The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:TF-104G 20° Gruppo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mach2pilot ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Created after 1976 so not PD in Italy on URAA restoration date, thus copyrighted in the US. Not used, fails NFCC #1 Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 07:27, 27 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD. - FASTILY 04:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Cesare Mori3.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonCalo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source gives no information about the file and doesn't even seem to have it within the page; no date of publication, no authorship, no reasonable assertion of public domain can be verified thus. Its only usage is dubiously related. Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. An archive of the source appears to indicate that the image on that page was taken in 1975 (though the image itself is not archived). As such, the copyright appears to have expired in the Italy prior to the URAA date, so its copyright was never restored in the United States. I see no evidence nor reason to assume that this file was published in the United States within 30 days of its publication in Italy, so this file should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There is still no authorship, nor publisher. It's missing critical information that inhibits a move to Commons, and even if it was nonfree it still has that issue. Sennecaster ( Chat) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Struther Arnott.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juanails ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This appears to be a file that is copyrighted by Alamy, which is a corporation that sells photographs for profit. This photo was taken in the United Kingdom in 1985, which was therefore copyrighted in the United Kingdom on the URAA date (and it remains copyrighted there to this day). Under the URAA, this would render the file copyrighted in the United States of America. Because this is a commercial photograph owned by a photo agency, this cannot be used as a non-free file due to WP:GETTY#7 without sourced commentary in the article on this particular photo. Since no such sourced commentary on the photo is within the article, this file should be deleted from the English Wikipedia as its inclusion in the article constitutes unacceptable use. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as failing WP:NFCC#2. Note that this is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:F7. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:09, 27 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: No consensus on whether this image is acceptable for FC Barcelona Femení and should be added, so defaulting to status quo (i.e. disallow). Also noting that there is a sub-discussion about the relevance of Wikipedia:Non-free content#UUI #17 in this situation, it may be helpful to continue this discussion and/or request clarification via RfC. - FASTILY 04:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tot-futbol ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Why can the image (FC Barcelona (crest).svg) be used on the page of the men's football club (FC Barcelona) and not on the women's club (FC Barcelona Femení)? It's probably gender discrimination. What criteria does wikipedia use to prioritize the male or female page? Why can't I use the same photo as a shield? Men and women use the same badge. English women's clubs like Arsenal ladies, Chelsea FC or Manchester City ladies is permited. Why not in the FC Barcelona Femení case? What i have to do? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep. No valid reason has been put forward for deletion and, per WP:CSK#1b, this should be speedily closed. The venue to discuss using this image on the FC Barcelona Femení in addition to the longstanding use on the FC Barcelona article is the file's talk page, not a deletion discussion.— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This page isn't Files for deletion but Files for discussion. The OP has raised this because of comments made at WP:MCQ. Nthep ( talk) 13:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Red-tailed hawk, please be aware that Wikipedia:Non-free content review was shut down seven years ago, and now discussion about the appropriateness of non-free images at various locations happens here, at files for discussion, now. This isn't a deletion discussion. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I was unaware that FFD is used for discussing files outside of the context of deletion. I've struck my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

      • It used to be files for deletion but was changed when WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were merged into this page.

