Wikipedia:Fair use review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:FUR redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.
Shortcut:
WP:FUR

The Fair use review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether images tagged as fair use are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.

Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. The policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

[edit] How to nominate

Please follow these steps to nominate an image for a fair use review:

  • Add the {{fairusereview}} template to the image.
  • Start a new section with level 1 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the image as the header title.[1] For example: == [[:Image:ImageNameHere]] ==
  • Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFCC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated.
  • Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ To nominate multiple images in one section, title the section "Multiple images" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all images are linked in your comments.

edit guidelines

On Wikipedia we have a considerable number of non-free images. Many of these images should not be on Wikipedia. This is because fair use is a specific legal doctrine that requires consideration of several factors:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Note that since the validity of fair use depends on the use of the image, and since the {{fairuse}} tag is deprecated, there should not be any images in Category:Fair use images directly; all should be in an appropriate subcategory (typically via the use of a different template).

Archive
Archives

1. March 2006–July 2007
2. August 2007–December 2007
3. January 2008–Present

Contents


[edit] Useful tags

  • {{fairusereview}} – to mark questionable images for review
  • {{subst:dfu}} – to actively dispute fair use claims
  • {{reviewedfairuse}} – to mark images which have been independently reviewed and deemed likely to be fair use
  • {{subst:rfu}} – for images which could be reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives.
  • {{Non-free reduce}} – for large images which should be reduced in size and/or quality.
    • {{subst:furd}} – for images which have been reduced in size/quality and have previous versions which require deletion. (Also for non-free images replaced by free images.)
  • {{subst:or-fu}} – for orphaned fair use images that have not been replaced.
  • {{subst:or-fu-re|Image:Image.ext}} – for orphaned fair use images that have been replaced by a free image
  • {{subst:frn}} – for images without a fair use rationale listed (for images uploaded after May 4 2006)
  • {{subst:nsd}} – for images without a source listed
  • {{subst:nld}} – for images without a licence listed
  • {{non-free}} – for articles with problematic non-free content

[edit] Image:Dave_Brown's_Goya_Ariel_Sharon.jpg

Probably fair use in Dave Brown (UK cartoonist), given that this particular image is by far the most significant aspect of Brown's notability. However, I contend that it clearly fails WP:NFCC as used in Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where it is used as a mere example of disputed commentary on the issue and could very easily be replaced with some other example. It is an image whose subject happens to be a war, which has not achieved iconic status as a representation of the war, used to illustrate an article on the war. In any case, an editorial cartoon is not "media coverage". <eleland/talkedits> 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it fails NFCC#8 in articles not about the artist (or the cartoon itself). – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vpw fairgame.jpg

Rationale for book cover featuring a photograph of Valerie Plume reads:

The webpage for the book at its publisher's website Simon Says (cited in External links in the article on the book) features this book cover; it appears to be within fair use to post the image of the book cover in Wikipedia articles discussing the book and in the infobox in Valerie Plame, an article in which the book is discussed. The website features a notice of copyright to Simon and Schuster. Further information about the book is in the article on the book and in Valerie Plame in a section on the book. No specific photographer is credited for the image used in the book cover on the Simon and Schuster website. (The same cover image is being used in sites like Amazon.com and other book publishers sites in featured information about the book.) The webpage features the following notice: "Copyright ©1997 - 2007, Simon & Schuster, Inc. ... All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form." The book was published on October 22, 2007, and thus its promotional cover photograph is "Copyright © 2007 Simon & Schuster, Inc." as provided in the caption.

I can't believe this rationale is sufficient to cover the use of the book cover to illustrate the biographical article Valerie Plame, even though it purports to be. Just because a rationale is written doesn't mean its use is justified. In fact there is a free image Image:Valerie Plame at Brown.jpg which should probably be put in Commons and which is used later in the article. I therefore can not see there is justification for use of the book cover to illustrate what Valerie Plume looks like in her infobox, especially since she is living and it is clearly possible to photograph her. Purgatorio (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly fair use in the book article, clearly not fair use in the biographical article as it is replaceable by a free image of Plame. --Pak21 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have emphasised in my original request for review that it is only the biographical article I was requesting a query for - not the image per se. Purgatorio (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That "free image" had been placed in the biographical article in a place where it is chronologically irrelevant; I added material relating to the context and moved the photo to a proper chronological section. As far as the infobox image, it pertains directly to material in the lead of the article (it is not only a "biographical" article but also one that discusses the book imaged in the book cover photo; there is a considerably-detailed section about this book in the biographical article; the book is central to the article. The image was previously also in the section on the book in this (biographical) article on the topic "Valerie Plame" (aka Valerie E. Wilson, aka Valerie Plame Wilson, the author of the book in the cover image). The photo is pertinent to the article and used within fair use due to the content of the article. (I hadn't seen the "free image" before, but I have seen it now, and thus I have moved it to a more appropriate place in the article on this subject. --NYScholar (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The book cover is fair use in the book article, not in the biographical article. Especially not in the infobox of that article since there is a free content image available. Garion96 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The "free content" image is already in the article elsewhere; it was misplaced in a non-related section by the user who introduced it earlier; now it is in opposite where the ref. to Brown U lecture occurs (in the section on the book); the image of the book cover can be used once in this article pertaining to direct mention of the book: that occurs opposite the infobox in the lead. This image used to be in the section on the book but it was deleted from that section only so that it would not appear twice in the same article. I don't see any improvement of the article in removing it from the infobox and putting the Brown U image there instead of where the Brown U already is. One also needs to keep in mind the entire article. There have been no earlier complaints about the image in the infobox after the fair use rationales were developed for each use (proper Wikipedia policy format). --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The free image is in the infobox, which can hold any image which shows the person. It's not a non-related section, and it's not chronologically irrelevant; the lead is an overview of the entire article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Before rendering opinions on the use of this image in this particular article, please examine the editing history and the talk pages pertaining to the article and the image. It has a history that needs consulting. These opinions should not be stated in a vacuum. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Even after looking through the editing history and talk page for Valerie Plame, it's clear that this image can't be used in that article. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AKAMedicineheritage.jpg

We have a disagreement at the featured article candidacy for the article Alpha Kappa Alpha on whether this image can be used in the article under fair use. The image is of a pamphlet called "Women in Medicine," which is #4 in a series published by Alpha Kappa Alpha. The series is discussed in the article, but this specific pamphlet is not. Can it be used under fair use? Thanks! 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been resolved. miranda 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dexter Lehtinen.jpg

This is listed as a work of the federal government, although it's also indicated as a Florida state senate image. I don't belive that it's a work of the federal government, but I do believe it's a work of the Florida state government. The question is, are works of the Florida state government public domain? Corvus cornixtalk 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Some works of the California state government may be public domain (check the source website's copyright policy for details), and official acts of governments (laws and court decisions) are ineligible for copyright, but in general, works created by state governments are not. --Carnildo (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take a stand against m:copyright paranoia for U.S. state government works:

"[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and assembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." Henry H. Perritt, Jr., J.D. (1995) "Sources of Rights to Access Public Information" 4 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 179 (emphasis added.)

No U.S. state government has ever successfully enforced a copyright on any of their publications. They have never even tried. MB83 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was I being paranoid? I asked two question: is the claim that this is a federal government work true, and if it is a state work, is the public domain claim true? That's all I wanted to know, I didn't come here to be insulted. Corvus cornixtalk 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I offended you; no personal remark was meant. MB83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the response. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand there are a number of counter arguments avialible. For example it could be argued that state copyrights promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.Geni 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I would possibly be persuaded if there had ever been a case of a state trying to assert copyright. MB83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia does not accept "they will never take this to court" as a valid aproach.Geni 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That appears to be an essay by a law professor rather than a court opinion, and as such, has no legal force. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to commons:Template:PD-FLGov, this photograph falls under the definition of a public work and is in the public domain. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, {{PD-FLGov}} was depreciated here on the English Wikipedia and redirected to {{no license}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The rationale remains solid. It was redirected because, according to the edit summary, "in the few instances where this tag was used, it was consistently misapplied; we're better off without it (if and when a bona fide PD-FL image is found, it can be tagged as PD))". So, I guess, tag it as {{PD-because|[[:commons:Template:PD-FLGov]]}}. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If commons will accept the image, why not simply move it there? I tagged it for that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several images

Exiled Ambition (talk • contribs • count) and I disagree about whether a variety of images he's uploaded, relating to the Koei game Bladestorm are validly fair-use and/or replaceable fair-use in articles on the real-world personages represented (if that's the word) in the video game. The relevant images include Image:HenryV.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Image:Richemont.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Image:PrinceEdward.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Image:Fastolf.jpg‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). My rationale for tagging them disputed fair-use was "Non-free image being used to illustrate <foo> but this is not the subject of the image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2, numbers 2, 7 and 8 for analogous unacceptable uses." There's currently no free image in the Fastolf article, but the other three do have free images. Fair-use? If so, replaceable (or redundant)? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that these are needed. Trivia/culture sections in general are discouraged; nonfree images to illustrate them don't meet the "necessary" threshold of WP:NFCC#1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NotreDameFightingIrish.png

The image is rationaled for use on Notre Dame Fighting Irish and (poorly) on History of American football; however, the image is used on 17 separate articles. As a logo, I can appreciate its use in the former, but in the latter and all 15 other articles it's used as decoration and not discussed or necessary at all. Before I anger football .... fans, I thought to bring it up for discussion was the better part. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The image has been given two additional rationales by Phydend (talk · contribs) for articles Notre Dame Fighting Irish football and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham. They are rationaled essentially because they're in an infobox that sits in those articles, and eases identification moreso than words apparently. I disparage these rationales and uses as decorative and unnecessary, failing WP:NFCC#8 & #3a. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Same user, one more rationale for article Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Bob Davie; same decorative, unnecessary purpose. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mireill&Kirika.jpg

This image is used in two articles, in Mireille Bouquet with the rationale 'To illustrate Mireille and her partner Kirika' and in Noir settings, an article about the fictional world of the series, with no rationale at all. My concern with the first rationale is that the image seems more decorative than educational, especially as there are already several images of the character (and one of her partner) in the article. -Malkinann (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There do seem to be an excessive number of images on Mireille Bouquet. One, or at most two, should be enough to convey the character's appearance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The shot of her with the guns and the brunette, where they're both trying to kill each other, is a key turning point in the series, I've been assured. They're not all there to convey her appearance, although that's what most of the rationales state. -Malkinann (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:I10_House_on_Gryphon_Hill.jpg

I've also added a FUR for its use on Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons). Is that rational adequate? If not, what specific problems can I address on it? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:SJR6GreyspaceCover.jpg And I'd like comment on the use of this image in List of Spelljammer crystal spheres. Is there an issue with the rationale that warrants speedy deletion and removal, or would it be better to discuss it with other users? I believe the image at least shows the book where the material is described, so qualifies under fair use, but I'd like to see others opinions. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ddobox.jpg And this one too. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg

I am requesting fair-use review of Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg, which is used in only one article; the article in question is also subject of an active NPOV dispute. I am not disputing the fair-use rationale, but simply do not know whether the image is fair-use or not, and would like somebody who is better-versed in copyright law to look at this. Even better, if somebody well-versed in human rights law can assist with the NPOV dispute in Talk:Human rights in Israel, that would be nice too! 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mj.jpeg

Sickero (talk · contribs) uploaded the above image under both a PD license and a fair use license. I was asked to take a look and see which one it falls into, and I'm doubtful that this image falls under PD, because it wasn't made by the US federal government itself. It's currently orphaned; the article hasn't been created yet, so I've warned the user about that. A user with more experience with fair use images should take a look and determine the exact status of the image. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


but the image was made while the person was under a hold for us marshalls ( who are federal). he is bieng tried in federal court, so the picture was made for the federal goverment. as for not bieng in use i combined the second picture to make a mug that is bieng used on article mitchell johnnson the murderer. besides this is a booking photo ! if i cant use it remove paris hiltons booking photo.

Sickero (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wilf mott.jpg

This image is being used in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), an article about an upcoming episode of the British television series Doctor Who; it was screencapped from a trailer for the series, which will debut on April 5. Doubt has been expressed as to whether this constitutes fair use, specifically whether it satisfies NFCC #8, and the suggestion was made to list it here for discussion. --Bragen 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific doubt links: WP:ANI, Talk page poll. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly fails NFCC#8, almost certainly fails #1 and probably fails #3a as well. Black Kite 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"Clearly" passes NFCC #1 (it is unreplaceble) and #8. The image increases readers' understanding and that is sufficient enough to pass. #3a states "minimum", and 1 is the bare minimum. As the image comes from a trailer, it is by defenition promotional material (like a movie poster) which is listed explicetly in the list of permitted fair-use media. — Edokter • Talk • 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
#3a: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." One usage of copyrighted material is not the bare minimum. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It really does concern me that an admin should be trying to wikilawyer past a very clear policy point. WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Which part of the article would be difficult to understand if the image was removed? Black Kite 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the same statements as to follow at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)#Straw poll to gauge support; I'm repeating here for full coverage of discussion. This image and its usage fail the WP:NFCC on three specific stands I can see.

WP:NFCC#1 requires that the media be irreplaceable with prose; the characters presented are engaged in nothing that cannot be described otherwise, being "representative of the episode's plot as a whole" is a purpose best accomplished by a description of such. WP:NFCC#3a requires the media be used only if necessary; such necessity has not been established. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the media "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and have] its omission [...] be detrimental to that understanding;" I understand the article Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) well w/o the two caucasoids and their hats; sans the image, the article conveys exactly the same information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It does Follows #8, it explains the plot (Donna is searching for the Doctor) and it explains over the two past christmas specials that Donna and Wilt have encountered the Doctor separately, Wilt is obviously going to be the first person who tells Donna that the Doctor is back (He met him briefly in Voyage of the damned), the image is more appropriate than the image of Mrs Foster, only those who have watched the Sarah Jane Smith adventures on CBBC will know who Mrs Foster is, no one else will so this image is more understandable to those who have only watched Doctor who.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking my comment from the poll to here.. The article doesn't mention anything about the story of the relationship between those two. Fair use images can only be used in the context of commentary of the subject. No one has provided a satisfactory rationale to meet NFCC #8. NFCC #8 says that the image has to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and no one has provided a reason as to what text would actually be hard to understand if the image was removed. Unless you're a Doctor Who fan, unlike myself, they wouldn't understand what that screenshot is about, or understands why it is significant. In reply to the above "this image is more understandable to those who have only watched Doctor who", fair use images cannot be used to the extent of a single target audience only knowing what it is about. There has to be commentary within the context of the article and caption that reflects why it is significant. This screenshot nor the commentary tells the reader why that particular image of those people are significant to the episode. I hope you do realize that taking a single still-image from an episode of Doctor Who and putting it in the infobox of the episode doesn't meet fair use by itself. In that case, yes, if other images are being used like that, they should be removed. — Κaiba 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) It seems to me that your description there serves the same purpose as you purport the image to. What more does the image significantly contribute to the article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The image fails #1, since it is replaceable by free content. Free content is not only images. If simple text would suffice with no images at all used, the image is replaceable, I have seen no reason to believe that a textual description of the work's plot would be sufficient to understand it with no image at all. It therefore also fails #3a (one image is used when no image at all would suffice), and finally fails #8 (no argument has been presented as to how this image's presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, or how such understanding would suffer if it were replaced by descriptive text.) It therefore is not acceptable use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press Kit fair usage in general/Image:Lena.jpg

I am curious about the usage of a press kit. I have started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_of_press_kit. I am wondering about the fair usage of a press kit when free usage licensing has been denied. A picture previously claimed under fair use (Image:Lena.jpg ) has been found to be in said press kit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking if you can still claim fair use on a photo that appears in a press kit? The answer is yes, if you have a proper rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case, I'm not convinced that there is a strong rationale for using the photo. There are already numerous examples of Gair's work on the article, and the text of this section is just as clear without the illustration. The goal is to have the minimum necessary amount of nonfree material in each article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the same point of view. The existing images appear to be more than adequate depictions of Gair’s work. What significant understanding would additional images contribute (NFCC#8) above and beyond what is already there (NFCC#3A)? I’m unclear whether the models do runway work, but, if they do, that might be cause to reasonably expect that free images could be obtained (NFCC#1). By the way, from the FUR: "style of Salvador Dalí"? Cut and paste? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Gair's models do not do runway work because she can only produce one or two body paintings a day and it would be difficult to do a show with one woman and one "outfit" as it were.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .org image

Can I use and image from a not for profit organization such as found at http://www.cfr.org/publication/8142/john_edwards_and_jack_kemp_cochair_council_task_force_on_russianamerican_relations.html to depict Jack Kemp. The WP:GAC on hold reviewer wants more images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific image in mind? I don't know that a determination can be made based on the organization alone. NFP is merely a legal classification and shouldn't have bearing on the copyright status of images produced by the organization (i.e. images would be expected to be copyrighted). Frankly, there are already several images in the article that I suspect fail fair use and, as we all know, neither GA nor FA requires any images whatsoever; that's not a valid reason for hold. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes the specific one is the one seen at the link in the question with Kemp and Edwards. I have not uploaded it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ramones album cover.jpg

I do not believe this is a justifiable fair use at punk rock. I routinely remove album covers where they are being misused as I believe this one is. In this case the fair use images have been removed several times and restored by one editor. I would like to see some further input to determine if I am being over-strict in my interpretation of policy. I just don't see this image as being essential to illustrate the article, and neither is Image:Wirepinkflagcover.jpg in my view being used appropriately in this article. --John (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is decorative use. There's no point to the album cover. If someone is interested in the album cover, they can go the album's article and see it there. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Invasion of the Bane.jpg

Clearly decorative; the moment illustrated is not a key moment and anyway, one person giving an orange bottle to another can be easyily described with words... oops, I just did! The rationale is therefore flawed. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally uploaded this image and I agree that it's not essential to the article. It should be deleted, and I've previously requested so too. Matthew (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could do a G7 CSD? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the criteria for G7 as multiple users have edited the image/page. Matthew (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to note: The article is currently listed as Good article, and the image also recently survived an IfD; I don't think G7 can still be applied in that case. — Edokter • Talk • 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... but I can describe it with words, though. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why a G7 request wouldn't be honoured, and I also see nothing to disallow it. Matthew (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An image transparently replaceable with GFDL text, and the estimable Matthew requested deletion into the bargain. Gone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kirby hobo festival.jpg

Resolved. Deleted by East718 as failing fair use criteria as replaceable. Metros (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Being used to illustrate Kirby, Texas, and not an article about the hobo festival. Is this proper fair use? Corvus cornixtalk 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no article about the festival. It is placed where the festival is discussed in the article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the image is of interest because it is for the "first" annual festival. I think this is the best way to depict the occurrence.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is because it adds nothing to the article. There is no critical commentary on the poster at all nor does the poster provide critical commentary on the event/city. I'd definitely say this is a violation of fair use. Metros (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it does. It is the "first" annual festival. I think it adds alot to this small article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What kind of commentary does that provide? The poster simply advertises the event. Metros (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at the poster. It shows all the events that the festival entails. It shows all that the festival is about and it verifies it. It also is of historical interest for the city.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you simply write a list of those events in text within the article? Yes. Can it be backed up with sources? Yes. Therefore, the poster in unnecessary because it can reasonably be replaced with text alternative (a list of the events). Metros (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The historical interest cannot be replaced.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The historical interest is in the event, not the poster representing the event. Metros (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to go back and forth with you. Are you having another bad day? The poster representing the event has historical interest that cannot be replaced and therefore fulfills fair-use.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Historical interest" is not a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy_2 for the policy. Metros (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll direct you to Images#8.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think that "Hobo day" posters are iconic or anywhere close to the intended purpose of this guideline. Also note that the guidelines says they have to be used as the subject of commentary. There is no relevant commentary about the poster in the article and none is possible. Metros (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the second part of the link of "historical importance". Commentary on the poster is in the description, and the body of the article comments on what the historic poster represents: The "first" annual hobo festival. Use is legitimate within the guidelines of fair-use.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The people who made the poster would likely not care about its use here, nor this discussion, instead being proud and gratified that their event was being featured in an article about the town in which it took place, on the eighth most visited website in the world. Badagnani (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot use others' copyrighted materials because we think they won't care and will be proud. Metros (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a mimeographed flier for a public event, not "copyrighted materials." Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless they specifically released copyright, Wikipedia must assume that it is copyrighted. In addition, anybody could go to the festival and take pictures, and those would be much more informative than the flyer. Corvus cornixtalk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A photo cannot capture the entire event, and at this point that is a purely hypothetical position considering the event is in 3 weeks.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This poster doesn't capture the entire event either. Not sure how this is an argument that a poster would be better than a photo of the actual event. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact the event hasn't even happened yet makes fair use claims of the poster of the event extremely dubious under law. This is a clear violation. When the event happens, a wikipedia editor can go take a photo of the event, making this image replaceable. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We should try to get a free image of the actual festival. There's no reason I can see to include the (mostly-text) flier for the event. Many, many towns have similar carnivals, festivals, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact is the hypothetical image does not, and will not exist. This image cannot be replaced and a clear rationale has already been given. Fair use is clear under Images#8 as already discussed.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It can readily be replaced by an image taken at the festival. There's no crying need to have the poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody will, and the poster would be better anyway. A photograph can only capture one aspect.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Presuming that no wikipedia editor with a camera will be at the festival is not a justification to permit fair use. For example, we do not permit fair use images of living people since it is possible to obtain free imagery, even if free imagery does not currently exist. Same applies here. You seem to have an interest in the subject. Perhaps you can attend with a camera? With free imagery, there's no restriction on the number of images. I'm sure we can display a few on the Kirby, Texas article and host an entire gallery if we like on Commons. Such a gallery would certainly convey an awful lot more information and detail than a simple textual poster could ever convey. I.e., the poster is eminently replaceable and is not acceptable under fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

Should this be deleted now? It appears that there's consensus to do so with only the uploader supporting its existence. Metros (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true. Look at the discussion again and you will see I am not the only editor "supporting its existence".--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the only other support I see is a person who says that this isn't copyrighted, but it is. Metros (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So in other words, their opinion is useless.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Less 'useless' than 'in error'. I concur it should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Then use the proper forum, this isn't IFD.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't an improper forum. Please see the top of this page. We decide here if it's appropriate fair use or not, and whether it complies with WP:NFCC. images that do not are subject to deletion. If we decide (and it appears we have) that the image does not pass fair use requirements, then failing it means it gets a tag such as {{rfu}} or {{orfud}} since it will be removed from the article, which according to WP:IFD is inappropriate to list there. There's no need to start another discussion on it's appropriateness to Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is in dispute.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • With no objections other than the original uploader, I'm removing it from the article and marking the image for deletion. Uga Man, if you have an interest and can attend, please take a camera to the hobo festival and upload some free license imagery from it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There are objections. This discussion has not come to a conclusion. It would make more sense for you to place the image at IFD and abide by the decision there, rather than doing it unilaterally without a clear consensus. The fair use rationale is valid from mine and other's standpoint. From what I see, you and Metros (who strongly dislikes me) are the only editors who think this image should be deleted.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This image fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and a consensus is not needed for it to be deleted. If it fails, it fails. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not fair use in Kirby, Texas because it can adequately be replaced by a photo of the event itself. --Carnildo (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UCL2007Final.jpg

I really dont see this as meeting WP:NFC#8, I can't seen many people confusing the article with that of another football match if the non-free image is ommitted Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The default case is to permit logos for companies, events, etc. I don't agree with this stance, but that's the current climate here. The image is clearly replaceable. How about a fan pic from one of the events? That's be more interesting than the dull, informationless logo. I similarly think that articles like McDonald's do not need the corporate logo for a person to understand the article when an image of one of the storefronts, such as this, would do just as well and be considerably more free of rights concerns. But, the culture that's developed here is to accept fair use images until people like you and I become contortionists to develop a reason an image should be removed, and do it every single time we remove an image. Who said we had a m:mission? Who said we had a m:vision? Who said we had a resolution? Bah! Ignore those! This is en.wikipedia the world's largest repository of copyrighted imagery! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason it is legitimate is that it adds valuable information to the article, to show how the tournament was marketed vis a vis its logo, which can be compared and contrasted with previous tournaments. English WP has always been a free-content project; it has never been, nor sought to be, a free-content-only project. Once you realise that, you are led to a rather different understanding from Hammersoft's of the documents cited in the comment above. Hammersoft may not like it (though he seems not always able to explain why not [1]), but it's how it is, and how the Foundation seems entirely content for it to be. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the characterization of me. Perhaps I can add one for you? Would you like that? Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, please keep discussion germane to the image, its use in this article and policy. We're not here to discuss or make presumptions about fellow editors. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Was merely trying to express why I thought Hammersoft's rant oratorical excursion was misguided. Anyhow, as he says, use of the logo in the article is seen as entirely appropriate, by common consensus. Jheald (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And now I'm ranting? That's what, the third personal attack against me by you today? Cease and desist. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we need to duplicate advertising materials in the infobox. Our role is not to promote or advertise the game, after all. The article doesn't make any claims that the marketing was particularly innovative, notable, or interesting. I don't see that the reader understands the game any better by seeing the promotional poster for it, so I would say this use fails NFCC#8. The (free) photo of the opening ceremony would be a good replacement photo for the infobox, so the image also seems to fail NFCC#1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This image certainly seems a lot more useful than a logo that conveys nothing more than the date and location of the event, which is already detailed in the info box anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] These Logos

These images fail wp:nfc, replaceable and convey little information

Fasach Nua (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would contest that those logos are not decorative on their respective FA's articles. The logo of a national FA is as important as a club's logo. – PeeJay 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Absoloutely there is no reason to have club logos either, the national teams are bit easier to deal with as they have an obvious replacement Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#1, you are correct the club logos do fail Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#8, and should also be removed, a point well raised. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you completely doolally? National teams don't have a free alternative as an identifier. If you mean the nation's flag, then that only helps to identify the nation, rather than the nation's national football team. As for club logos failing criterion #8, I don't see why that is. For most clubs, the club badge is integral to their history, and the inclusion of the logo allows a visual accompaniment to the history of the badge. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Most international teams fly flags over their stadiums, the badge is just one of many ways they identify themselves, if you want a really solid way to identify the team, why not use the country code? If you were on an article, say Austria national football team, and it didnt have the logo, do you really think many readers need a corporate logo to identify it, I think including "national football team" in the name goes along way to helping people to identify the team, I cant even think what you could possibly misidentify these teams as. If the club logo is discussed, put it in the section discussing it, putting it in an infobox makes people think it is okay to abuse copyrighted materials on WP, which it isnt. However I am only interested in sorting out the international teams at this point in time Fasach Nua (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
National team crests are not the same as flags, and they convey more complex and accurate information than a simple flag would. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are not the same as flags, flags are used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, they are free and meet the criteria for inclusion, does the use of non-free crests meet the criteria for inclusion? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fairly explicitly. "Team and corporate logos: For identification." It's a team logo, quite simply. matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In short, there are no images anywhere in the world that could better represent these national teams than their respective logos. I'm fairly sure Fair Use policy allows the use of these logos in cases such as this, provided that we don't go overboard and start using the logos willynilly about the place. One use on the national team's article isn't going to hurt anyone. – PeeJay 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It may not hurt anyone, but it does hurt the wikimedia foundation, as their use pushes the goal of a free encylopedia further away. I do not accept your statement that there are no images that can better represent a team, certainly organisations like FIFA and UEFA are content to use national flags, and they have a certain ammount of experience in th world of international Soccer Fasach Nua (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
National FAs should be viewed in the same way as companies. I doubt very much that anyone would argue against the use of the McDonalds logo or the Nike logo on their respective articles, so why argue against the use of national football association logos. – PeeJay 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem removing logos from WP, I haven't come across a single one that is necessary, (although that is not to say there aren't any). There are soccer articles that dont use a logos such as Ireland, Saarland Scotish history, and they are perfectly fine articles. There is no doubt the articles look better with logos, but they are just there for decoration, and serve to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The examples you picked are dubious at best. A historical team which presumably doesn't have an easily tracked down image, a non-sanctioned regional team, and a historical article on a team, for which fair use wouldn't be applicable. Your argument is not really strengthened by pointing that out. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that FIFA is the world governing body for soccer, and the fact Saar and Ireland are both recognised by FIFA, is generally enough sanction for most people. Ignoring your issues with FIFA, and indeed the original motivation behind not including copyrighted materials. The main thing to note with these three articles are they are about international football teams, and the reader is able to easily identify them without having to resort to copyrighted images, if it is possible to write completely free articles around these teams, it is possible with any team. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What? My issues with FIFA? I never said Ireland wasn't recognized by FIFA. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at. Fair use EXPLICITLY ALLOWS team logos. So I'm not sure how this is possibly a discussion. The FA emblems serve as team logos. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. It's all well and good that you want free images, but you can't decide to suddenly go around deleting any image that you want, even if it clearly meets fair use license requirements. matt91486 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with matt. This entire discussion is completely ill-founded. – PeeJay 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This is way off base. It is a well established practise with accepted rationale here to use logos in an appropriate manner where it suits. "Defeat the purpose of Wikipedia"? C'mon. I hardly see it's impending collapse. And ultimately the purpose is to inform people and share knowledge. Why in the world should the primary virtue be to bulldoze it flat into a sterile landscape of sameness? Canada's football team. Canada's hockey team. Canada's curling team. Canada's baseball team. Canada's basketball team. Canada's basketball team. That does not inform or teach. It numbs. It causes confusion. It sucks the joy out of learning and exploration. It even smacks of a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation. The argument here is based on a narrow and close-minded interpretation of the rules that flies in the face of accepted practise. A no logos approach is extreme and while the use of logos may not suit your personal taste its been clearly demonstrated that the use of logos is accepted here through a concensus bound by its own specific rules and policies which cannot simply be ignored. Get past the wikilawyering and the copyright paranoia and adopt a common sense approach. I'm sure that if the threat to Wikipedia from logos was so serious we would see prompt and deliberate action taken. In the mean time a deeper understanding of the spirit of this place might be helpful. Wiggy! (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "well established practice" is not a valid reason, the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and to use replaceable free images is the antethisis of the goal of the organisation. To add non-free content to avoid a "sterile landscape" is unacceptable, the use of non-free content is based on neccessity, not decorative value. As for your accusations of "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" would you also level these accusations at FIFA who demand the uses of these free images to represent the teams at every sporting event they partake in? Your final barrage of cliches, is well off topic, address the issue rather than anattempt an illthought out attempt at undermining the person that raised it. I absoloutely agree on one point, a deeper understanding of this place is essential. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos should not be removed from articles on clubs, companies, etc., period; they clearly serve as an important identifier of the respective organisation. —Nightstallion 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos here is a well-established practice "with its own rationale" that is "bound by its own specific rules and policies" - I'd think that would make it valid (and no cherry picking). The use of logos is legitimate and its unfair to ignore that and try to impose your own POV on their use, because what you've put forward amounts to little more than that. The use of non-free content is accepted here under specific conditions and that seems to escape you. You might want to go have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content which accommodates the use of logos and other useful bits that can legitimately add something to the landscape.

And why would I level accusations of any sort at FIFA? That's got nothing to do with anything here. It's a red herring argument you've dragged out more than once. You're not getting any takers, give it up, or go get it properly sorted out in a broader context. Wiggy! (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you quoting yourself? it is just bizare, using quotes from yourself to back your own argument is an unhelpful approach. Wikipedia:Non-free content does not accomodate the use of non-free content that "add something to the landscape", it accommodates necessity, non-free content is only used if it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and there is "No free equivalent", these logos fail both these tests.
You havent addressed the issue, why is the use of flags to represent international football teams a "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" if done of wikipedia, but if FIFA does this at every' football international it is not? As for a broader context, this has been clealy dealt with, and is already documented in Wikipedia:Non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I quoted myself because you conveniently left out relevant bits of my comments when you quoted me. Take the whole point, not just what suits you. If you do that I won't have to be repeating myself to you.
Wikipedia:Non-free content accomodates the use of non-free content and specifically addresses the use of logos. Policy, guideline and consensus all support the use of logos. You appear to be deliberately ignoring that. Refer to 2.1.3.2 Acceptable use/Images/Logos. Then follow that to the guideline on the use of logos and understand that, while there is some debate about their use, it is acceptable to use them and that use is supported by concensus. That addresses the issue directly and anything else is your POV and unnecessarily pointy editing.
You have also misapprehended the meaning of "no free equivalent" in this context. Logos are intended for team identification. It is usual that they are owned by the team and are protected. The guideline for logo use acknowledges this and recognizes that there is no free equivalent for a logo. Given that the use of the logo is acceptable, ignoring that and trying to substitute a national flag or country code is unnecessary and insisting on it in the face of policy and guideline boils down to deliberately attempting to spread misinformation.
The use of sports team and other logos is clearly acceptable through policy, guideline, and consensus. If you continue to ignore that to push a POV built around a misunderstanding of the current non-free content policy your edits come down to being nothing but acts of vandalism. Either get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view of the world or leave this go.
Finally, this needs to be sorted out through discussion, not through inconsiderate and aggressive editing. It is inappropriate for you to stalk me through my contributions to delete images to suit your view when a discussion is still in progress. I don't particualrly appreciate the attempt to browbeat me. Wiggy! (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of logos must still comply with wp:nfc, ragardless of the additional guidelines in their use. The guidelines make no referenece to national football team. There is no blanket policy allowing a
As for the demand "get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view", this celarly supports my view, the prable states "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content", these logos still fail criteria #3 & #8. Neither of these issues have been addessed, and the wp:nfc is the consensus view.
You will have to cite how I am brow beating you over this issue. I note you have undone my cleanup of various German football articles in clear opposition to wp:nfc, for which I have issued you with warnings over your conduct. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me that these articles were in full conformance with wp:nfc, notably the section explicitly addressing logos. Showing the historic logo of a team is valid and encyclopedic use. There is no evidence of consensus to support the interpretation you're taking - in fact rather the opposite. Wiki-etiquette is Bold-revert-discuss. You have not followed that path. You have been requested to take this to talk, but instead have pushed your edits again. That looks like disruptive editing. Fasach Nua, please don't do it again until clear consensus for your edits has been established. Jheald (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The club logos should be kept. Else use for the American company, McDonald's. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The flag is used by the sports governing body to represent the local organisations, is there a similar policy implemented by the govening body of fast food to use thaa flag to represent McDonalds? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a question up for debate here. We use logos to represent companies, sports teams, etc. That's very well accepted and not something subject to case-by-case review. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of images uploaded as GFDL when fair use is expected

Here is a whole list of images uploaded by one user in the past week as GFDL, when I normally expect a fair use license. Not sure how to handle it, so I am posting it here. If this is the wrong place, please move it to talk or where it is appropriate. --Voidvector (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to talk to the uploader, and also find someone who can read the websites listed as sources for the photos. That person may be able to tell what the original source of the photos is, and what the copyright license is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the last image on this site is watermarked as a Getty image. My guess is that there are other nonfree images among these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carlsons.jpg

Is it appropriate to use this image on the Barechested article? Corvus cornixtalk 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also used in Masculinity, Beefcake, List of twins, Physical attractiveness and User:AnemoneProjectors/List of twins. Corvus cornixtalk 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the image is on commons (maybe it moved?), there isn't much we can review here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The use of this image can be reviewed here. Corvus cornixtalk 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For what? This isn't a fair use image. It's a GFDL image. This is fair use review. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jeremiah Wright July 1973 - First Vacation Bible School at TUCC.jpg

I don't think this image is particularly useful in either Jeremiah Wright or Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago (even less so in the latter). There is no need to see what he looked like in 1973, and neither article makes any point to mention his appearance. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's pretty hard for you to making that determination in a drive-by manner. You have to study the topic carefully and over time. Second, the article is not complete yet, just as the tags in it declare. Third, if one will read the TUCC article carefully, they'll see how the church underwent a transformation from Anglocentric Congregationalism to Africentric Black theology. When Wright arrived in 1972, near the date of the photo (very important, the date), Trinity was an Anglocentric black congregation and Wright's traditional Congregationalist garb, as in the photo, reflected that. Under his leadership, TUCC underwent a change to Africentrism...and his garb changed to reflect Africentrism (see photo here). This will be born out very clearly in the article as I complete the relevant section. Once I get done there, I'll turn to the Jeremiah Wright biography article and include the same info in a bit more detail. Ewenss (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I can only make a judgement on the article as it stands now since I do not have a crystal ball handy at the moment (and the Magic 8 ball is less-than-qualified to help). If you feel that it will legitimate use when the article is complete, then add the image at the appropriate time and then we'll revisit. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It already is legitimate use. Ewenss (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My own, humble, opinion is that there is no fair use in showing a 35-year old photo of a living person in religious clothes when it is already public knowledge that he was, at that time, a pastor of that particular church. What does it add to the article? It is not encyclopedic, because it does not increase readers' understanding of the articles. Cast your votes in the polling booth, please, for those who can, and leave U.S. elections to U.S. citizens. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:06-01-06 MLK speaker Jeremiah Wright.jpg should also be here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this again. Read the entire Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ, Chicago article. Then re-read what I wrote above. The point is to show the change in his garb as a sign of a dramatic historical shift n the church - a crucial point. Ewenss (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a crucial point which requires the use of copyrighted photographs of a living person. I have read both "articles", which is why I agree that the use of these images therein are multiple violations of WP:NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I always enjoy hearing the hollowness of that sort of thing from people who have not one substantial, meaty contribution in their whole history at Wikipedia. Ewenss (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. You are dealing with two administrators who have a lot of experience in dealing with the use of non-free images across many different kinds of articles. I'm not trying to pull rank, only pointing out that we have a good grasp of policy and the application of that policy. We don't need to know the intricacies of the church or Rev. Wright. May I point you to WP:NFCC item 1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer ... is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Twiggy promo.jpg

A lively discussion occurred regarding this image's use on the Twiggy article. The outcome of that discussion was that this image ended up being used in a subsection on that article, but I still believe this use violates our fair use criteria. I cite the following reasons:

  • Twiggy is as of this writing alive. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, use of an image of her for depiction purposes is replaceable. Therefore, this image can't be used only for depiction. If it's use is for purposes other than depiction alone, then it needs to pass all requirements of WP:NFCC. I don't feel it does, as listed further below.
  • No free equivalent available requirement: The proponent of this image claims an attempt was made to contact the rights holder with no response as of this time. An independent party should verify this. Perhaps it can be released under a free license. The question remains open. Regardless of the rights availability of this image, there may be other images of her that are free license and depict this style of modelling. We don't know, and no one has apparently tried. Further, even if one could not be found of her, another model displaying the same style could be used in replacement to note the influence Twiggy's appearance had on fashion. That could be done now, without having to rely on past photography. Even more, the image is not referenced in the article, only inferred as a demonstration of the look with "Known for the high fashion mod look created by Mary Quant, Twiggy changed the world of fashion with her short-haired androgynous look" In the prose of the article there's no connection to the image's importance. The image itself just says the image shows her at the height of her modelling career, not highlighting any particular aspect of the image.
  • Significance requirement: The image depicts Twiggy, but it's lack of connection to the prose makes it hard to understand how this image is significant to the article. For the phrase quoted above, the phrase itself covers the topic adequately. One does not need a picture of twiggy with short hair to understand that she had short hair in the image. One does not need a picture of twiggy in a then-current red dress to understand that she modelled fashion.
  • Image description page requirements: There is a rationale, but the rationale doesn't indicate what the purpose of the use of this image is, other than showing Twiggy at the height of her modelling career. I.e., depiction, once again failing the Foundation's requirements.

The proponent of this image insists that since there was a DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7) regarding this image, that it's use is acceptable. However, the Foundation's edict regarding the replaceability of images of living people passed into policy some months after February 7, 2007. This invalidates several arguments in the DRV. In sum, the image if used for depiction is clearly replaceable. If used for purposes other than base depiction of Twiggy, it's use is not significant and can likewise be replaced. I don't believe a case can be made that this image qualifies as fair use here. Others opinions? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the arguments presented at the original DRV here. Although this discussion took place prior to the issuing of the foundation policy, the arguments for it follow it strongly. This image is not used purely for depiction of Twiggy's current status, it is used to depict her in a very specific time period in the past. It is not reasonable to expect a freely licensed image of her from that period in the same way it is not reasonable to expect a freely licensed image of Syd Barrett. That she is alive now, is wholly irrelevant, and even given a freely licensed contemporary image of her in the article, I would argue for the continued inclusion of an image of her from the 60s. Replacing this image with a lookalike, would confuse and contribute a lot less to the understanding of the article. - hahnchen 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is obviously not as clearcut as Hammersoft has suggested, the Foundation Policy states "almost all portraits of living notable individuals", notice the word almost. This is one of the exceptions, an image of a living individual at a certain point in time, one that cannot be reasonably replaced with a free alternative. I have received a response from the Brian Aris archive, they have declined to release any of their works, even at a low resolution under a free license. - hahnchen 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the time period is so important to her career, then why is it barely mentioned? It is reasonable to expect a freely licensed image that displays the influence of her modelling career. That she is alive now is utterly relevant; you can not ignore Foundation policy on this. Lots of people attempt to make hay of the word "almost". In practice, it means never. The Foundation wrote that in because policies can not foresee all circumstances. Outside of historical photographs, no fair use images of living people have been allowed in biographies on those people, and the historical nature of this photograph is clearly replaceable. Even if you think it isn't, no attempt has been made to obtain free licensed imagery other than from Brian Aris. You could contact the rights holder to this image for instance. Or how about this one? Or how about this one from vintageglues.com? The list goes on and on and on. There's umpteen examples. We don't have to have this image. The article is clearly understandable without it, and the image is barely inferred (and not even directly referred to). The reality is this image doesn't depict something unique. It's just one of countless images from her modelling career. It's not iconic. It's just Twiggy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • From WP:NFC: Pictures of people still alive should be considered replaceable provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. It was Twiggy's ultra-thin look and style in the 1960s that "changed the world of fashion". Not her look and style today. IMO, by making visible what "iconic" look the article is referring to, that "changed the world of fashion", the image does indeed "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". (NFC #8). Yes, this photo maybe just one of countless images from her modelling career, rather than an iconic historic photo in its own account. But it passes the tests currently set out by WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And all a person has to do to replace the image is dress like her and do their hair/makeup like her in so many similar images of her. Poof...free image that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. It's replaceable alright. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think think that's very convincing. It was Twiggy, rather than however many thousands of other models and other girls of the time, who became an absolutely massive overnight icon. And she remained a unique icon, even when people started copying her look. So in an article about Twiggy, to help the reader understand the nature of the images of Twiggy - rather than anybody else - that had such huge impact, an image of anybody other than Twiggy really isn't going to serve the purpose. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The image itself isn't iconic. As I showed with a number of other images above, the look isn't unique to this photo. In fact, this image is actually pretty hum drum. As for the look itself, it wasn't even created by her. It's not 'her' look. You can dress anybody up that way for the 'look'. That it's Twiggy isn't important, unless you want it for depiction purposes which violates Foundation dictum. The image is flatly replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This image isn't iconic, but per policy it doesn't have to be. The 1960s image of Twiggy (including her 1960s figure and 1960s face) was iconic. This picture lets the reader see what that image was, and therefore understand the fact better; in a way that an image of anybody else wouldn't achieve. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The image isn't iconic, the look was, her face at the point in time was. It is used to depict Twiggy at a certain point in time,
  • By the way, the comparison to Syd Barrett is faulty because (a) Syd's dead, and (b) there is free imagery of him from that time. See Image:Threatened by shadows at night (187465667).jpg, which is now on the article in place of the non-free Image:Syd.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The point isn't over whether the subject is dead or not, but whether it is reasonable to obtain a freely licensed image dating back x number of years. Contacting every single person who owns a license to an image of classic Twiggy is unreasonable, in the same way that contacting everyone who owns a license to an image of Jeff Buckley is unreasonable. Following your reasoning above, by not contacting an exhaustive list of license holders, we could not use fair use images in articles of deceased persons. We're discussing an image here, so its obviously used to depict something, in this case, it is Twiggy's appearance in the 1960s, this does not fail the foundation resolution. And for the issue of whether the image could be replaced with a free equivalent? Not unless you have a time machine, as voiced in the DRV. - hahnchen 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I am sympathetic to the generic argument that some models, actors, band members, etc., who are famous primarily for a particular image cannot fairly be represented by a free photograph of them taken decades later, I simply don't think this is the case here. First, Twiggy Lawson is not only very much alive, her career is too as is her enduring notability - it is not crucial to show her as a young twig to describe who she is. Second, she continues to be model-handsome in her middle age, and rather svelte. A modern picture will show her at the top of her game still. Third, the promo image in question does not really show her to be unusually thin for a model. There are others that do[2] but not this one. We do not need this illustration to prove or conceive of a thin model. Finally, we should take a cue from some other websites. Her official page,[3], a fansite,[4], and even Askmen.com[5] illustrate who she is with a contemporary image. If a picture of an older twiggy is good enough for Askmen (which is more concerned about looks and less about copyrights than us), it's probably good enough for Wikipedia. The argument in favor of the image is reasonable, I just don't think it fits here. Wikidemo (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe all of the above (i.e. Wikidemo's edit) to be entirely irrelevant. Twiggy's 1960s look has a very high cultural significance and is the most frequent subject of references to her. It is hard to depict or describe it in any other way then presenting a period photo. I see fair use here as firmly justified. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you can argue for the photo in an article about the cultural significance of 1960s pop icons (and probably find plenty of free photos there). But this is a bio article about Twiggy Lawson the person, not Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon. Obviously, many sites (including her own, and askmen, and her fansite) would dispute the contention that one cannot depict Twiggy Lawson the person with a new photo.Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But appreciating Twiggy the 1960s phenomenon is arguably an essential part of understanding the history and subsequent career of Twiggy Lawson the person. It is not being argued that this picture or a picture like it represents the only possible picture of Twiggy Lawson; rather it is being argued that this picture significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ideally the article would have both a 1960s picture and a (free) picture of Twiggy as she is today. Jheald (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's arguable and a fair point, it's just my personal opinion that one's understanding of the topic is not sufficiently increased. It's inherently subjective because different people take different things out of an article. Your mileage may vary. Wikidemo (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Uncle arthurflip.JPG

As I said when I thought the image was replaceable, the article Paul Lynde already contains non-free image Image:Lynde1973.jpg and the images look basically the same, this second image seems unnecessary and purely illustrative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sofi Collis.jpg

Images of living persons are not eligible for fair use under Wikimedia standards. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Black Knights images

The use of these images fails WP:NFCC#8: None of the uses of these images significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic, and their omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The use is essentially decorative.

The use also fails WP:NFCC#1: There are free images already on the pages which serve the same encyclopedic purpose of providing decorative illustration. —teb728 t c 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of non-free images appears to excessive when free images to illustrate the team are already in the article. Rationale statement that no free equivalents exist is flawed when images exist in article, statement makes the point that images are not available due to security etc. please note that the Black Knights are an aerobatic team of the Republic of Singapore Air Force an organisation with a remit to display in public! Three images are used in the Tengah Air Base article which does not feature in any of the those images. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)