Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content review/Archive 69

1542:, but I do understand that copyright concerns trump all. I look forward to seeing what consensus develops, to guide me in my future uploading practices. Regarding Marchjuly's point about the article the image is currently used on being for the company rather than the product, would this photo be an acceptable fair use image for an article about the Grace Cock Soup product specifically (maybe if the other two varieties were cropped out)? A quick peek in Google showed there may be sufficient sources for that soup mix's notability, partly due to its being a staple in Jamaican cuisine and partly due to the giggle factor... — 1849:

So much for the "zero expectation" argument! Isn't this exciting??! Sometimes you just need to do some asking around! And while it is possible he will still change his mind once he fully understands what he is giving up, there are still dozens of other photographers who have taken photos of Quentin and posted them on Flickr, and I honestly believe I will be able to find at least one of them who will be willing to donate a better image than the one under consideration for deletion here to be used in the article. I think I have even shown that it is "reasonably likely" that this will happen. Yes?

5178:. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed. 2876:, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by 1845: 31: 1743:). Whether starting to emailing copyright holders of previously published images is reasonable or not, is another issue. Personally, I think it's sometimes beyond reasonable and a fair use claim may be pursued. If anything, such a campaign may lead to the awkward situation of someone explicitly refusing to let you use a photo they have taken, yet you would like to use it as fair use without a permission needed. 4898:. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, and the claim is that it is relevant to the discussion about the "Canadian Lady Corsette Co. Ltd." The image itself, however, is not the subject of any sourced critical discussion and the connection between "Wonderbra" and "Canadian Lady" can being sufficiently explained using text. So, image is purely decorative and fails 4726:. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it is not the subject of any sourced commentary at all. The only purpose of the image seems to be to say the company's former logo used to be written with a capital "D". If this information is relevant, then it that text can be used to express this fact and that an image is not needed per 1768:

We cannot, in considering the possibility of a free image, expect to have third-parties provide material under a free license. Yes, if we know the photographer and they are approachable about the possibility, by all means we should try to get a free image, but this is not a requirement for where no new free image could be made. --

1538:, I'm the editor who took the photograph and uploaded it to Knowledge (XXG). I too was unsure of whether this kind of image was allowed. (I mistakenly uploaded it to Commons first, actually, but realized my mistake and tagged that copy for deletion.) It seems to me that it illustrated the article content well at 5813:

I think removing it from the the user sandbox is pretty straightfoward thing. I posted on the editor's talk page letting them know about NFFC#9 and giving them a chance to remove it themselves. The UUI#17 stuff is pretty clear cut to me as well, but perhaps there are some others who feel differently.

3536:

Image is used in multiple articles had has a non-free rationale for each. The question is whether the logo of a national federation can be used or should be used in individual team articles. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles, and that

1916:. We do expect WP editors to willingly put photos into a free license (that's hopefully part of the reason they are editing here to help build up a 💕) but there's zero expectation on that for anyone else. It's always an option, one that can be explored, but our NFCC#1 works independently of that. -- 1911:

I wasn't meaning in a forceful manner, just that if we take the interpretation that "if there is a photograph out there that is not from a corporate source (that is, from a source who is not going to have layers of legal to get throuhgh), that that means there is a free replacement", that requires us

1871:

Asking around if you can find a source - great, that's completely fair to do and in a case like this a step we certainly recommend trying, but NFCC#1's "no free equivalent" cannot be based on coercing a non-Knowledge (XXG) image copyright owner to release a work with a free license. Our policy cannot

1848:

of Quentin that he has indicated he would be honored to see included in the Knowledge (XXG) article. I still need to negotiate over the licensing terms with him, but this was my very first attempt to ask a photographer if we could use his work on Quentin in this way and I got an enthusiastic, "Yes."

