Wikipedia:Non-free content review: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:43, 14 April 2008

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

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

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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).

Archives

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

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{{subst:or-fu-re|Image:Image.ext}} – for orphaned fair use images that have been replaced by a free image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
- Category:Articles with improper non-free content – the category containing articles tagged with {{non-free}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 cornix_talk 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 cornix_talk 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I offended you; no personal remark was meant. MB83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the response. Corvus cornix_talk 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

wikipedia does not accept "they will never take this to court" as a valid aproach.Geni 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

FWIW, {{PD-FLGov}} was depreciated here on the English Wikipedia and redirected to {{no license}}. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]]}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 File:HenryV.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:Richemont.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:PrinceEdward.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and File: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Specific doubt links: WP:ANI, Talk page poll. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails NFCC#8, almost certainly fails #1 and probably fails #3a as well. Black Kite 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe you could do a G7 CSD? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the criteria for G7 as multiple users have edited the image/page. Matthew (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm... but I can describe it with words, though. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image:Kirby hobo festival.jpg

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What kind of commentary does that provide? The poster simply advertises the event. Metros (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The historical interest cannot be replaced.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historical interest is in the event, not the poster representing the event. Metros (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

I'll direct you to Images#8.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's a mimeographed flier for a public event, not "copyrighted materials." Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 cornix_talk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry. Was merely trying to express why I thought Hammersoft's rant 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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).

Archives

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

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
- Category:Articles with improper non-free content – the category containing articles tagged with {{non-free}}