Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content review/Archive 25

4341:(ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there 3589:

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

1456:

threshold of simple lines and text that is supposed to be what the SVG category is stating. Although not policy or guideline itself, it does state the correct guide, which is to state that recreation of such logos is limited to those that either pass our use criteria (such as trademarks that are sometimes used as "Logos" but are no copy protected but "Trade marked" and therefore not covered to the same extent by law, or those designs that are not original enough to be or complicated enough to be covered by copy right. I don't believe this should be kept if it is actually copy protected, but if it is, after the lower resolution, less detailed version is uploaded, an admin should scrub the original upload as a copyright violation.--

4147:

Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --

625:). The images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like. For instance, the black oil's application and the mechanism to make it look right are discussed in "production", and without the image, its not exactly clear what it looks like in the series. The same goes for Alien Rebels, whose faces have been sowed shut and the production process is described therein. I would concede that the Alien Bounty Hunter's image, however, doesn't really add much.-- 4451:

challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.

4288:

that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like

4363:

relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the

3201:(EC) You have the cast picture for that, a separate one is not necessary. If the lead actress' look in the masked Queen role is really important, there woudl sources that describe her appearance and thus would help to satisfy NFCC#8. But right now, that's just not there, and as I'd consider the cast picture not a question for such a show, this is duplicating that. (You can also sorta get an image of her from the title card too, in a Zorro-like outfit) -- 1230:, which claim to display the same logo, but the images are a bit different. This suggests that one of the images is wrong, unclear which. Also, the SVG file might be replaceable fair use: the logo is clearly below the threshold of originality, but there is no licence from the person who wrote the SVG source code. The SVG source code may be copyrightable as a literary work, and in that case, the source code is replaceable by different source code. -- 4536:

wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --

31: 3925:

second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases -

1442:

for deliberate copyright infringement". The SVG file size determines the PNG preview size which is a violation of NFCC#3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."

3929:- where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. -- 4084:(for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. -- 1427:. A non-free SVG image can't include details which would only be seen when the file is rendered at a high resolution (for example, by using ]). As this image includes too many details, the solution would be to remove and simplify those geometric shapes which can only be seen when the image is rendered at a high resolution. Alternatively, the file could be converted to PNG. -- 1875:

character was portrayed (but again, that's weak consensus). Episode articles have to be reviewed, though. I know that the newer reincanation of the show, the editors have been good, but I suspect a lot of the older series have problems with unnecessary episode images. A case-by-case is needed, but I recommended asking the Doctor Who project to assist here. --

514:, especially since, according to the NZDF site, the image 'may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission' AND it is being used in a respectful manner to indicate visually which forces are part of the NZDF. IOW, if the NZDF doesn't object to Knowledge (XXG) using the image, why do you? 351:, an SVG file shouldn't have more detail than needed for the article, but this isn't the case as the image displays perfectly at huge resolutions. I'm not sure how to reduce SVG files as a reduction would require removing some SVG elements. Maybe it would be easiest to just convert it to PNG. SVG files tend to be tagged with 5564:

If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that

5391:

Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will

5244:

It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to

4924:

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we

4486:

No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan,

4454:

VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can

4146:

say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project.

3856:

non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the

3539:

No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are

1800:

has over 300 images in it. The few I checked are fair use and not movable to commons. Should we go through all of them or has it been done already? A trusted admin may wish to go through and delete the obvious ones on sight. We may wish to look at other cats, ie. Star Trek, Star Gate, Buffy, Zombies,

1441:

An SVG file of this size cannot possibly pass NFCC#2: "Respect for commercial opportunities". An SVG file that size and detail is possible to create nearly any commercial use graphic for printing, upload to the internet, etc a violation of NFCC#3b as well: "especially where the original could be used

5480:

If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC

4450:

be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a

4081:

First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines

3139:

The title card one is fine ("Titles 2") as the means of ID'ing the show. A cast picture "QoS2cast" with actors in their character roles is reasonable for such a show. The rest are all problems, particularly the Texas Hollywood one as that is an actual, still existing place and thus free imagery can

708:

It's reasonable (and probably in fact better as to minimize non-free) to use the same screenshot for an episode and for discussing a series-running concept, as long as they are discussed in the appropriate manner in both (likely in the episode, it would be about the critical reaction there, while on

247:

The changes in the logo are extremely small and trivial. Unless there's detailed discussion from sources that explain each change, it's unlikely to cause the reader confusion. I can understand the use of augmented reality as a highlight of discussing the show but that's probably the only other image

230:

Disagree, maybe the screenshots and the images of the host can be removed but the logos and the images pertaining to the "augmented reality" are not to be removed as this best depicts how it evolved as each logo shows the evolution of the show. I am from the Philippines and I know the show very well

5132:

99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No,

5117:

Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary

4647:

Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show

4535:

My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the

3588:

You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at

3323:

There is no firm number in how many non-free media an article can allow. Some are such that zero non-frees are appropriate, some may have 10 or more. The matter is more whether each individual non-free use is appropriate which each picture having to meet all 10 points of NFCC. In your case, I think

1874:

Some of them do appear to be images of characters used on fictional character articles, and there's a weak consensus that this is always appropriate - that is, if the character's notable enough for a standalone article, the character image is a reasonable thing to include to show implicitly how the

1455:

The process of lowering the SVG size (thereby rendering a suitably sized PNG) is simple. Upload the free, open source program "Inkscape" and the vector art can simply be reduced to about one quarter the size it is now or below the 450px range. However...this image is far too complicated to pass the

5625:

But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM,"

4854:

Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect

3548:

sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent

3363:

Just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it has to be seen via non-free imagery. In fact, this is the type of case where while you discuss that they trained using the mysterious circle, an image of an actual "mysterious circle" (which we have on that linked article) may be better representative of

3251:

The mysterious circle image shows two people swordfighting/fencing in costume. It's not critical to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. Again, on the main character's costume, there's nothing really discussed about it that requires a visual representation - she is one of the actresses in the

1112:

I don't know what the situation is here, as if being forged official documents if they even have claim, who the photographer was, etc. They could be legitimate at commons, which is fine. I'm just cautioning that not everything published by the US-Gov't is necessasily PD-Gov -created, yes, but not

528:

Free of charge is not equivalent to free of copyright which is our metric that we need. It is not that we're worried about NZDF objecting to the use, it is the fact that it has copyrights on it that prevent it from being redistributed for any purpose (including reuse and modification). We have to

265:

Well the writers of the page, including me already have an existing plan of massively fixing the article way before this issue came in. In fact it would adhere to your concern about each logo change being small and trivial into putting why the logo change is also a major change in the program. Its

212:

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

5465:

I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially

4323:

No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact

3661:

Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would

5025:

The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there

4287:

No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said

3924:

But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the

3901:

The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community

4268:

project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others.

4133:

project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really

1079:

Be aware that just because it came out of a US Gov't document does not make the work immediately public domain via US-GOV. They will republish - under fair use - copyrighted material in otherwise larger works that are US-Gov. That doesn't magically make the material that was copyrighted PD-Gov.

4362:

So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's

3497:

There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be

620:

The "Gallery of Images" has been removed. I missed that the first time, so I'm sorry about that. However, the remaining four images are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the

4304:

and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of

3747:

is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been

4082:

appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network.

5277:

She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no

5007:

discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8.

5133:

that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --

2382:

Well, that makes it fair game to use the image under non-free terms, since we can never get that group together again. There might be a chance there is a free photo out there but assuming a reasonable search has been done, this image is okay to use as a non-free photograph of the band.

3222:

The cast photo came from promotional wallpaper for computers freely available on the defunct website but does not show the character of the title. The titlecard image does not cover WP:NFLISTS#5 There is another wallpaper image of the character freely available in costume that is

3683:

and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state

4487:

but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --

4240:. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". -- 4105:

be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic.

4839:

might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead.

4413:. Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose. 1402:

If I am seeing this correctly, this image just needs to be reuploaded with a lower (nominal) resolution if the SVG format is to be kept. Another option would be to convert it to JPEG. I don't know what the preferred solution is in such a case, though. --

5590:

I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame.

4855:

that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like.

4384:

works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work.

4324:

that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --

1383:, "Fair-use SVGs shouldn't include more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at their current resolution." However, this image contains lots of details which only display at much higher resolutions. The image therefore violates 4508:

be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of

4128:

Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Knowledge (XXG) has long since changed away from being a

5481:

may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --

4258:

As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free.

1486:

from the copyright owner (such as out of a PDF of official letterhead). User-created SVGs that attempt to mimic copyrighted work are not acceptable at all , and in this case, this needs to be uploaded as a low resolution JPG/PNG.

5549:

and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it

3573:

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

5466:

broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Knowledge (XXG) not being a bureaucracy.

2131:

Image is stated to be public domain, but a Non-free use rationale has been provided. Either this image is 'free' in which case it should be on Commons, or it is not free and the statment about public domain removed.

1097:

Not to purposely argue around that Masem, but since these are already uploaded to commons...should they be uploaded here as non free content with a link to commons as the source? That is something I have never seen

4354:

of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these

1050:

What's the issue here? If it's being used as non-free under fair-use, then it doesn't matter whose image it is. It would seem an obvious pass for fair-use. This is a paperwork issue, not a reason to delete it.

5626:

which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period. This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --

3678:

I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail

4038:, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them. 3566:

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

5026:

would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Knowledge (XXG). Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--

4181:

want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has

3790:. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. 2962:

Doesn't matter if there's no easy photo to find. If he is alive, and not a recluse or in prison, we assume a free picture can be taken, and thus do not allow non-free images to be used of living persons.

5259:

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

3399:

issue, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean non-free media is required to show it. You can use free (As suggested) but no image is a possible solution too. The non-free doesn't help here.

5524:- As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per 4472:

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

3290:

Okay, I will give you that (but urge to try to improve on that rationale), but I would suggest moving that image down to the Legal section where showing that she looks similar to Zorro is important. --

3885:

dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg

1968:

be regarded by the US copyright office as a creative step sufficient for copyright protection, but in this case they might as well rule in the other direction (compare this with the third example at

4218:

Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations.

4406:

is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at

5367:

How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.

3610:, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. 3730:

Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case.

3706:

Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says

266:

just that our schedules do not permit us to do this in a full blown single time edit because as we all know its better if all the writers would first agree on the content that would be placed.

828:

I agree - its data, and thus should be recreatable in a free image. (arguably the image as presented fails TOO, but I would still think that it can be remade to assure complete freeness.) --

4989:??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.-- 4063:

I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --

4420:

I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that

2349:

Assuming the band is currently active with this membership, a free image is possible, and thus this image fails NFCC#1 (barring any discussion specifically on the photograph itself). --

1964:

I am unsure as well. While each of the single elements (typefaces, the black and red bars, the yellow box) definitely falls below TOO, the combination of those elements into this logo

231:

as I watch it so I have a better say on the article. And besides unlike other shows which only changes title cards, this show, when they do, they're has to be a major change in it.

3123:

Ill counter that, blanket usage is excessive. I wasnt removing all the files, I was removing all but the title card. There was only one other file (per Masem) that should be kept.

1380: 348: 1993: 5040:

I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does

4521:

project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them.

4200:

You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --

3804:(i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source. 4350:

The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the

4960:- There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with 3857:

same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --

2239:

If it was made by a contemporary artist, then it should be PD. If it is a recent painting, then it may be copyrighted. Right now it is missing a source, so it violates

3662:

take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --

3518:

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

1720: 3886: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 621:

context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, simply provide visual identification of the elements" (

472:

see how section 8 applies in this case, I'm not sure about the sizing comment. If the image were larger in the articles, would your objection to its use go away?

3788:

there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale

1716: 1008:

The collage is PD as a Dept of Defence document. That does not void the copyright on the incorporated works. Item must remain templated as a non-free image. --

3881:), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a 4788:, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under 1180:

I have re-tagged png file as PD-text and orphaned the svg file. The colours and layout of the png file more closely matches the logo on the team website. --

4836: 4778: 5193:#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. 845:

The data is free. The image could arguably be below the threshold of originality. The image is of poor quality, so I'd recommend recreating it as SVG. --

643:

Agree that the three current images (the "grey" image, the black oil, and the rebels) have sufficient discussion in text to pass a basic NFCC#8 check. --

3570:

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

2261:, who died in 1867. The painting is currently in the Aberdeen Art Gallery. A better/bigger version can be found on the BBC "Your paintings" website. 5211:, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. -- 2262: 1820:

I think all those images need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone should go through the category and list the suspicious cases here. --

4784:

All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in

440: 3309:

Is nobody independent going to comment or comment to what is regarded as excessive as I have now seen featured articles with seven non free images.

2559: 5086:

which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources.

3852:, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for 2558:

After investigating the provenance of these images, I agree they may be copyright violations so I have nominated them for deletion. Please see

3712:

if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding

3006: 2950: 5443:

We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep

1797: 3772:

its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding

47: 17: 4359:, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright. 709:

the series concept, its creation and development). I will note that The Unnatural is missing a rataionle for the Colonist article. --

2224:

Subject of image died in 1861, Assuming this is contemporary image, I find it highly unlikely the artist died less than 70 years ago.

176: 5296: 5082:#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks 4134:

irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what

3894:

Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about

3874:

Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past

3064: 2479: 999: 3848:; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at 3498:

considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --

5118:

is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it.

1044: 5207:

NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced

4049:, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. 3906:

obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test.

3540:

uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article

1969: 1223: 1171: 5431: 4605:

The original concern expressed by Stefan2 has been resolved, and further discussion has not taken place since 17 April 2013. --

4143: 4031:. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article. 1913: 172: 1679: 4297: 3381:

The image on the mysterious circle article contains five circles and only serves to confuse how it was used in the TV series.

3159: 3080: 1848:. However, this needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis as there presumably are other images which satisfy all points of 1261: 1065:

Works of the US Government are in the public domain. It was incorrect to upload this as fair use if it is already free use.--

5447:

which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--

3813:

condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a

2801: 2460:

Anyway, this picture is not free. It's from a photoshoot of a Japanese AV model Hatori Yiu. You can see the originals here:

1343: 813:

This image contains information that is common diagnostic data, and I am wondering why color tone data could be copyright.

5679: