousands of the same instance. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the 2002 image has no rationale for The Twilight Zone, and we don't know what portion you used and how replaceable this image is for the '2002 series' article. Doesn't matter what size as long as that image is small as is. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you still working on the rationale for the article of franchise, The Twilight Zone? By the way, maybe the reduction is not necessary; can you revert the image back to its origin, or does the previous version fail NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the logo itself is not likely eligible for copyrights, according to Masem. You can ask in Masem's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

File:FriendsLogo.jpg

Is this logo eligible for copyrights? It appears hand-written, and it was released in 1994, so copyrights may be possible under Berne Convention Implementation Act. See more at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/November#File:Friends titles.jpg and File:FriendsLogo.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Here's another one without colors: File:The Friends Stage cropped.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, as simple text and figures, it's likely PD-ineligible, but that's not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say definitely PD-ineligible, simple text and simple geometric shapes. Doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Erring cautiously (never being one to release other peoples, especially rich and powerful ones, legal property and intellectual rights to the public domain rashly, on the advice of my fathers lawyer)- It looks like a copyright-able recognizable logo to me. What benefit to the project would the questionable release of this logo by a couple of its editors to the public domain be? Youreallycan (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be erring on the side of not understanding copyright. There are ample examples on the page Seraphimblade linked to that show this is clearly PD-ineligible. When the law is clear, as it is in this case, we rely on it. In the US, you can sue anyone for any or no reason. That doesn't mean we should turn off all the servers. Your language is nonsensical; there is no 'releasing' going on. You need to read up a lot more on copyright. Nyttend's comments at the linked discussion are supported in case law; the ones that follow are conjecture unsupported in case law. Non-hanwritten fonts aren't inherently less original than handwritten ones. --Elvey (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

David Ho (scientist) on cover of Time Magazine

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.

---

Would File:The 1996 Person of the Year (Time Magazine) - Dr. David Da-i Ho.jpg meet NFCC in any of the below articles:

• Time Person of the Year
• AIDS
• Antiretroviral drug
• David Ho (scientist)

Although his being selected as Time's Man of the Year in 1996 is undoubtedly a significant event in his life, I'm not convinced that the reader needs to see him on the cover of Time Magazine to understand this. In the articles other than his own I think it could be replaced with a free image of Ho, which is available. January (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at each case;

• David Ho (scientist); Blatant failure of WP:NFCC #1 and #8. The article does not discuss the cover in any respect. It simply displays it. The only piece of significant information is that he was Time Magazine's person of the year. That's already conveyed in the article, and the image does nothing to add to that understanding.
• AIDS; Dr. Ho isn't even discussed, or the cover. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8.
• Antiretroviral drug; Dr. Ho is discussed, but not status as man of the year. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8.
• Time Person of the Year; isn't currently used in that article, and shouldn't be. Use of non-free items fails WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFLISTS.

In short, none of the uses qualifies under WP:NFCC. Also, be aware there is currently only one rationale on the image description page - for an article where the image isn't used. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Photos in Murder of Ross Parker

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.

---

Perhaps uninvolved knowledgeable editors could give their opinions on the use of these non-free images in this article. There is some discussion on the talkpage here

• The victim: [2]‎.

The murderers:

• [3]
• [4] ‎
• [5]

Discussions about a similar situation about Mark Macphail, a murder victim, were held at Media Copyright Questionson this board and and Files for deletion with the photo concerned being deleted as a copyvio. Since the issues seem very much the same, I have commented out the pictures for now, but perhaps others could weigh in to help decide what should happen in the longer term. Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

For reference this version shows how they were used. —teb728 t c 05:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what benefit under fair use for a picture of someone convicted of a crime would apply to a simple head-shot of them that you could create a wiki compliant non free rationale for. Youreallycan (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Pacman-cutscene.png

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 began as a discussion at FFD, at WP:Files for deletion/2012 January 16#File:Pacman-cutscene.png.

I would like to examine the use of this image at Power-up. I wrote

Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8. While the description is correct that there are unlikely to be any free screenshots of power-ups from games circa 1980, the article does not go into detail about the history of power-ups. Rather, the image appears in a section about offensive power-ups. Consequently, the loss of this image, or the replacement of this image by a similar image from a free game or a mock-up would not harm the reader's understanding of the subject.

— User:RJaguar3, FFD discussion

The uploader, User:Diego Moya, replied

I disagree that both File:Supermushroom.png and File:Pacman-cutscene.png fail #1 and #8 of WP:NFCC. I've given rationales based on the popularity and historic relevance of both images that no other free image could met, and have sourced them accordingly.

