< February 3	February 5 >

February 4

File:Sirius Love Logo.jpg

Non-free logo being used in Sirius XM Love. This appears to be a former logo of the organization which has been superseded by File:Sirius XM Love logo.svg. The non-free use rationale provided states the file is being used in the infobox at the top of the article which is not the case at all so WP:NFCC#10c is not satisfied. Tweaking the rationale is not really an option because the former logo is not itself the subject of any sourced sourced discussion within the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. Moreover, there's not really much difference between the two logos other than the additional text "XM" in the more recent version, so both are serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose according to WP:NFCC#3a, which means only one of the two is needed. Finally, since no sourcing information is provided for the file other than the boilerplate text added by the template when the uploader fails to add specific source information, it's currently hard to verify that both WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a are being satisfied. Suggest Remove from the article unless the above NFCC issues are appropriately resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am unable to notify the uploader of the file about this discussion because they have been blocked indefinitely and their user talk page is protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshots of newscast opens

Various non-free screenshots of newscast opens being used in the "News operation" or "Newscasts" subsections of TV station articles. None of these images are being used in the main infobox as the primary means of identification of the TV station in question and none of the screenshots themselves are the subject of any of sourced commentary within the subsection where they are being used so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. In addition, many of these simply show the same logo being used in the main infobox, so no new encyclopedic information is gained from seeing them per WP:NFCC#3a. Suggest Remove for all files from their articles, unless the non-free content issues can be resolved or if by chance some of these are too simple to be considered copyrightable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Dustbin of Milligan.jpg

Non-free cover art being used in Spike Milligan#Books. File has a non-free use rationale, but the "Books" section is essentially an embedded list of books written by Milligan, with no critical discussion at all. Generally, non-free files are not allowed for single entries of such lists per WP:NFLISTS because such usage is considered decorative and using the cover art for a book in an article about its author is generally considered to only be acceptable and provide the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 when the cover art itself is either used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book, or is the subject of sourced commentary within the subsection of another article (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for reference). Suggest remove from "Spike Milligan" unless the NFCC#8 problems are sufficiently resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seitya For Slagaocar.png

Coderzombie (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zimmber logo.png

Is this logo (just coloured letters) really copyrightable? I am not sure myself, does the overlap between letters count as "original"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As uploaded, I opted to employ caution. Particularly since the country of origin is probably India and c:C:TOO has nothing on Indian law. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India essentially seems to have copied an old British law and then made some amendments, so it's not unlikely that India uses the same originality criteria as the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around and it seems (assuming that I wasn't looking at outdated laws) to me that in India, copyright is applied on the basis of subject matter, not as a general standard like a TOO. Worth noting though that for enWikipedia purposes we only consider US copyright aspects as noted on Wikipedia:Image use policy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CJRB 1220am logo.png

This seems more like a case for PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:All India Boy Scouts Association.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in India. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Stefan2: and anyone else who may know. The source for this image is given as File:Boy Scouts Association in India.png, which is being claimed as ((PD-India)). Could this file, assuming that the source file is correctly licensed, also be considered PD if it is a derivative of a PD file or does it still need to be non-free? For reference, the version being discussed here can be found at boyscoutsindia.org and according to this it's possible that the logo is at least as old as 1951, but maybe even older. Some of the pictures on the organization's official website seem quite old (but that could just be the quality of the uploads), and it looks like the logo can be seen on flags and banners in some of the photo galleries ([1], [2], [3]) . Could any of the above be used to help date the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclaireurs Neutres de Côte d'Ivoire.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in Ivory Coast. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Kumar Vishwas Singapore 2014.jpg

Archived versions of the image subject's (copyrighted) personal website indicate that the image was published by him at worst within days of being uploaded here. Eg: here and here. There are no earlier archived versions of the site.

I realise that the subject may perhaps have grabbed it from Wikipedia without attribution but I'm a little suspicious because of the sheer number of uploads we see for Indian subjects where the claim of "own work" is proven to be incorrect.

I'm not around much at the moment. If I have nominated this in wrong place then feel free to fix my mistake. Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, such things (questioning the freeness of an image) go on WP:PUF but this isn't a stringently enforced policy, I believe.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanley.JPG

Unused, unidentified subject, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Laugh track

All of these files blatantly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Laugh track. The one file that is not as clearly a WP:NFCC#8 violation as the others, File:Cdouglass LT.jpg, fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is not critical discussion present which requires or is enforced by an image of the device's "inventor"; this file is already present in its respective biographical article. (Technically, these files also fail WP:NFCC#10c, but these files have been restored on Laugh track several times now, so a consensus-enforced decision seems necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all from Laugh track. None of these illustrate any point made in the text (let alone critical sourced commentary); they are purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]