The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Underwood Ham Label.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a non-free image of the label of a can of Underwood Ham and its not clear whether the uploader is the original copyright holder. Claim of self made does not seem accurate since the original version of the image looks like the label was just flattened out and photographed. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the whole label, that is a part of the label, but yes I photographed it. Falls under fair use in American copyright law. --Wmjames (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Wmjames, but I think "fair use" has a different meaning on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if simply taking a picture of a copyrighted logo or part of a copyright means that you control the copyright and can license the image as free. For example, c:COM:PACKAGING says that "Although the overall 3D shape of most packaging (boxes, cartons, bottles) is not copyright-protected, the printing on such packaging is often legally protected as an artistic work (that applies irrespective of artistic merit, and regardless of whether the design appears only on the front surface or wraps around)." Moreover, according to WP:NFC, "Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free." and " The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." Non-free images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but there are limitations on how and where they can be used and they need to be provided with a non-free use rationale for each specific use. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, the page will suck without that logo since that's the main product people used to know. I am also pretty sure that the company that now owns that line is happy for the free advertising, however I see that's not the issue. I think the page is a lot better with that image, so is there anything that can help, or any approach that works with the WP guidelines? Also, I don't really WP anymore, too much headache over the years although I am constantly impressed with so much content and how it is well-kept (warding off vandals and various subverters). So, like, maybe one image of just the logo, and a different one of just the deviled ham part of the logo? Hmm ok thanks for the link to that page but I don't have the time and energy to read through it and figure it out, this simply isn't what I do anymore. Thank you also for not just deleting everything, I've seen people do that on occasion and that's part of why I don't do this anymore. --Wmjames (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I think we have to be more than "pretty sure" when it comes to copyrighted images and can't assume things on behalf of the copyright holder. Moreover, Wikipedia's purpose is not really to provide free advertising for companies or their products. This discussion is simply to try and figure out whether the licensing of the image as "free" is appropriate. As I said above, "free-use" does not seem to mean "free-image" when it comes to Wikipedia. Licensing the image as free, as I understand it, means that the image's copyright holder or creator (sometimes they are the same and sometimes they are not) agrees to release the image for use on not only Wikipedia itself, but also for use by any Wikipedia user without copyright restrictions. This is knd of a big step, so in such cases, some sort of specific proof is typically required to verify the free license.

Regarding the use of images in articles, free images are certainly easier to use because there are really no restrictions regarding where and how they can be used. Like text, an image should be used in proper context and be given proper weight. When there are disagreements about whether an image should be used, things are ideally discussed (like in the case with other content disputes) on the article's talk page and a consensus established. Non-free (fair-use) images are a little trickier, however, because there are specific restrictions regarding where and how they may be used. Such images require separate, specific non-free use rationales for each use. If the image does not have a valid non-free use rationale, then it can be removed without any discussion because copyright concerns take precedence over other things.

In this particular case, if the article in question was specifically about the product (i.e., Underwood Deviled Ham Spread), then it might be OK to use a non-free image of the label as its primary means of identification. The article is, however, about the William Underwood Company, so it's probably best to use the logo of the company and not a label for one of its products as its primary means of identification. I think this logo taken from what looks to be the company's official website would be acceptable to upload as a non-free logo and license using ((Non-free logo)). - Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mardan Palace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The same photo was previously deleted as a probable copyright violation from the Commons following this deletion request in 2012. The photo was found to have been previously published and was unlike the uploader's other photos. Additionally, it the lack of metadata and small size are general red flags. Storkk (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ILLY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF says "Author: AUGUSTUDOH" which seems inconsistent with the uploader's claim. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ill-bliss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See #File:ILLY.jpg above. This is a crop of the same picture. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Live at Battersea 11-04-14-71.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF says 'Author: Michael Tubes'. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bliss and Wife.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF says 'Author: AUGUSTUDOH'. Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnnyHelmsJazzTrumpeter.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image has been the subject of some fragmented discussions at various different locations. When originally uploaded, it was tagged as being created circa 1997. When I informed the uploader that photos published in the US with no copyright notice prior to 1978 are public domain, the uploader realized that the photo was actually from 1977 and was published on the program for a music festival that year. (Looking at the age of the person depicted, do they look 42 or 62?) The image has also been discussed at [1] and [2]. My inclination is that we should probably delete it unless we can obtain a copy of the 1977 music festival program showing no copyright notice and this photo incorporated. I'm not comfortable with using it under a claim of fair use (even though the subject is deceased) because (1) we don't have authorship information, (2) we don't know when it was taken, and (3) as the performer was a public figure in the pre-1978 US, there should be public domain photos out there. -- B (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled.F.C.New.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused logo, presumably unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled.bmp.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The use here seems to predate the use on Wikipedia according to the 'Last-Modified' HTTP header. Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled4 small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The summary, 'An image taken as a screenshot from the Black Adder 1 BBC DVD and edited in Microsoft Photo Editor', means that the picture is unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.