#1 (No free equivalent) requires that the free replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose; the SuperTux power up and a recent cutscene would not provide the same encyclopedic purpose. Unless you can provide references of free images with equivalent cultural impact and historic relevance, the existence of power-up and cutscene free images is not enough to claim that #1 is not met - they would simply not "have the same effect".

As for #8 (Contextual significance), again File:Supermushroom.png is THE number one representation of the power-up. It's presence as the most significant example should go uncontested unless very good sources are provided to the contrary. There is a valid case to remove File:Pacman-cutscene.png from power-up as long as history of power-ups is not included in the article (though history is mentioned in the images caption, and PacMan is mentioned in the section). Since your deletion request, I've included the image in cutscene where it is contextually significant (discussed in the article's text) and no equivalent image can be provided (Pac-man is directly discussed), so the image should not be deleted even if it is removed from power-up.

— User:Diego Moya, FFD discussion

I do not contest that the image has a valid NFUR for use in cutscene, which is why I withdrew my nomination for deletion. However, I maintain that the image's use on power-up fails NFCC#1 and #8. I will reply to Diego's points momentarily. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Diego's response:

• I contend that there is a free equivalent. The image appears in the section Power-up#Offensive abilities. The power pellet (but not the cutscene) is indeed specifically mentioned as one of many examples. However, it is not the only image that can demonstrate an offensive power-up. For example, in SuperTux, Tux can get a fire flower that allows him to shoot fireballs at enemies, which is clearly an offensive power-up. Certainly, it won't have the same recognition as the power pellet from Pac-Man, but an appropriate image from SuperTux will convey the idea of Tux collecting a power-up that allows him to use a ranged attack against enemies, which is the encyclopedic purpose behind an illustration of an offensive ability granted by a power-up.
• Further, even if there is no free equivalent to the image, it fails to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of offensive power-ups. Tellingly, the power pellet itself is not shown. Also, the text "Ghosts can be attacked after Pacman is transformed via power pellets" appears to significantly convey everything that a non-free image can convey about the use of power pellets as a power-up. Therefore, the image also fails NFCC#8.

RJaguar3 | u | t 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For SuperTux or any other image to be added as a replacement it should have the same popular reach, you should provide a source explaining its meaning, and should describe in a simple way the dynamics of the power-up with respect to the normal gameplay. The "story" told by the Pac-Man cutscene has all of these properties; it's an artistic depiction of the effects of a power-up, using a comical rendition to explain the power-up with a hyperbole, and thus covers the describing function of #8 in a way that the mere textual description doesn't convey. An unsourced image that may or may not convey the idea of the effects of a power-up is not really equivalent to this historical, sourced storytelling that uses metaphorical language to describe the section topic. Diego (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the Pac-Man cutscene is an example of both the deffensive (invulnerability) and offensive (eating the ghosts) aspects of the Pac-Man power-up as described in the text. Diego (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this idea for a replacement image from SuperTux:

• There are 2 images. The first shows large tux and a fire flower.
• The second image shows Tux with the fireman's hat (indicating that he can shoot fireballs), along with fireballs on the screen and enemies who have just been hit and are being removed from the screen.
• The caption reads something like this: "After Tux grabs the fire flower (left), he gains the ability to defeat enemies with fireballs (right)."

RJaguar3 | u | t 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In your example, the attacking behavior is not described by the image, it is described by the accompanying text. Compare that with the visual qualities of a giant Pac-Man chasing a scared ghost to see what I mean about the metaphorical value of the Pac-Man image. Can you provide an equivalent gut-feeling with an image from SuperTux? Can you provide a source to describe the image? And, even more important to the topic: how do you convey that throwing fireballs is the effect of picking the flower up, and not just a basic gameplay feature? (The penguin now has a fireman's hat? seriously?) Diego (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the fireballs on screen would be an indication of an attack in action. Yes, last I checked, Tux has a fireman's hat (he used to be tinted red to indicate the ability to shoot fireballs). Even if the picture requires explanatory text (which arguably the Pac Man image requires, too), that doesn't mean that it isn't an effective replacement for the non-free image. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, I've replaced the copyrighted image by a free schematic depiction of it. This way all the advantages I enumerated can be kept, and the image is not suspect of being provided under incorrect fair use claims. Diego (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reintroduced the original fair-use version for the new History and influence section at Power-up article. The image is now illustrating the history of the Pac-Man power-up and thus can't be replaced in this usage by a free image, so I think it's clearly legitimate now. Diego (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Afa logo.svg