1448:

I'm not sure about this image since I'm honestly not sure if this is a free image or a non-free image. I think it is free since someone took the picture, but I think it is non-free since it includes a logo. However, either way, I do not think its use as a non-free image since it's intended purpose is

822:

This file is a video screenshot, used in two articles: one about an actor and one about his fictional character. Is this allowed? The guideline text "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" seems to imply it would only be allowed in commentary on the show or

1684:

That Quentin died in 1999 does not mean that no photographer has ever taken a photo of him that the photographer will never be willing to release under a suitable license, for surely such a photographer must exist. The death of the subject of a photo does not de facto that only a fair use argument

1193:

Assuming the base drawing of the jersey is from a free license source (it should be) , the markings on the jersey are too simple for copyright and the image should be free. However, I do see that they reference an external website for the source - this can be recreated by a WP in a free manner so it

413:

I see no way it could be used at East Texas (there's nothing about the shot that relates directly to the district/area). Maybe at Spacek if one can discuss her appearance in her younger days that a free image today might not be able to capture but that does require sourced commentary. I don't think

1767:

No, its the reason-ability. Someone who died in the last couple months, there may be a chance that there is a free photo out there, so there's a period after a person's death that we would not allow a non-free. But for someone dead in 1999, there is zero expectation that we can obtain a free image.

4277:

Seems to be a user-created montage of three separate images. No sources are given for the images other than Knowledge (XXG) articles. Seems to be an attempt to compare and contrast how the character appears in three different TV shows/films, but this is not the subject of sourced commentary within

3541:

above). The national teams of many countries, however, do use the same logo for all age-levels of competition and both men and women's team. Most of the official pages linked to for these teams will all show the same logo being used, so I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such

1933:

Point taken. In any case, the article now has a freely-licensed lead image of Mr. Crisp, licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 and with OTRS permission received and approved. The image under discussion here is no longer needed— a fair-use rationale for its existence isn't necessary and it seems can no longer be

5066:

to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the

4561:

Are military unit logos like this generally considered non-free or do they qualify as public domain? I've come across a few similar images which lack any source information other than to say, for example, "British Army" or "44 Regiment", etc. Sometimes I am able to find an official page where the

3061:

Any potential non-free usage as "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is undermined by the fact that there is an entire website called "catthatlookslikehitler.com" - it would be possible to find a different, licence-friendly cat that

1573:

to make a comment here. I would avoid using this image anywhere, just because it is too difficult to determine how, where and why to use it. I understand that the purpose for having the pic in the article is to show how the product is sold. (An to get a giggle, which I am all for.) Now, I took an

678:

Of the above, excluding the 92club and the River, these all should be PD-USonly (if outside the US) and PD-logo for those from within the US. The 92club one arguably is PD-USonly but I think the ball shape is a bit beyond simple, so I would treat it as non-free. The River has those lines in the

5828:

Is it possible that this could be considered too simple for copyright protection in the United States and, therefore, be OK as "PD-USonly". I am only asking to be sure before the image is removed from the child articles. The shield and the lettering appear generic enough; After all, text isn't

1504:. It seems that with these kinds of things that a nfur is not only needed for the copyrighted product label, but a free license is also needed for the photo. Since the article is about the company and not the product, I think it would be less problematic to simply use the logo on the company's 2122:

Does the free image serve essentially the same image as the "patch" per WP:NFCC#1? Assuming the image in the infobox is intended to serve as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in question, then I'm not sure why it has to be the "patch" that does that. Couldn't

5193:. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the stand-alone article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - 2631:

Not done. The only thing you seem to have done is that the painting now is mentioned in two of the articles. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the third article. There is still no sourced critical discussion about the painting's importance to the kind of art discussed in the section.

3741:

for the movie's article since it is used in part of the article where special effects are discussed. Use does not seem acceptable at all for the character article since the image itself is not being discussed and is simply being used to illustrate (rather poorly in my opinion) that

3867:

No, we do need an explicit source, you can't just say "Kingdom of Nepal". A non-link to a book or something comparable at minimum is necessary. Keep in mind if this is a coat of arms we should be able to make a free version based on the nature of uncopyrightable heraldy elements.

2406:

is also being used to provide essentially the same information. Granted the Commons image's licensing is questionable (I am going to ask for clarification at Commons VP), but for the time being it doesn't appear the the picture of the bottle of hot sauce is needed. There is also

1708:

Assuming that they are willing to compatibly license their photography and reachable for such a request, which is much harder to achieve than to take a photography of a living person or ask for a compatibly licensed one. In this case I would wait until a free image is actually

1365:, but I get the following error: "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Knowledge (XXG), you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it." 5271:

to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per

909:

since none of the logos were the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and their usage was mainly decorative. They've all been tagged as orphans, but I just would like some opinions on whether any their licensing could be changed to {[tl|PD-logo}},

1872:

be based on that unknown factor of human behavior when it comes to works they control the copyright of. Hence, no, until the moment you get this person's free license, the image above satisifies NFCC#1; once you get that free license, we have a replacement. --

443:. Image is not really essential to the discussion of Spacek's portrayal of Lynn or the impact it had on her career. For reference, this made the file an orphan so unless it's re-added somewhere with a valid non-free use rationale it will likely be deleted per 1057:

File is claimed under fair use as a TV screenshot used for identification or critical commentary on the program in question, but instead, the image is used to illustrate a biography of a living person, for whom it should be possible to obtain a free image.

