Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content review/Archive 68

1322:. This image was released by the Irving Police Department to help explain their actions, and was the only image of the clock available when many people were forming an opinion about the incident (e.g. President Obama saying "nice clock" would presumably have been reacting to this image). There has also been extended third-party analysis of what Mohamed did based on people attempting to dissect this image, some of which is discussed in the article. In my personal opinion, the role that this particular image played in shaping the perceptions of the event more than justifies its use under NFCC. It contributes to the understanding of the event by allowing readers to see what others were reacting to in a way that can not be fully matched by mere words. Anyway, that's my opinion. I would again note there is additional related discussion at the file talk page, as well as some comments at the article talk page. 3709:. Regarding the use of the same image in both articles, the "digital distribution platform" logo does seem to be the one the channel is using exclusively on it's official website (I couldn't find the other logo at all), so that logo might be able to be used. The press release you cited above says "All 4 will replace the 4oD brand on all platforms from the end of Q1 2015." I assuming this means all six logos, which includes the corporate one, shown at the top of the press release. Regardless, if Channel 4 is part of the Channel 4 TV corp, then the same logo shouldn't really be used in both articles, even if it is the de-facto official logo for both, per No. 17 of the UUI. - 1226:, if the subject can be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content then such image fails the free use rationale. That is the case in this instance. The image that triggered coverage of this incident is the photo of a 14-year old kid in a NASA T-shirt being handcuffed, and not the photo of the clock. The article include all descriptions of the photo made in reliable sources about the clock, and analysis by different people of the photo. As we have such detailed descriptions of the photo, 31: 1410:

and uploaded by Frank Fuchs, also of the Little Ferry Fire Department, after having received the physical copy of the film from an unspecified family member. It is functionally impossible to determine who the legal rightsholder would have been in 2007 (possibly Zabransky's son, if copyright had not been assigned to a third party), much less currently in 2015 (Zabransky III has since also died).

1459:

of ownership authority that "previous publication" is fine, the YT link would not be considered a copyvio and could be used as a EL. But I could also see the use of screencaps from the film or a short segment of the film to illustrate the article on the fire which the film captures under NFCC without too much concern as long as you include this rigorous analysis of the situation.

4850:. That image was deleted as part of a mass removal. One of the other images uploaded by that same user (File:UFC 185 poster.jpg) was noted on Moulko00's user page with a note saying " Why are we using the image that you created". So this image may well be an fan-created image rather than an official WWE image. 2889:

The image is not appropriate at the Moonwalker page since there's a separate article for the games. On the game page, the gameplay section could be expanded to describe the game from sources (in fact, this should happen per VG standards) so the image should be fine there on the reasonable presumption

2491:

Image is licensed as non-free and the source is given only as "Mike Tigas flickr". Since this is a photograph of a sculpture, I think it's fair to assume that it is copyrighted, right? Shouldn't there be some way to verify the licensing used by the Flickr account? Why not use an image from the park's

1458:

I think this basically has two end results: worst case that it is copyrighted until 70 yr after Zabransky's death (read: 2060s) if the YouTube publication was the first, or its in the PD now. Taking the worst case of it being copyrighted, you've shown what are likely reasonable steps to assure a line

1442:

piece of film history: unique, irreplaceable, and with considerable encyclopedic value. I want nothing more than to be able to include it in our article, which I'll beat my own drum by saying is among the most comprehensive treatments of the event available. But I want to make sure I have my ducks in

3815:

I believe this is standard practice for magazines and newspapers to have the standalone publication title and then an example front page/cover to show the layout. (Exceptions only seem to be if a cover is highlighted as part of the body of the article, the cover image is moved into the body, such as

1267:

As far as I know there are no other images of the clock. Irving PD released only one image (a higher res version of this file), and the family hasn't released any to my knowledge. This image was deleted from Commons where it didn't belong due to being non-free, but I don't believe any image of the

844:

What should be done is drop a notification on the talk page of the article to point to here, or to start a new discussion on that talk page, noting that more prose about Watchmen as a prime example of a Modern Age needs to be established in the article to be able to use the non-free cover art. (For

811:

Both uses can likely be justified better within the prose. Watchmen is a strong example for both of the other topics, but that needs to be established better in the prose to use them as non-free examples. (this is similar to the use of non-free images to illustrate schools of paint styles, as long

2401:

When I uploaded that poster image those photos from "Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo" did not exist. I assume those Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo photos are public domain, and if so we could certainly take this image down. It was simply the only image we had for the Rod Laver article.