{{discussion top}} It violates #1 of NFCC; it can be replaced with File:Argentine Football Association.svg, which is a free image on Commons; in fact, it's the exact same image, since User:Fma12 removed the CC-BY-SA license along with any hint of attribution to the creator of the SVG file, and uploaded it here. It violates #4; this is not an image that has been used by the AFA as their logo, instead being a copy in SVG. It violates rules on image resolution; it is over 1.5 megapixels as normally displayed, and is arbitrarily enlargeable. If it is not replaced with the Commons image, it needs to be replaced with an appropriately scaled raster copy of the AFA logo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes arguments are inconsistent and, in some point, falacies. 1) this logo does not violates #1 and #4 as he stated, because there is not free content available so the AFA logo is copyrighted by Argentine Football Association. The rule #1 of NFCC could be apply for portraits of living persons, but not for registered logos. 2) The "free" image that Prosfilaes refers to, has been nominated for deletion on Commons ([6]) due to copyright violation (I nominated the file myself due to the uploader attributed it as "own work" but it is only a reproduction of the copyrighted logo by AFA) and the discussion has not been resolved yet. 3) Despite being a file under a controversy, Prosfilaes repeatedly replaced this image with the SVG from Commons. 4) About the scalable size, all the SVG files in Wikipedia are infinitely scalable so they are made of vectors instead of pixels; According to what he says, all the SVG images on WP [7] should be replaced by PNG files. The arguments given by Prosfilaes seem to be more a caprice than a reasonable explanation of his statements. Fma12 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the image on commons is not appropriate there - the logo uses too many non-simple elements, and easily surpasses the Threshold of Originality to allow copyright to be claimed for it. I've noticed that the commons image is up for deletion, and thus, this image here is fine. We do allow SVGs, where they can be made with reasonable accuracy of the original logo, to be used, and thus the resolution issue isn't addressable (since SVGs are by default resolution-less.) --MASEM (t) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The coat of arms was replaced by an updated image, more similar to current Association logo (see AFA website). According to more than 4 weeks since the media was listed here with no further comments, I consider it can be closed. Fma12 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-free-use of File:Louisville Helmet.gif

{{archive top|Image is gone now, so moot... Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)}} Moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

no need to duplicate Template

Replaceable fair use File:Louisville Helmet.gif Thanks for uploading File:Louisville Helmet.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mtking (edits) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue with File:Louisville Helmet.gif is that the restriction requiring only "non-commercial" use is not compatible with the licencing requirements of WP, as a freer version of the helmet can be created (go to a game and take a picture and then may a FUR for the LOGO only part), we can't use the one taken from nationalchamps.net; more info can be be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Fair use football helmets in team infoboxes. Hope this explains why the file should be deleted.Mtking ^(edits) 09:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed tags and provided a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Any item with a logo added to it has to be "non-commercial" use other then that the person who made the Helmet could be breaking a law by allowing it to use for "commercial use". So no free or freer image with a logo like we have can be made.Theworm777 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with Criteria 1, the template helmet image component of this image is copyright to nationalchamps.net, it is not released in a way that WP can use it and it is repleaceable. For example you could create your own blank helmet file, release that CC-BY-SA then add the team logo on to it and that would be fine and the combined work would come under Fair Use. Again if you read Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 December 11#File:LSU Helmet.png you will see the reasons. Mtking ^(edits) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

End of parts moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I have said before the helmet can not be made with a Logo on it and be Free use. This is not a blank helmet file it is not this image. It is a image of a Louisville Cardinal Helmet. Anyone that makes a Louisville Cardinal Helmet can not be free so if does not fail step 1 first non-free content criterion or any of the other 10 non-free content criterion

"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.

The answer is no to this. Theworm777 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You stopped quoting the NFCC too early, it goes on to say "or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available" and it can, the issue is with the components that make up the image, the helmet template and then the team logo, while a FUR could be made for the logo part (setting aside 3a. Minimal usage issues with having the logo repeated twice at the head of the infobox for the moment) a fair use can not be made for the original helmet drawing, as it can be replaced either with one drawn my any editor and released CC-BY-SA or go to the team shop, buy a replica helmet, take it home and take a picture of it, release it CC-BY-SA add a FUR for the element of the picture that is the logo and then use that. Mtking ^(edits) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Cokecola.png

Believe it or not, but I am a volunteer here too and I have better things to do than adding rationales to images for the people who are actually responsible for doing this but prefer to call me disruptive instead of fixing the problems. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And putting these requests or notes here takes less time than adding the rationales? Maybe, or maybe not. 82.141.66.248 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See my reply to Nyttend above. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)