2050:

because it makes no sense, at least to me, to have multiple images claiming to be the "primary means of identification". It might be possible to use the non-free ones later on in the article if they are the subject of sourced critical commentary per

1578:. Since they are a public service network it is sometimes forbidden to show logos much for the same reasons as here on the WP. Therefore logos are often blanked while the rest is showed. I have taken the liberty of making such a "delogolisation" 3628:. There is some discussion of the badges in the section and how they compare to another military badge, but none of the discussion is sourced. A "citation needed" can be added to the text, but not sure how that affects the use of the images. - 1474:

which says that a photo may include copyrighted elements as long as the copyrighted elements are not the central focus of the photo, such as capturing an image of a billboard in the background of a paronaric shot. This is clearly not such

1735:, emphasis added, being reasonable is key). Personally, I think searching for freely licensed existing photos before uploading a non-free one is reasonable, and this reasonable effort taken should be disclosed in the rationale (as 3150:

These arms are not, and never have been, those of the "Barony of Blackhall" (which shows every sign of being a fabrication or hoax). They are the arms of a certain Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, to whom they were granted in

2518:

it is not a member of a gallery and it is not clear that there is a free alternative. If a free image of this or another of Dubuffet's works becomes available, that image should be substituted on his article and this image

1600:"English: Most product packaging is copyrighted; images where copyrighted product packaging constitutes a major aspect of the image are not allowed on Commons. Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use of such images. 3454:. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is being used purely for "decorative" purposes. Use of images does not seem to satisfy 480:

Most files are not original enough to be copyrighted according to the discussion and have been retagged as PD-USOnly or PD-Logo depending upon whether they are US logos or not. Some files were kept as non-free.

3955:

Marchjuly I agree with you and as I have some Nepal books did not see anything like this there to give us any clues. It may of course be so old it will not appear online. I will look at some other literature.

1685:

must be resorted to in order to represent them, as the copyright holder is not the person in the photograph but the photographer (when all of THOSE are dead, we will have the basis of a fair use argument!) .

2595:

Non-free removed from user page; for the other pages, if it is an important work, then it should be able to be sourced and discussed in that manner on the pages about the types of paintings to meet NFCC#8.

3929:. The image is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification for the article, and it is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article so it does not seem to meet 3077:

Given the number of such images on the website in question, the likelihood of getting a free image of a cat that looks like Hitler is very high (they're unusual but not rare or elusive). Fails NFCC#1. --

5621:

The uploader of this image says that the depiction of the 18th century boat is from a 19th century book. This probably means the depiction is actually in the public domain (published before 1923/1946).

4466:

since the only statement regarding the image is unsourced and simply says "A special lapel badge, seen alongside, was presented to every learner and educator to be worn during the anniversary year." -

4984:

since logo is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the section. The only (indirect) mention of the logo is "The team's colors were green and yellow." However, the logo has a nfur for

2099:

I would be in favor of this image (and all other images of similar to the Chicago Police logo) being removed from Knowledge (XXG) as long as the Chicago Police patch image I uploaded remains though

390:

from the plot section of the article and someone questioned me about it on my talk page. It does have a fair use rationale for this article that I feel it not valid, but the image is also used in

2558:

in the articles in which contain the word 'painting': the picture is used in a gallery format and isn't critically discussed there. Pointing at the article about the painter should be enough, see

2352: 704:. Do you think the line (representing the image of a "mountain") is too simple to be treated as non-free? I'm only asking because the concept is similar to what is done in The River's logo. - 5829:

copyrightable and shield is considered a heraldry element, right? The volleyball image, however, is something I'm not too sure about. Is this generic enough to be considered "utilitarian"? -

1611:

In some cases the package itself is copyrighted (such as perfume bottles or wine bottles), but this is a very generic packaging, so sans logo the pic should work to use in the article. IMHO.

5586: 3542:

cases. I've removed some similar logos in the past per No. 17, so I would just like a little more clarification. I can re-add the logos if there use is actully considered acceptable. -

2283:

with a "star" image added to represent "police". Since the seal is "PD", maybe this is as well. If that's the case, then the Commons version could be undeleted and this one deleted per

2141:, but still seems sufficient to identify the organization. As I said above, the patch could be used later on in the article as part of a discussion of its elements or significance per 3643:

Nothing in the text requires visual representation of the badges (it doesn't impact the reader's understanding). If necessary, one could add mention how they are based on the medical

5074:

Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the

1174:. All of the other images are taken from Common and this is the only one licensed as non-free. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I am not sure if use is OK per 2156:. I've tagged that as a copyvio because it doesn't seem to be "own work", but (a big but perhaps) if it survives, then the non-free version would not be needed again per NFCC#1. -- 3490: 4548:

which does not look to be an official website of either the unit or the British Army. Is the above website OK to use as the source of the image or should the image be tagged as

2213:("the patch") should probably be limited to its NFCR thread from here on to keep everything in one place and so that this thread can be closed and archived when appropriate. -- 1449:

to identify the company, but a logo by itself would suffice to do that; and, if it is to identify the subject of the article, its current placement in the article is incorrect.

3679: 2713:. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 3934: 5314: 5231: 5130: 5026: 4940: 4858: 4768: 4686: 4604: 4504: 4422: 4320: 4241: 4163: 3689: 3584: 3414: 4085: 4003: 3500: 3316: 2921: 2836: 2758: 2673: 5410: 3852:. Isn't "The logo may be obtained from XXXXX" just the default text the template adds when no source is provided? Is that acceptable as a "source" for an image? - 3792: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4988:

which redirects to the current article. Maybe at one time there was a stand-alone article for the old team, but not sure how that logos current non-free usage. -

4040: 1340:

This is an allowable use of the logo; you should be able to go to the "Upload File" link to the left of the Knowledge (XXG) screen and follow the Wizard there. --

5067:

article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per

2209:

Commons version of the file has been deleted as a copyvio and the non-free version has been tagged as an orphan. Further discussion about the non-free use of

2420: 4153: 2498: 554: 718:

It's just at the edge that I think would fall under the originality threshold, but maybe we should play it safe on that one and treat as non-free too. --

2663: 2055:, but not in the infobox. For reference, this type of usage seems to be used in articles about police departments of other major American cities (see 782: 3933:

required by the NFC. Image's caption simply says "Royal arms", but there's no indication at all if this is the version adopted as a replacement for

2446:, but its not clear whether the uploader of the image actually took the photo of the image or got it from somewhere else. Does that even matter? - 4372:. Image appears to be shared by all three companies, but slightly different versions of the image can be found on the relevant official websites ( 1171: 3400: 2411:

on Commons which seems to be the essentially the same image and was uploaded by the same editor on about an hour later exactly the same day. -

832: 4562:

image is used, but sometimes I am only able to find blogs or forum pages where the image is used. How should such images be dealt with per

1551: 47: 17: 5667: 5623: 5471: 4203:. Neither image is the subject of any critical commentary within the article and each seems to have been added for decorative reasons.- 1718: 1088: 982: 800: 755:

The licensing of all these logos (excluding the three which are to remain non-free) has been changed accordingly per this discussion. -

490: 310: 124: 3885:

Understand. I will continue to try and find a link and will ask the uploader if they remember where they originally found the image. -

2124: 5376: 3570: 2280: 1590: 2958: 2408: 5714: 5182: 2361:

Closing discussion as original rationale no longer applies: all other referenced replacements in this discussion have been deleted.

2046:

I don't think there's a need for three images (even three free images) in the infobox, and the use of the two non-free seem to fail

1818: 1756: 572: 224: 3164: 2064: 1889:"Coercion"?? Really? I mean, I get your point, and even agree with it... But I never held a gun to anyone's head. I swear. 1065: 701: 584: 3574: 2287:. Even if it's not, the fact that the seal is PD seems to mean that free equivalent of the non-free logo could be created per 3197: 3013: 1407: 2443: 5616: