Wikipedia:Non-free content review: Difference between revisions

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/guidelines

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Does not meet NFC Criteria 1 (no free equivalent). There is a free image (File:Fleishersuperman.jpg) available. This alternative image could serve the same encyclopaedic purpose of illustrating the likeness of the character Superman for this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this NFR - I remembered that there is a discussion on commons that I am involved with that has potential implications for our treatment of the Fleisher superman cartoons as "public domain" works. If these images are found not actually to be in the public domain, then this NFR will have been superfluous as- so I apologise for that. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I agree that this is not free but is fair use. The fair use rationale says its a cover from a particular issue. if thats the case, it should only be used on an article for that particular issue, or that magazine (superman or action comics, etc). unfortunately, this doesnt seem to be the cover, but the cover art, stripped of the DC logo or the superman logo. that cover art is presumed copyrighted. so I dont think it can illustrate the article on superman. The commons discussion you referred to doesnt seem to have broadened at this point, so I will suggest here and at the article that File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg is also highly appropriate, esp. as it gets the suit color right and has the daily planet featured.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the results of the linked Commons deletion and that the character is still protected under DCs copyright, the Commons Flecher Superman images that contain the character should be removed from Commons. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the Commons image isn't free and should be removed. I vehemently disagree that the current image for Superman should be pulled. It perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. This seems a spurious nom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say the nom is spurious - at the moment there is a supposedly free to use image on Commons - multiple in fact. That those are now up for deletion - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg (the nom there notes the discussion covers, or should cover, the entire cat, not just 1 file) - is important, but does not invalidate putting this forward here. - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This rather hinges on the Commons discussion, so I'd advise leaving this discussion open until it concludes. If any images containing Superman are determined to be PD the image is replaceable, if they are all found to be still copyrighted, it is not and a nonfree image is acceptable. Since that's the determining factor, we really can't move forward here until that's decided on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really valid fair use? Can't anyone take his own photo of the trophy instead of using someone else's photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid fair use. The only problem was its resolution. I have uploaded a low resolution version. Sumanch (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that it is valid fair use? Isn't the trophy permanently installed somewhere? The source mentions Australia so I guess that the trophy is in Australia and commons:COM:FOP#Australia suggests that Australian law is similar to British law which applies freedom of panorama indoors. Looks replaceable to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie law can't make it replaceable with a free photo of the trophy; Wikipedia's servers are (predominantly) in Florida... OTOH, it's (c)Getty, and that isn't properly noted, oui? Fix! As far as fair use WRT the IP rights connected to the underlying statue, it's a TROPHY - its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use.--Elvey (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how commons:COM:FOP is applied on Wikimedia projects. If freedom of panorama applies in the country of photography, the picture is allowed here as free use. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use means. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, and clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Mosmof (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it matters whether the photo is published under a free license; given that it is a derivative work of the trophy nevertheless, the copyright belongs to the sculpture creator, not the photo, so any possible representation will be derivative from the trophy and thus available only under fair use. But then, I am not a lawyer. Diego (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

no need to duplicate Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.

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

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

I just had one discussion in WP:MCQ (type "File:Kodak logo 1987.svg" if not found in main page) about this image's eligibility for copyright protection. SPhilbrick said that this image is creative; ww2censor said that this image is simple. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this logo, specifically the shapes that make up the "K" design, does not comprise "simple geometric shapes" as stated in Template:PD-textlogo. Therefore I believe we should leave the tags as they are. -- M (^speak/_spoken) 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons we encounter frequently cases like this logo and we have set up a gallery of logos that are below the threshold of originality according to the United States Copyright Office or some US court decision. Please allow me to extract some interesting cases from this gallery:

• 
  found to be below the threshold by the Copyright Office
• 
  likewise rejected by the Copyright Office, cites multiple court decisions

It is worthwile to read through the lengthy reasonings of the Copyright Office and to consider how this could apply to the case with the Kodak logo. The Kodak logo consists of Kodak typescript which is not copyrightable (this should be well known). The selection of the two colors is also below the threshold. What remains is the stylized letter "K". It is made out of a box with round corners from which the two arms of the "K" have been cut. Now lets turn to the rationales of the Copyright Office refered to above. In the Nikken logo case (left logo), it was concluded that

the "Y" shaped figures in a square with rounded corners lacked sufficient creativity to support a copyright registration. She noted that color and the use of geometric shapes are not copyrightable. Bases on these findings, she concluded that the logo consisted of a simple combination and arrangement of three elements which together created a simple arrangement that was aesthetically pleasing but not copyrightable.

And in the other decision (of the Jeff Ho logo) it is noted that

the determination of whether a work is copyrightable has to do, not with aesthetic or commercial value, but with whether there is sufficient original and creative authorship. Simple variations of standard designs and their simple arrangement do not furnish a basis on which to support a copyright claim, [..]

And somewhat later a court decision is quoted:

The court, however, found that in order to achieve a "distinguishable variation" from a public domain work, the variation must be substantial.

Now lets return to the Kodak logo. The stylized letter is based on the shape of the "K" and a box of rounded corners, all of them are in the public domain. Minor variations and simple arrangements as in this case give it a pleasing design but this does not appear to lift it above the minimal threshold of originality. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have a point. When this logo is compared to the two given above (or more notoriously, File:Best Western logo.svg), it seems that there are similar levels of (un-)originality, so I agree that the Kodak logo falls below the threshold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is if the use of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg on Ender's Game (short story) violates NFCC rules.

I believe this image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short story. It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.

Per NFCC it would seem appropriate.

1. No free equivalent.- Y - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Y - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Previous publication.' Passed- Y -Image was published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
4. Content.- Y - Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
5. Media-specific policy.- Y - The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
6. One-article minimum.- Y - Is on two pages (or one if not on Ender's Game (short Story).
7. Contextual significance.- Y - I believe it will significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence.
8. Restrictions on location.- Y - It located in an article.
9. Image description page.- Y Image has a description page contains the following

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a failure of NFCC#8. The reader gains no context of the story based on the cover of the anthology that the work was published in, particularly when the cover have zero reference to the work at hand. There might be some allowance if the artwork was based on the short story, but that's not even the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reader "gains" a lot from the image. This image is the "First" publication of a short story that went on to create eleven novels, twelve short stories, and 45 comic issues. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence. To someone who is interested in Ender's Game it is equivalent to saying that an image of the bible isn't "significant" to Jesus Christ since he only appears in the last half.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wikipedia actually adhered to its NFCC principles, both this image and the second image on the article would be a failure of those principles, and would need to be removed from the article. But, Wikipedia doesn't enforce NFCC anymore. So, I fail to see any objection to including this image and/or several other images of publications which included the story. There appear to be at least 10 such publications. Perhaps a gallery of the covers of all the publications that included the story? If we can justify two such images as significantly adding to reader's understanding of the subject (even though both covers fail to mention the story, but those are pedantic details), we can easily justify all ten. We can't let reader's understanding suffer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that it violated NFCC principles, but you fail to cite any NFCC principle it violates. Which one? I went threw each Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria above and it meets all of them.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would not object to taking the other image off, if this one is keeped, since this image is the First publication. The reader doesn't need all 10, but the reader needs at least one.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, Hammersoft's reply is rather sarcastic. He's poking holes at the logic you offered for the reason to keep it.

In general, per WP:NFCI#1 we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it. As a short story, there is no single published work for it, so to justify the cover, it has to be essential for understanding the article, it cannot rely on the WP:NFCI allowance. As the cover has absolutely nothing to do visually or textually with the short story, it is impossible to assert that it meets WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, for NFCC. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by having the cover, nor is their understanding harmed by omitting the cover image. Ergo, this image is very much inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said to Hammersoft, I have yet to see any NFCC rule that agrees with what you just said. Where dose it say that "we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it". NFCC says we have to have a reasonable rational. I argue that it is historically significant to the reader. While it may not be an image of the short story directly, it is Historically significant to the history of the entire Ender's series. I argue that the reader's understanding is enhanced just as much as an image of a book cover.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you for pointing out WP:NFCI, that is as close to a justification I have yet gotten, rather then just saying it is against the rules and not explaining why. I still believe it passes WP:NFCI#1, but I will admit, I'm not a 100% sure what it mean, so I will admit that I may be off. If you will explain it better to me, I may see where you coming from.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

@ARTEST4ECHO: Please refer to the last bullet point on the bottom of WP:NFCC. It isn't anyone's burden to prove this image doesn't belong. It's your burden to prove the image DOES belong. The simple fact is the cover doesn't mention the short story at all. There's no connection between the cover and the story. I could just as well include on the Coca-Cola article the cover of a TIME magazine because Coca-Cola had an advertisement in that edition. The covers on this article are not visually connected to the subject of the article. A casual fly by reader might even think the top image is there in error as they would be expecting to see something that at least said "Ender" on it. How about we use a picture of the Empire State Building as the primary picture for the Airship article? That doesn't make sense you say? Of course it does! See Empire_State_Building#Dirigible_.28airship.29_terminal. Well, at least as much sense as including a cover that doesn't mention the story in question. If ANYthing were to be included from this first publication, it would have to be the first page in the publication that has the story on it.

All that said, I still think this is pretty moot. We really don't enforce WP:NFCC anymore, and anyone is free to pretty much abuse it as they like. This article only uses two images. That's not enough to even make the report of articles using lots of non-free images. Heck, if we included all ten covers in a gallery as I suggested, it wouldn't even break the top 100. A quick scan of Google images shows they are all available. Since we don't enforce NFCC anymore, why not include them? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia images so please excuse me if my terminology below is incorrect. Also, if this section should go somewhere else, please tell me.

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag and its use rationale is not at all clear to me. I'm not advocating its deletion but couldn't someone repair this file page, possibly starting with {{Symbol rationale}} or something else. Or would it be better if it was claimed as a minor, no-original-content modification of the Betsy Ross flag and therefore PD? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be PD. The only difference is inserting "II" in the middle of the blue area, which involves no creative thought. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a lot of work with Non-free images, so apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly.

I added a FUR to three images, but would like a review to determine whether it is acceptable.

The three images:

• File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willliam Newport Goodell With Self Portrait.jpg

1. No free equivalent.- Each item is a one of a kind photograph of an oil painting
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Owner of copyright is proposing this course, so by definition, this is not a problem.
3. a. Minimal usage. This is not the entire collection, but a representative sample, again with permission of copyright holder, so not an infringement. b. Minimal extent of use Low resolution used.
4. Previous publication.' Passed- -Paintings and photograph have been on public display
5. Content.- Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy.- The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
7. One-article minimum. - Is on William Newport Goodell
8. Contextual significance.- The article is about the painter, so examples of his work are critical to the understanding of his work.
9. Restrictions on location.It located in an article and only in an article
10. Image description page.- Images have a description page contains the source, Subject to this discussion, the probable license is {{Non-free 2D art}}. A FUR has been added to each one.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images has a vaild FUR, nor do I think one can be made, can someone else have a look please. Mtking ^(edits) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite already removed them, but that's absolutely right; the use of NFC within each infobox is unacceptable there. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was used as part of the Cheers#Romance section. However, the image's ability to help readers understand did not affect me. Therefore, I moved it to One for the Road (Cheers) as a mere identification of the article's topic. Nevertheless, Masem said from WP:Media copyright questions:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

In other words, I wonder if this image passes all NFCC in either Cheers#Romance or One for the Road (Cheers). --George Ho (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, the scene itself seems to have some coverage (given that's its central theme but also the conclusion of a long-running plot) so there's possibly some allowance on the episode page. More attention should be given to focus on how critics took that scene or the conclusion of the romance to better substantiate it. But I'm not saying that its absolute. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before reviewing, the photo is of the same scene but at different angle, co-licensed to Getty Images. Notice the head of the Asian woman? Should not be treated as the same photo. Instead, two versions of the same scene. --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is currently used in Rebecca Howe. Unfortunately, the article describes the transition of this character from a relevant, ruthless, strong, independent, and ambitious woman to an irrelevant, clumsy, weak, lazy, and pathetic woman. This image does not indicate any implications or any shred of characterization based on the article... or the character herself and has no hints of significance. File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg is currently used as part of the Rebecca Howe#Creation and casting section and proves itself to be a replacement of this non-free image as an idea of visual identification. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his answer. --George Ho (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Masem said from WP:MCQ:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

I wonder if this image passes NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, one image is acceptable of a TV episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm reading along the article, which is totally well-written, I see that the pilot has many plots in one episode. The central is the police work, yet police plots come and go, as I'm reading it. This image, as far as I'm concerned, would be from the episode, but the image caption helps me identify both characters from this episode, which could have gone for other articles rather than the episode article. I wonder if this image helps readers overall understand the episode. To me, it doesn't, even with the help of the caption. I see one man holding a phone with frustration and anger, while I see another man with blank expression. True, the caption tells the situation, but that's actual implication. It's nothing compared to title cards or other episode images. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central element of the plot is a hostage situation and negotiation. This is one that depicts that theme. I don't know what else you need to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about that image that can't be described in words (it doesn't even look like a hostage scene), so NFCC#1 may not be met. The only way that the image could be used if the scene is critically commented on by secondary or third-party sources. If neither of these are met, the image is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have captured a screenshot of hostages and robbers. I'm going to upload it if Masem and Tony approve. I might capture more that helps the readers understand the central plot. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have created File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg as a replacement of other image; moreover, this section's title has changed. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The most talked about scene involves Daniel Travanti's liaisons with Hamel. That might be the best scene for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion scenes are different from still images. "Scenes" is a vague word to use. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're talking "scenes" as parts of a play or dramatic work. If such a scene is discussed in depth in sources, it may be helpful to illustrate it. Right now, there's nothing particularly interesting or novel about the second image (a group of hostages is very easy to describe in words, and while its the central theme of the episode, that doesn't itself make it appropriate to have an image for it.) --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither image is appropiate then? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I don't think either would qualify; the images are not difficult to envision from a text description (two men arguing; a row of bound and gagged hostages in a liquor store) so they would technically fail on NFCC#1. Again, if either of those dramatic scenes - or any other scene in the show - was critically commented on, that may be a better image (for example, as the article is written, they describe the shooting of two officers at the (apparent) end of the episode that was highlighted by critics. There may be smething there.) --MASEM (t) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've captured the moment of gunned-down men. However, I'm reading the article and found out that only two critics mentioned the scene. What about the sex scene between some officer and the female lawyer? Sex scene would count as "romance", which is discussed more than gunned-down. Either sex or gunned-down scene is not suitable for infobox because it is part of a subplot, but I'll remove the infobox image and go for body-paragraph image. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subplot, plot, it does not matter. All you need is a scene that is critically reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, for an image of an episode to qualify as an infobox picture, it needs to be anything that has been critically commented on by at least a couple of sources, and ideally more than just talking heads or the like. The more technically complex the scene, as well, the better, since that gets difficult to put into text. Two examples that I know are fine: Worlds Apart (Fringe) has a scene that was praised by several critics not only as part of the show's drama, but technically stunning (the same actor talking to a parallel world version of the character (played by himself), with nearly perfectly seamless cuts in how it was presented; it was also happened to be considered a highlight of the show, thus at least assuring that it is some unique measure of the show, but that's a happenstance from all other aspects. The second example is The Doctor's Wife, where we have two elements of interest: the guest actress whose role was commented on, and the specific prop that was part of a contest for kids, also discussed in detail; as well, it also serves as a unique episode identifier by happenstance and not its primary goal.)

Thus, in considering episode infobox, look at what the sources drive you towards. Even if it is a subplot, the fact that a scene got highlighted by critics makes it rather important. Sometimes, these subplots are more memorable than the actual episode. But, if you feel they aren't a good representation/unique identifier for the show, using them in the body is completely fine. To get better ideas I recommend reading the FAC discussions for any WP:FA episode article post-2008/2009 (in which image standards were "heightened" to be more demanding of their need at FAC) to get an idea of when and where and what type of episode screenshots can be used. The only thing that I have found to be true for sure is that the more a specific dramatic scene is discussed by secondary sources, the more likely the image of said scene will not come under fire. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can simultaneously provide two scenes of gunned-down and illicit affair, as I will be doing right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand all the fuss with this nomination. There is extensive commentary on the hostage situation, the negotiations and the illicit affair. Anyone of them qualifies as a scene for an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "extensive commentary", and what counts as "extensive commentary"? What are qualifications of that kind? As for the infobox image, I can't think of any scene or plot that is truly central other than the hostage one. I've watched the pilot, and suddenly, none of subplots to me qualify as part of infobox, even when they were part of the episode. Recently, I've uploaded a cheek-kissing scene in The Boys in the Bar as part of body rather than infobox because it's not totally central but the ending of the central. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically for TV episodes: review sources that critically comment (read: more than just recapping) a specific scene, or a bit of production information that states how a scene was filmed that would otherwise not be obvious by a viewer (eg: The Doctor's Wife image, it is impossible for the viewer to know that the prop console was designed by a child, but this is explained in sources).

As for whether body or infobox, that's totally personable. I think the preference is if you have an image that works (follows NFCC), then it goes to the infobox, even if it is not the defining moment of the show. If you have a choice of images, the more unique one should be used, but if you only have one and its not very unique, it can be used there. You can prefer to have it in the body, but be aware: there is no free allowance for an infobox image for TV episodes like there is for other copyrighted works; this means that if you opt to have an acceptable NFCC image in the body, any infobox image must adhere strongly to NFCC and be just as required per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone use T:MI and layout these four pictures with proposed captions, so I can know what I am considering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are image links at top of this section. Do you mean layout all images in one area? Well, here's the sandbox revision just for testing. You can then decide, as I do not use the main article or any other page than Sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Tyler Moore Valerie Harper Cloris Leachman Last Mary Tyler Moore show 1977.JPG proves itself to be out of copyright. Both scenes may identify the episode. However, I wonder if it passes NFCC, as the last scene signifies the end of the show. --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The free image always trumps a non-free image. There's nothing particularly special on the non-free scene that conveys information with the episode, that the free one doesn't already get across. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is too dubious to use because there is a free image in the Casting section: File:RainnwilsonOct07.jpg. I can't find any hint of characterization from this picture other than his usual suit. Moreover, claims of irreplaceability are too flimsy to consider reliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is very comical enough to look substantial due to Carrell's sadistic smiling expression, the mug, and the toy. Does he appear competent or incompetent in this photo? Who knows? This image looks very ambiguous... and satirical.

Nevertheless, I added a free use photo in Michael Scott (The Office)#Casting, which could make this non-free image replaceable. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Does not meet NFC Criteria 1 (no free equivalent). There is a free image (File:Fleishersuperman.jpg) available. This alternative image could serve the same encyclopaedic purpose of illustrating the likeness of the character Superman for this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this NFR - I remembered that there is a discussion on commons that I am involved with that has potential implications for our treatment of the Fleisher superman cartoons as "public domain" works. If these images are found not actually to be in the public domain, then this NFR will have been superfluous as- so I apologise for that. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I agree that this is not free but is fair use. The fair use rationale says its a cover from a particular issue. if thats the case, it should only be used on an article for that particular issue, or that magazine (superman or action comics, etc). unfortunately, this doesnt seem to be the cover, but the cover art, stripped of the DC logo or the superman logo. that cover art is presumed copyrighted. so I dont think it can illustrate the article on superman. The commons discussion you referred to doesnt seem to have broadened at this point, so I will suggest here and at the article that File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg is also highly appropriate, esp. as it gets the suit color right and has the daily planet featured.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the results of the linked Commons deletion and that the character is still protected under DCs copyright, the Commons Flecher Superman images that contain the character should be removed from Commons. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the Commons image isn't free and should be removed. I vehemently disagree that the current image for Superman should be pulled. It perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. This seems a spurious nom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say the nom is spurious - at the moment there is a supposedly free to use image on Commons - multiple in fact. That those are now up for deletion - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg (the nom there notes the discussion covers, or should cover, the entire cat, not just 1 file) - is important, but does not invalidate putting this forward here. - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This rather hinges on the Commons discussion, so I'd advise leaving this discussion open until it concludes. If any images containing Superman are determined to be PD the image is replaceable, if they are all found to be still copyrighted, it is not and a nonfree image is acceptable. Since that's the determining factor, we really can't move forward here until that's decided on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really valid fair use? Can't anyone take his own photo of the trophy instead of using someone else's photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid fair use. The only problem was its resolution. I have uploaded a low resolution version. Sumanch (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that it is valid fair use? Isn't the trophy permanently installed somewhere? The source mentions Australia so I guess that the trophy is in Australia and commons:COM:FOP#Australia suggests that Australian law is similar to British law which applies freedom of panorama indoors. Looks replaceable to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie law can't make it replaceable with a free photo of the trophy; Wikipedia's servers are (predominantly) in Florida... OTOH, it's (c)Getty, and that isn't properly noted, oui? Fix! As far as fair use WRT the IP rights connected to the underlying statue, it's a TROPHY - its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use.--Elvey (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how commons:COM:FOP is applied on Wikimedia projects. If freedom of panorama applies in the country of photography, the picture is allowed here as free use. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use means. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, and clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Mosmof (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it matters whether the photo is published under a free license; given that it is a derivative work of the trophy nevertheless, the copyright belongs to the sculpture creator, not the photo, so any possible representation will be derivative from the trophy and thus available only under fair use. But then, I am not a lawyer. Diego (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from my talk page.Theworm777 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

no need to duplicate Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.

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

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

I just had one discussion in WP:MCQ (type "File:Kodak logo 1987.svg" if not found in main page) about this image's eligibility for copyright protection. SPhilbrick said that this image is creative; ww2censor said that this image is simple. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this logo, specifically the shapes that make up the "K" design, does not comprise "simple geometric shapes" as stated in Template:PD-textlogo. Therefore I believe we should leave the tags as they are. -- M (^speak/_spoken) 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons we encounter frequently cases like this logo and we have set up a gallery of logos that are below the threshold of originality according to the United States Copyright Office or some US court decision. Please allow me to extract some interesting cases from this gallery:

• 
  found to be below the threshold by the Copyright Office
• 
  likewise rejected by the Copyright Office, cites multiple court decisions

It is worthwile to read through the lengthy reasonings of the Copyright Office and to consider how this could apply to the case with the Kodak logo. The Kodak logo consists of Kodak typescript which is not copyrightable (this should be well known). The selection of the two colors is also below the threshold. What remains is the stylized letter "K". It is made out of a box with round corners from which the two arms of the "K" have been cut. Now lets turn to the rationales of the Copyright Office refered to above. In the Nikken logo case (left logo), it was concluded that

the "Y" shaped figures in a square with rounded corners lacked sufficient creativity to support a copyright registration. She noted that color and the use of geometric shapes are not copyrightable. Bases on these findings, she concluded that the logo consisted of a simple combination and arrangement of three elements which together created a simple arrangement that was aesthetically pleasing but not copyrightable.

And in the other decision (of the Jeff Ho logo) it is noted that

the determination of whether a work is copyrightable has to do, not with aesthetic or commercial value, but with whether there is sufficient original and creative authorship. Simple variations of standard designs and their simple arrangement do not furnish a basis on which to support a copyright claim, [..]

And somewhat later a court decision is quoted:

The court, however, found that in order to achieve a "distinguishable variation" from a public domain work, the variation must be substantial.

Now lets return to the Kodak logo. The stylized letter is based on the shape of the "K" and a box of rounded corners, all of them are in the public domain. Minor variations and simple arrangements as in this case give it a pleasing design but this does not appear to lift it above the minimal threshold of originality. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have a point. When this logo is compared to the two given above (or more notoriously, File:Best Western logo.svg), it seems that there are similar levels of (un-)originality, so I agree that the Kodak logo falls below the threshold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is if the use of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg on Ender's Game (short story) violates NFCC rules.

I believe this image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short story. It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.

Per NFCC it would seem appropriate.

1. No free equivalent.- Y - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Y - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Previous publication.' Passed- Y -Image was published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
4. Content.- Y - Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
5. Media-specific policy.- Y - The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
6. One-article minimum.- Y - Is on two pages (or one if not on Ender's Game (short Story).
7. Contextual significance.- Y - I believe it will significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence.
8. Restrictions on location.- Y - It located in an article.
9. Image description page.- Y Image has a description page contains the following

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a failure of NFCC#8. The reader gains no context of the story based on the cover of the anthology that the work was published in, particularly when the cover have zero reference to the work at hand. There might be some allowance if the artwork was based on the short story, but that's not even the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reader "gains" a lot from the image. This image is the "First" publication of a short story that went on to create eleven novels, twelve short stories, and 45 comic issues. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence. To someone who is interested in Ender's Game it is equivalent to saying that an image of the bible isn't "significant" to Jesus Christ since he only appears in the last half.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wikipedia actually adhered to its NFCC principles, both this image and the second image on the article would be a failure of those principles, and would need to be removed from the article. But, Wikipedia doesn't enforce NFCC anymore. So, I fail to see any objection to including this image and/or several other images of publications which included the story. There appear to be at least 10 such publications. Perhaps a gallery of the covers of all the publications that included the story? If we can justify two such images as significantly adding to reader's understanding of the subject (even though both covers fail to mention the story, but those are pedantic details), we can easily justify all ten. We can't let reader's understanding suffer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that it violated NFCC principles, but you fail to cite any NFCC principle it violates. Which one? I went threw each Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria above and it meets all of them.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would not object to taking the other image off, if this one is keeped, since this image is the First publication. The reader doesn't need all 10, but the reader needs at least one.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, Hammersoft's reply is rather sarcastic. He's poking holes at the logic you offered for the reason to keep it.

In general, per WP:NFCI#1 we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it. As a short story, there is no single published work for it, so to justify the cover, it has to be essential for understanding the article, it cannot rely on the WP:NFCI allowance. As the cover has absolutely nothing to do visually or textually with the short story, it is impossible to assert that it meets WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, for NFCC. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by having the cover, nor is their understanding harmed by omitting the cover image. Ergo, this image is very much inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said to Hammersoft, I have yet to see any NFCC rule that agrees with what you just said. Where dose it say that "we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it". NFCC says we have to have a reasonable rational. I argue that it is historically significant to the reader. While it may not be an image of the short story directly, it is Historically significant to the history of the entire Ender's series. I argue that the reader's understanding is enhanced just as much as an image of a book cover.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you for pointing out WP:NFCI, that is as close to a justification I have yet gotten, rather then just saying it is against the rules and not explaining why. I still believe it passes WP:NFCI#1, but I will admit, I'm not a 100% sure what it mean, so I will admit that I may be off. If you will explain it better to me, I may see where you coming from.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

@ARTEST4ECHO: Please refer to the last bullet point on the bottom of WP:NFCC. It isn't anyone's burden to prove this image doesn't belong. It's your burden to prove the image DOES belong. The simple fact is the cover doesn't mention the short story at all. There's no connection between the cover and the story. I could just as well include on the Coca-Cola article the cover of a TIME magazine because Coca-Cola had an advertisement in that edition. The covers on this article are not visually connected to the subject of the article. A casual fly by reader might even think the top image is there in error as they would be expecting to see something that at least said "Ender" on it. How about we use a picture of the Empire State Building as the primary picture for the Airship article? That doesn't make sense you say? Of course it does! See Empire_State_Building#Dirigible_.28airship.29_terminal. Well, at least as much sense as including a cover that doesn't mention the story in question. If ANYthing were to be included from this first publication, it would have to be the first page in the publication that has the story on it.

All that said, I still think this is pretty moot. We really don't enforce WP:NFCC anymore, and anyone is free to pretty much abuse it as they like. This article only uses two images. That's not enough to even make the report of articles using lots of non-free images. Heck, if we included all ten covers in a gallery as I suggested, it wouldn't even break the top 100. A quick scan of Google images shows they are all available. Since we don't enforce NFCC anymore, why not include them? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia images so please excuse me if my terminology below is incorrect. Also, if this section should go somewhere else, please tell me.

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag and its use rationale is not at all clear to me. I'm not advocating its deletion but couldn't someone repair this file page, possibly starting with {{Symbol rationale}} or something else. Or would it be better if it was claimed as a minor, no-original-content modification of the Betsy Ross flag and therefore PD? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be PD. The only difference is inserting "II" in the middle of the blue area, which involves no creative thought. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a lot of work with Non-free images, so apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly.

I added a FUR to three images, but would like a review to determine whether it is acceptable.

The three images:

• File:The Wood Engraver by William Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg
• File:Willliam Newport Goodell With Self Portrait.jpg

1. No free equivalent.- Each item is a one of a kind photograph of an oil painting
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.- Owner of copyright is proposing this course, so by definition, this is not a problem.
3. a. Minimal usage. This is not the entire collection, but a representative sample, again with permission of copyright holder, so not an infringement. b. Minimal extent of use Low resolution used.
4. Previous publication.' Passed- -Paintings and photograph have been on public display
5. Content.- Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy.- The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
7. One-article minimum. - Is on William Newport Goodell
8. Contextual significance.- The article is about the painter, so examples of his work are critical to the understanding of his work.
9. Restrictions on location.It located in an article and only in an article
10. Image description page.- Images have a description page contains the source, Subject to this discussion, the probable license is {{Non-free 2D art}}. A FUR has been added to each one.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images has a vaild FUR, nor do I think one can be made, can someone else have a look please. Mtking ^(edits) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite already removed them, but that's absolutely right; the use of NFC within each infobox is unacceptable there. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was used as part of the Cheers#Romance section. However, the image's ability to help readers understand did not affect me. Therefore, I moved it to One for the Road (Cheers) as a mere identification of the article's topic. Nevertheless, Masem said from WP:Media copyright questions:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

In other words, I wonder if this image passes all NFCC in either Cheers#Romance or One for the Road (Cheers). --George Ho (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, the scene itself seems to have some coverage (given that's its central theme but also the conclusion of a long-running plot) so there's possibly some allowance on the episode page. More attention should be given to focus on how critics took that scene or the conclusion of the romance to better substantiate it. But I'm not saying that its absolute. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before reviewing, the photo is of the same scene but at different angle, co-licensed to Getty Images. Notice the head of the Asian woman? Should not be treated as the same photo. Instead, two versions of the same scene. --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is currently used in Rebecca Howe. Unfortunately, the article describes the transition of this character from a relevant, ruthless, strong, independent, and ambitious woman to an irrelevant, clumsy, weak, lazy, and pathetic woman. This image does not indicate any implications or any shred of characterization based on the article... or the character herself and has no hints of significance. File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg is currently used as part of the Rebecca Howe#Creation and casting section and proves itself to be a replacement of this non-free image as an idea of visual identification. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his answer. --George Ho (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Masem said from WP:MCQ:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

I wonder if this image passes NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, one image is acceptable of a TV episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm reading along the article, which is totally well-written, I see that the pilot has many plots in one episode. The central is the police work, yet police plots come and go, as I'm reading it. This image, as far as I'm concerned, would be from the episode, but the image caption helps me identify both characters from this episode, which could have gone for other articles rather than the episode article. I wonder if this image helps readers overall understand the episode. To me, it doesn't, even with the help of the caption. I see one man holding a phone with frustration and anger, while I see another man with blank expression. True, the caption tells the situation, but that's actual implication. It's nothing compared to title cards or other episode images. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central element of the plot is a hostage situation and negotiation. This is one that depicts that theme. I don't know what else you need to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about that image that can't be described in words (it doesn't even look like a hostage scene), so NFCC#1 may not be met. The only way that the image could be used if the scene is critically commented on by secondary or third-party sources. If neither of these are met, the image is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have captured a screenshot of hostages and robbers. I'm going to upload it if Masem and Tony approve. I might capture more that helps the readers understand the central plot. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have created File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg as a replacement of other image; moreover, this section's title has changed. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The most talked about scene involves Daniel Travanti's liaisons with Hamel. That might be the best scene for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion scenes are different from still images. "Scenes" is a vague word to use. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're talking "scenes" as parts of a play or dramatic work. If such a scene is discussed in depth in sources, it may be helpful to illustrate it. Right now, there's nothing particularly interesting or novel about the second image (a group of hostages is very easy to describe in words, and while its the central theme of the episode, that doesn't itself make it appropriate to have an image for it.) --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither image is appropiate then? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I don't think either would qualify; the images are not difficult to envision from a text description (two men arguing; a row of bound and gagged hostages in a liquor store) so they would technically fail on NFCC#1. Again, if either of those dramatic scenes - or any other scene in the show - was critically commented on, that may be a better image (for example, as the article is written, they describe the shooting of two officers at the (apparent) end of the episode that was highlighted by critics. There may be smething there.) --MASEM (t) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've captured the moment of gunned-down men. However, I'm reading the article and found out that only two critics mentioned the scene. What about the sex scene between some officer and the female lawyer? Sex scene would count as "romance", which is discussed more than gunned-down. Either sex or gunned-down scene is not suitable for infobox because it is part of a subplot, but I'll remove the infobox image and go for body-paragraph image. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subplot, plot, it does not matter. All you need is a scene that is critically reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, for an image of an episode to qualify as an infobox picture, it needs to be anything that has been critically commented on by at least a couple of sources, and ideally more than just talking heads or the like. The more technically complex the scene, as well, the better, since that gets difficult to put into text. Two examples that I know are fine: Worlds Apart (Fringe) has a scene that was praised by several critics not only as part of the show's drama, but technically stunning (the same actor talking to a parallel world version of the character (played by himself), with nearly perfectly seamless cuts in how it was presented; it was also happened to be considered a highlight of the show, thus at least assuring that it is some unique measure of the show, but that's a happenstance from all other aspects. The second example is The Doctor's Wife, where we have two elements of interest: the guest actress whose role was commented on, and the specific prop that was part of a contest for kids, also discussed in detail; as well, it also serves as a unique episode identifier by happenstance and not its primary goal.)

Thus, in considering episode infobox, look at what the sources drive you towards. Even if it is a subplot, the fact that a scene got highlighted by critics makes it rather important. Sometimes, these subplots are more memorable than the actual episode. But, if you feel they aren't a good representation/unique identifier for the show, using them in the body is completely fine. To get better ideas I recommend reading the FAC discussions for any WP:FA episode article post-2008/2009 (in which image standards were "heightened" to be more demanding of their need at FAC) to get an idea of when and where and what type of episode screenshots can be used. The only thing that I have found to be true for sure is that the more a specific dramatic scene is discussed by secondary sources, the more likely the image of said scene will not come under fire. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can simultaneously provide two scenes of gunned-down and illicit affair, as I will be doing right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand all the fuss with this nomination. There is extensive commentary on the hostage situation, the negotiations and the illicit affair. Anyone of them qualifies as a scene for an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "extensive commentary", and what counts as "extensive commentary"? What are qualifications of that kind? As for the infobox image, I can't think of any scene or plot that is truly central other than the hostage one. I've watched the pilot, and suddenly, none of subplots to me qualify as part of infobox, even when they were part of the episode. Recently, I've uploaded a cheek-kissing scene in The Boys in the Bar as part of body rather than infobox because it's not totally central but the ending of the central. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically for TV episodes: review sources that critically comment (read: more than just recapping) a specific scene, or a bit of production information that states how a scene was filmed that would otherwise not be obvious by a viewer (eg: The Doctor's Wife image, it is impossible for the viewer to know that the prop console was designed by a child, but this is explained in sources).

As for whether body or infobox, that's totally personable. I think the preference is if you have an image that works (follows NFCC), then it goes to the infobox, even if it is not the defining moment of the show. If you have a choice of images, the more unique one should be used, but if you only have one and its not very unique, it can be used there. You can prefer to have it in the body, but be aware: there is no free allowance for an infobox image for TV episodes like there is for other copyrighted works; this means that if you opt to have an acceptable NFCC image in the body, any infobox image must adhere strongly to NFCC and be just as required per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone use T:MI and layout these four pictures with proposed captions, so I can know what I am considering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are image links at top of this section. Do you mean layout all images in one area? Well, here's the sandbox revision just for testing. You can then decide, as I do not use the main article or any other page than Sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Tyler Moore Valerie Harper Cloris Leachman Last Mary Tyler Moore show 1977.JPG proves itself to be out of copyright. Both scenes may identify the episode. However, I wonder if it passes NFCC, as the last scene signifies the end of the show. --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The free image always trumps a non-free image. There's nothing particularly special on the non-free scene that conveys information with the episode, that the free one doesn't already get across. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is too dubious to use because there is a free image in the Casting section: File:RainnwilsonOct07.jpg. I can't find any hint of characterization from this picture other than his usual suit. Moreover, claims of irreplaceability are too flimsy to consider reliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is very comical enough to look substantial due to Carrell's sadistic smiling expression, the mug, and the toy. Does he appear competent or incompetent in this photo? Who knows? This image looks very ambiguous... and satirical.

Nevertheless, I added a free use photo in Michael Scott (The Office)#Casting, which could make this non-free image replaceable. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]