1037:

More abstractly, I've always felt uncomfortable effectively voiding someone's copyright when we here are not lawyers in Intellectual Property. We don't really know, nor do we have a professional basis on which to discern, how a court would rule in regards to whether the threshold had been passed or

4865:

A quick reverse google image search does appear to verify this poster (and similar ones with other wrestlers and other layout arrangements with the same design elements) appear to be legit works. But that said, a direct link to a page with the image of some official capacity should be included and

4677:

especially as there are many free images of former players which serve to illustrate the article in a more "decorative" way. If LaPradd's physical appearance was particularly notable for some reason that was relevant to understanding something about the program as a whole, that's the kind of thing

1409:

This video stridently meets most NFCC requirements, but I have a concern about NFCC #4. The film is identified as having been created by one "W. Zabransky", very likely William Zabransky Jr., then-former chief of the Little Ferry Fire Department, who died in the early 1990s. The film was digitized

829:

Thanks Masem. Not sure if that means the images should be removed or not. Sorry, but my brain is just working a bit slower than usual today. Is the infobox use in "Modern Age of Comic Books" OK? Would you recommend posting on each article's talk page asking that the information about the images be

627:

The logo is likely PD-USonly, being only text and a simple shape. It is not PD everywhere in countries with a lower TOO, so it can't go to commons, but here it can be treated as a free image, so the image on BB is actually likely ok. (I also note the article does attempt to justify the use of the

4653:

I am fine to revert it to your edit given the rationale. However, I am curious as to the policy concerning fair use in more than a single article. I also would not consider it merely decorative, as he was the school's 2nd All American, but I understand how one could. It took them 20+ years to get

1479:

Sounds good, and is pretty much what I'd considered. I'm likely away from useful computers on business for a few days, but afterward I'll see what I can do about excerpting the useful parts of the film (although it's already only about 1m in length, there's no real need for the black frames). I'd

1245:

Arguably this should be at FFD (single use, single image, and an NFCC#8/#1 issue) but was there not another image of the clock at FFD ? What was the fate of that one? Note that just because the local PD allowed use of the image doesn't mean it's free or any better than the other image if that was

4668:

It's not necessarily about the number of articles, but about the purpose of the image. Typically, it's easy to justify the use of a non-free image when the purpose is to identify the subject of an article. However, when it's being used to illustrate an article on a broader subject, there usually

2200:

There's nothing unique or special about that image that cannot be explained using text so usage is decorative and not appropriate. For reference, notifications regarding other similar images have been placed on the uploader's user talk, so perhaps they just are not very familiar with the NFCC. -

2981:

No - since they are living people it is replaceable for identifying people: as for spellings, that is what citations are for. If there is noteworthy commentary related to the poster in the article, such as explaining where it was posted, significance of poses, layout, colours or fonts, then the

2507:

Yes if you follow the image, you'll see a set of circular icons on the image page, this uses the basic CC-BY. That means the photographer has given the license of his photo as free, but the work remains derivative. This is better than an "official" image from the park as that photograph is not

2199:

in my opinion. Both persons are still living, so it is possible for someone to take a photo of each of them individually or even together and license it as a free image. Moreover, it's not needed contextually for the reader to understand Harbaugh talking to his quarterback or any other player.

4519:

I agree. Webcam shot from Depot Tower, which has a reachable cupola where similar pic could be taken freely. I don't know what the access policies are for that, but NFCC just wants a free alternative to be "possible" which it clearly is. Additionally, the picture's use in the article seems

846: 1420:

Alternatively, does the possibility of a contemporary newsreel (or any other period publication) affect NFCC #4? If such a use existed, then the rights status of the 2007 upload would no longer be relevant for NFCC #4 purposes. Is there an obligation to show that such a publication

1782:

Generally yes - if the logo originated in a US company and meets US's TOO, but would have unlikely met the UK one, it still remains under the fact that it likely cannot be copyrighted in the originating country so it remains uncopyrightable everywhere, and thus fine at commons.

3021:

Let me add that if it was a group cast shot of the participants in a reality show (which is often done, with the group posed for promotional photos), that would not necessary be freely replaceable as to get that group gathered for a free photo is no assurance. However, this is

1018:

That one starts to get into a more tricky area. While it technically is just all simple shapes and a drop shadow and a gradient, there's more creativity involved in how transparency is used to create additional shapes/colors that would make it better to assume non-free here.

1405:

I assume that film of a specific historical event, even one involving public buildings, and taken from public space, does not constitute public domain footage, even considering freedom of panorama. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm fairly sure this remains copyrighted

4754:. It has a nfur for the article, but it's use appears to be more decorative than contextual. There doesn't seem to be anyway of verifying who the people in the photo are and there is no real discussion of them by name in the article itself. Does not seem to satisfy 164:

I have some misgivings. It contains shadows, colours and some other features that might lift it above TOO. I wonder if we can ask for permission, though - the "Other information" part of its rationale suggests that it was uploaded on behalf of the organization.

3966:

It depends if the label is really part of the album art or part of the packaging (stickers on the outside of the clearwrap). If the placement is really part of the art then yes, this could be copyrightable in the UK, despite all other elements being simple.

2870:. Image has a very basic non-free use rationale for each article, but the statement "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article." is not clearly not true since the image in such a way at all. Seems to fail 3704:

you provided in the non-free use rationale you added for the article is just a wikilink to an image file that was deleted in 2008. I'm pretty sure that's not acceptable, and I think what is needed is a source that shows this is actually the logo of

1290:

Okay, I wanted to make sure there wasn't some duplicate nature. I know I saw a discussion about this image, but it doesn't appear to be an FFD discussion which is the proper venue if those wishing deletion should take this.

3279:. Company has been out of business for quite some time, so there's no official webpage or social media accounts or archived versions which can be found to source the image. Is it OK to use the Logopedia page as a source? - 5199:. Rationale claims image is being used at top of article as primary means of identification which is not true. Can the image still be used since it identifies a particular brand discussed in a section of the article? - 2789:

This is a living person who, as an actor, likely makes lots of public appearances. It seems likely that someone could snap a free pic of him to use instead. Source of image unclear, but appears to be a publicity shot.

530:

and is, therefore, purely decorative in my opinion. If the image is simply being used to show what a Lowery painting looks, then a non-free image is not needed since a free image could provide the same information per

4207:

It is reasonable in the attack article (a historical image of the resultant blast), but not acceptable in the overall terrorism article, since the attack article is linked from that, and merely serving to illustrate.

4905:). But yeah, really there needs to be a stronger link to show that legit. There might be other posters with publication history we can trace since I don't think the Dolph one was the only one I saw when searching. -- 4369:

That's what I thought. How are we going to remove this from 78 articles - I hope not manually? Is it possible to delete the file, let bots remove the broken links, and upload it under another name so as to use it at

3177:

and Copy to Commons. Just to clarify, as the source country is US, the warnings and restrictions of PS-USonly are pointless. PD-logo already includes a general notice, that other countries may have stricter rules.

2508:

necessarily under free terms, so we'd have to wait for the copyright of the photograph to expire before it would be free, compared to waiting for the copyright on the sculpture to be free which will come first. --

525:

being used in the same article should also be removed in my opinion. There's no sourced discussion of the painting at all anywhere in the article, so usage does not show the "contextual significance" required by

1635:

PD-USonly is written under the assumption that the file originates in a different country and is copyrightable there. If it originates in the US and isn't copyrightable there, then you can move it to Commons.

5214:

Agree that the image is not being used in appropriate manner in line with logo use - if the sister branding is not notable enough for its own article, we don't need a logo that is not discussed to see that.

3636:

It isn't so much a parent/subsidiary relationship as it is a legal entity/brand identity. In any case, the stylized numeral 4 image is the official logo of both, and should be included in both articles.

3324:

I didn't even consider "LINKVIO" Stefan2. Is there a way to fix the license if none the info in NFCC#10a can be found? Otherwise, I don't think a source for the image is going to be able to be found. -

278:

in this case. It's the logo of an US-based group according to our article, so even if it is copyrightable in other countries it would qualify as "free in both the US and its origin country" and thus as

1462:

I think we do need to presume it non-free - yes the likelihood of a prior newsreel publication seems strong and would be great if it were PD, but we'd rather have proof-positive this is the case. --

1038:

not. There are obvious cases, and anything less than obvious should, I think, remain marked as non-free. Doing so does not inhibit us, and helps protect works that are potentially protected. --

784:

is satisfied. In "Modern Age of Comic Books", image is being used in the infobox which seems totally inappropriate since the article is about a period in the history of comic books and

4887:

for a "DOLPH ZIGGLER WWE 2014 TLC PPV Pay Per View Poster 27x40" where there's a picture showing it's an existing physical item. There's no "And Stairs" addendum blurb to it though...

1430:

If a worst-case scenario where NFCC#4 cannot be adequately satisfied, is it acceptable to link to the YouTube video, or does the uncertain copyright status make such a link fall under

4240: 3367:

If an image comes from a book, then just listing information about the book (such as author and title) would be enough. I can't imagine that it would be any different for films. --

4616:

is 100% decorative. I removed an invalid rationale and removed the image, but the uploader re-added, so rather than get in an edit war over policy, bringing here for more eyes. (

5588:

No, the black outlining would not make it eligible for copyright. Simple Photoshop-type effects like outlining, drop shadows, etc, are generally not considered as creative. --

4181:- and the purpose of use is given as "To illustrate the magnitude of the destruction caused by this attack" for both articles. Whilst this may qualify for under criteria 8 of 3845:

is the one from July 2015. They seem to me to essentially provide the same information, but not sure when or if a cover image becomes too old to be relevant any longer. -

2045:

They are all text strings in the same font (within each case) , so this universally fails copyright thresholds and can be treated as free and uploadable to commons. --

1611:

Tagged the image as "PD-USonly" per above, but that template includes a "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" warning so I'm not sure if it's also OK to add a

3621:

and has a non-free rationale for each article. However, it seems that "Channel 4" is a subsidiary of the corporation so No. 17 of NFC#UUI would apply here, right? -

2556:

I mistakenly wrote "Twitter" in my above post when I should have written "Flickr" instead, so sorry if this caused confusion. Thanks again for the clarification. -

1192:

NFCR is not for intended deletion of images; since CSD was rejected, the proper venue for this is FFD (if not the article talk page first to establish consensus). --

6380:

Thanks for taking a look Masem. I assuming this means that "PD-USonly" and "trademark" are preferred to "non-free", but no "copy to Commons" in this case, right? -

5233: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1315: 3046: 2932: 5859:

License changed to PD-USOnly as precautionary measure in case it is copyrightable in the Philippines. It is not copyrightable in the US, per discussion here. --

4102:. I believe it's OK to use the show's official Facebook page as the source of the image so I will add that information to the image's non-free use rationale.- 772:. A non-free use rationale is provided for all three, but it seems as if this image is really only needed in "Watchmen". There is some critical discussion of 4315:

The only way this logo's use in so many articles could be justified would be if it is deemed to be too simple to be protected by copyright and re-tagged as

4080:

on the day of its adoption (23 June 2015). The logo could not be obtained from the official website as the site had not yet been updated with the new logo.

112:

Borderline case. Simple elements combined in a more complex design. Kept as non-free (permission would need verification). Stale discussion for 2 months. --

5440:

Image has non-free use rationale that appears to be OK, but I am wondering if this can be changed to "PD-logo" since it is essentially nothing but text. -

6118:

which seems OK as at least "PD-USonly" and possibly even "PD-logo". The circular shape is pretty utilitarian and the color scheme seems fairly generic. -

612:

since the TV station's logo does not improve the reader's understanding of the TV show itself in anyway and is just being used for decorative purposes. -

4884: 4751: 4133: 1183: 2707:

per discussion because not sure whether logo too simple to be protected by UK copyright laws. If it is, then licensing probably should be changed to

6325: 5573:

than non-free since it is essentially just text, but just want to make sure that the black outlining of the white letters is not copyrightable. -

4055: 3893:, however, is being left as "non-free album cover" because it is unclear whether the label is part of the album art or part of the packaging. -- 5084: 2962:

Does this file have appropriate fair use rationale? It is a TV series poster, used in the article body (not infobox). I asked this question on

5936:

Station is not American, but is located in the Philippines. Therefore, I changed the licensing to "PD-USonly" and not "PD-logo" per above. -

812:

as the non-free example is clearly stated in the prose as a an obvious example, then that's generally good for these broader categories). --

3744: 47: 17: 4842:

Source given for this image is not good enough, as it does not allow someone to find it. An earlier version of this file was uploaded at

6302: 6199: 6092: 5985: 5868: 5761: 5654: 5537: 5418: 5285: 5169: 5038: 4986: 4644: 4544: 3618: 2609: 2469: 2361: 2266: 2089: 2071: 2035: 1644: 512: 412: 298: 1268:

clock has been discussed at FFD. This file was nominated for CSD as unfree, but that nomination was rejected (twice actually, once by

6284: 5367:

Changed licensing per above, but used "PD-logo" instead of "PD-USonly" since the radio station is/was owned by an American company. -

3800:. Image would most likely be acceptable for an article about this particular issue, but not for the main article about the magazine.- 1615: 2963: 5636: 3876: 1937:

Changed licensing to "PD-USonly" per above discussion. Can be changed to "PD-logo" if logo is to simple for copyright protection in

1885: 1548: 1511: 4003: 1768:

Thanks Masem. Do you think this is a candidate for a move to Commons since the organization is based out of the United States? -

194: 608:. A non-free use rationale has been provided for each article, but I don't think the use in the "Big Brother" article satisfies 2631:

Image is licensed as non-free but seems to be a simple combination of text and shapes which means it might qualify as at least

2451: 2420:

for now. Other images (or maybe a crop) could be used as alternatives for a lead image. Tagged the discussed file as orphaned.

848:

establishes Watchmen as one of two comics considered the start of the Golden Age, so that should just be documented better). --

5020: 3003:, that's what I thought. The uploader removed the deletion tag (disputed fair use rationale), so that's why I am asking here. 2214:

Yes, a clear failure - there's no discussion of this specific photograph to keep it over existing or can-be-made free ones. --

4387: 4305: 3674: 2117: 3701: 1401:, pretty much all the subsequent problems go away, but as far as I can tell, that will be completely possible to determine. 4535:

Also, the quality of that image is pretty bad. That should be replaced even if there is no free alternative, which I doubt.

2863: 2832: 6420: