Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free

message: READ THIS FIRST 
Please do not post queries on individual images here. This talk page is to discuss future WikiProject Fair use policy ONLY.   
Queries regarding the fair use merits of a particular image should be posted at Wikipedia talk:Fair use.
Talk archives:
*/Archive 1 - beginning Aug 2005 - Beginnings of the project, Comic covers, Fair use review and disputed use, Images without source, Usage of fair use images, etc.
*Archive 2 - beginning Sept 2005; up to end of Nov 2005
*Archive 3 -November 2005 - December 31, 2005
*Archive 4 - discussions begun January 2006
*Archive 5 - 3 February  2006 to 30 December 2006
*Archive 6 - January 2007 to December 2009
Questions about individual instances of potential copyright violations have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Please post queries on the fair use merits of an image to Wikipedia talk:Fair use or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems . This forum is to discuss future Wikipedia fair use policy ONLY. Travb 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

message: A question has been raised regarding the image in the infobox at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. In the article's peer review (see here), User:Sandman8888 said that it seems to be only used for decoration, which would obviously mean that it fails the Fair Use criteria, but since it is the official logo of the event, I think that it should stay. What are the opinions of this project? – PeeJay 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding a non-free image 

message: Since this page apparently still has watchers: your input is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free magazine covers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: There are 11 non-free images.  As stands, an image of every power ring with accompanying image is both impractical (from a fair-use stand-point) and a slant toward recent comic book storylines.  This has been a contentious discussion in the past regarding reduction of images, so additional feedback would be appreciated.  I would suggest cutting back to the Box image and the GL ring. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power ring (DC Comics) 

message: Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have uploaded a lot of album cover images. I wouldnt be allowed to make a gallery of them would i? i dont think i would, but I thought id check. Д narchistPig (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make a list of them, but not a gallery. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Covers 

message: Should logos be deleted from Wikipedia when a free panorama image of a storefront is available? This seems to be the rationale of a recent FfD request. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing logos with storefonts 

message: Hi,
Just to check, if a science museum allows photography without restrictions, then I can release any images I take of 3D objects like fossil skeletons, etc into the public domain, right?  Thanks, A13ean (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of 3D objects in museums  

message: What do folks think of the idea of a template that essentially "self destructs" after a certain date?  That would be for items like buildings under construction, new rail car designs, and such where it is not yet possible to create a free replacement, but will be some time down the road.  In other words, a template that would go on a file description page like this:
:
And then after the date, the template would automatically nominate the file that it sits on for speedy deletion under criterion F7 as replaceable fair use.  This would seem to allow us to front-load some non-free policy enforcement by allowing the material to remain in the short term, and then killing it when it is expected to no longer meet the criteria.  And of course, one could change the date if circumstances change.
Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might like to raise this at WT:NFC.  The page here is now pretty moribund.  Jheald (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Self-destruct" template? 

message: Well, I've been seeing around that sometimes images can't be removed from articles simply because it doesn't go against anything in WP:NFC but at the same time the images seem to be used in such a way where they just sit there and claim to be significantly useful to the article. Or to illustrate something important, but the articles are cluttered with them. 
:An example here on DJMax Portable Black Square video game where an image of a limited edition package containing merchandise has been discussed. just the box isn't really helping, and argument with another editor wants to add the contents in the box aswell, even with the image of the contents of the box might not exactly be that useful aswell due to the section size not really showing anything truly significant that makes an impact on the article.   
I may be slightly bias on this situation, but i still believe there should be some more restriction onto using Non-free-content such as images just like song samples or videos are often restricted to how relevant it is. such as images in sections needing to support it's significance per the relevance and impact the section gives. Or something similar to that.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more strictness in NFC policy?

message: Just dropping in to say that copyright paranoia has definitely crossed a threshold in how strenuously it's applied.  I would say we are now "too strict", but that's hard for any one person to say. 
Instead I will just invite you to consider the following model:
# A user spend a lot of time working on something involving non-free material.
# A user uploaded it and included it in an article.
# At a later point, the media gets deleted over copyright paranoia.
If these steps occur, we will have successfully told a user to stop using our image system.   If an image is truly illegal, fine.  If in image is merely 'fair use', delete it at your own peril.   
You guys can delete all the non-free images if you want-- but who do you expect to be left to upload free ones, if your methods are so heavy-handed? --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation, which has imposed the rules.  Other language Wikipedias are considerably stricter than the English language Wikipedia, and Commons doesn't allow fair use, period.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Paranoia has gone too far

message: I was wondering if anyone in the project could help me add a company logo to an article I am working on. I don't want to violate any copyrights, so I figured the members of this project would know more than me. I'd like to add a logo for Candwich from the company website markonefoods.com. Any takers? Angryapathy (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with adding a logo to an article 

message: Courtesy notification, abotu a suggested change. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template talk:Non-free video cover]] 

message: Some assistance is requested in eliminating images in the following queries (ideally) they should all return 0 results.
* logos - http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Non-free+images+for+NFUR+review&negcats=Non-free+images+with+NFUR+stated&ns%5B6%5D=1&templates_any=Non-free+logo&templates_no=Non-free+use+rationale%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale+2%0D%0ANon-free+image+rationale&smaller=500&ext_image_data=1&doit=1
* album covers - http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Non-free+images+for+NFUR+review&negcats=Non-free+images+with+NFUR+stated&ns%5B6%5D=1&templates_any=Non-free+album+cover&templates_no=Non-free+use+rationale%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale+2%0D%0ANon-free+image+rationale&smaller=500&ext_image_data=1&doit=1
* book covers -  http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Non-free+images+for+NFUR+review&negcats=Non-free+images+with+NFUR+stated&ns%5B6%5D=1&templates_any=Non-free+book+cover&templates_no=Non-free+use+rationale%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale+2%0D%0ANon-free+image+rationale&smaller=500&ext_image_data=1&doit=1
A concerted effort to clear these would be appreciated, as would efforts to clear other media for which easy to use NFUR templates exist. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images without a rationale 

message: Pretty sure this is bogus, but I don't have the desire to figure out and deal with the process: :File:NJTP (I 95) IC 8 options.jpg --NE2 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  bogus fair use? 

message: Please see my question at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22. Thank you for responding there! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested for ELNEVER "uses the work in a way compliant with fair use" 

message: I have taken a screenshot of a web-based opinion poll carried out by YouGov to provide an illustration to some opinion polling articles. The image was captured and cropped by me. The image is of a page with a very simple layout, but that layout was determined by YouGov and includes their logo. The text is even simpler and has been frequently reported/quoted elsewhere, but again was determined by YouGov. The image is of one question within a much bigger survey. The image looks a bit like this one, but considerably simpler. So, is their a fair use argument here? Any help appreciated. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: A second opinion has been requested on the good article review of Fall Out Boy regard the fair use rationale of a copyrighted audio work. If you would like to give feedback, please leave a comment at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA2#Second Opinion request. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion on fair use rationale in a good article nominee 

message: There is a fair use rationale on an album image. That was originally included in a stand-alone article. The article was subsequently merged into the creator's article and the FUR was changed to the creator's article. There is now a discussion of the album at the creator's and the image is included there. Is that an invalid FUR or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When a fair use rationale exists