      Nthep ( talk) 16:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• This use of this file at FC Barcelona Femení has previously been discussed ( Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg in 2015). On that occasion it was removed under WP:NFC#UUI #17 but more recent discussions e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 27#File:Arsenal FC.svg decided that women's teams are not child to the men's teams and allowed logos to be used in both articles. While Wikipedia, rightly imo, seeks to keep the amount of non-free content as low as possible I find it difficult to defend the previous interpretation of NFC#UUI17 as being appropriate in these types of cases, this really being a case of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There may be other NFC#UUI criteria which prohibit the suggested use but #17 is not the one to disallow this on. If this is the only ground for objection, then I see no objection to adding this file to FC Barcelona Femení subject to an appropriate FUR rationale being added to the file page. Nthep ( talk) 14:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nthep: Just going to clarify that the discussion about the non-free use of the Arsenal team badge was only about the non-free use of that file. It wasn't a general discussion about whether women's teams are never to be considered child entities of men's teams since that would be a discussion that needs to take place at WT:NFCC. There have been previous discussions about how WP:NFC#UUI17 should be applied, but none of these ever resulted in a consensus to change things from the status quo, which is assessing each use on a case-by-case basis. One other thing is that this FFD is malformed (or it's not been done as a FFD should be done). I've gone ahead and added {{ FFD}} to the file's page, but somehow {{ ffd2}} should be incorporated into this discussion thread, and I'm not quite sure of the best way to do that. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Disallow usage on FC Barcelona Femení but let me clarify why. I tend to think that Vicpumu is correct; there is gender discrimination going on here, but not consciously intentful discrimination. Instead, this points to a systemic issue. FC Barcelona is a club that contains departments, including the women's and men's teams. However, the FC Barcelona article blurs the distinction, asserting at the top of the article "This article is about the men's football club.". So where is the article about the club itself? Well, let's have a look at FC Barcelona (disambiguation), since maybe that will help. That page says " FC Barcelona is a football club from Barcelona" (which isn't accurate, as it has many sports). It doesn't say "FC Barcelona is a men's football team from Barcelona". I.e., the disambig page doesn't exactly agree with what the head of the FC Barcelona says. It's curious too, since FC Barcelona has a lot more teams within it than just football. So where is the article about FC Barcelona, the organization that includes some football teams as well as other sports? What needs to happen (but won't) is to have FC Barcelona be turned into an article about the organization in toto, rather then co-opting it into being the men's team and the organization, and have a separate article that is about the men's First Team only. Since FC Barcelona calls this "First Team", I recommend FC Barcelona First Team (which, oddly, doesn't even exist as a redirect even though the club itself uses this terminology). Looking at the club's website, they understand they are a club comprised of various teams. Look at the menu item "Barça Teams" on their website and you can see this for yourself. Since the current FC Barcelona article is (wrongly) about the club and First Team, I believe the logo is allowed to be used on this article only, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#UUI #17. Allowing its usage on FC Barcelona Femení is a guideline violating bandaid to cover up the actual problem of the FC Barcelona article being wrongfully used as the men's team article, when it should be about the club only (and thus allow the logo there). There should be a separate article about the First Team, and the logo wouldn't be allowed on that article anymore than it would be allowed on the women's team article. That would remove the gender discrimination and comply with policy and guideline. Allowing a guideline violation doesn't solve anything. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I can't disagree with any of that as I said this really is a case of sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Sadly it's a systemic bias that needs addressing and the result being consistently applied. I see FC Barcelona Bàsquet (the club basketball team) is using File:FC Barcelona.png which by @ Hammersoft's argument shouldn't be there for exactly the same reason. Possibly even worse is FC Barcelona Rugby which uses a fantasy flag as a way of getting round UUI#17. Nthep ( talk) 15:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• [disclosure - saw this mentioned at User talk:Rosiestep - NFC#17 says lacks its own branding. I do not read that to mean it must have visually distinct branding that is clearly different from the parent's. I see it as preventing using parent logos when the article subject does not have a logo. However, if the "child" has well-established branding, backed up by reliable sourcing that says this logo is [FC Barcelona Femeni]'s logo, it shouldn't matter that it's also the logo used by the parent. In short, the subject does have its own branding. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

While that is a potentially interesting view, it's not how WP:NFC#UUI #17 is interpreted or implemented across the project. That might be an interesting discussion for WT:NFC, but it is out of scope for here. This discussion is relative to current policy and guideline (whether we approve of those policies and guidelines or not). -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This discussion is relative to current policy and guideline The current policy is exactly what I was talking about. What you're saying is that another interpretation of the policy/guideline is more valid than mine. That's fine (I'm not so active at FfD), but if that's the case, count me as an IAR !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

If you want to change how we apply WP:NFC, feel free to start a discussion to change consensus at WT:NFC. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm not actually sure that this file needs to be labeled as non-free. According to the website of F.C. Barcelona, the current crest dates to the 1910s. And I'm honestly not sure that the current logo is so substantially different from the logo used in the 1910s to actually achieve a separate copyright status, especially in light of the copyright office's decision to deny Remax. The decision noted that, while additions to pre-existing works can be copyrighted, whatever the addition is, it must be independently protectable for the derivative work to be registered. Frankly, the differences involve only the generic change to the ball, the points on the sides of the shield, and the point at the bottom of the shield. And none of these seem to be independently protectable. Furthermore, the 1920 logo (which is in the public domain) includes the yellow bar across the middle of the shield, so a shield design like the current one seems ineligible for copyright protection in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 16:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Because it is very likely that the crest is not actually protected by copyright in the United States, I believe that we should mark the file as public domain and allow the file to be used. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think we should. The current logo is different in essentially all areas of the logo than prior, known PD versions. There is, in my opinion, enough creative intent to raise the new logo above the threshold. Certainly FC Barcelona feels they can protect rights to their logo. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Copyfraud is a thing. That they may have rights in countries with a lower TOO than the United States, or that they may have trademark rights, does not actually mean that the work is copyrighted in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Doesn't mean it isn't either. We err on the side of presuming copyrighted unless proven otherwise here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Would it be worth asking WMF legal to comment on whether they believe the logo is likely copyrighted in the United States? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That would seem a logical step, wouldn't it? I've thought the same. I've even tried. I get nothing. About the only time they've ever responded was many years ago when then-counsel Mike Godwin (yes, that Mike Godwin) noted that Wikipedia, being an educational resource, had wide latitude to include protected works. That of course stood in stark contrast to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (which remains valid to this day). -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ AKeton (WMF): Does the WMF have any comments with respect to whether it believes that this logo is copyrighted in the United States or whether the changes made to the public domain versions of this logo fall below the threshold of originality? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Personally, I think (and have thought for a long time) that it would be absolutely wonderful for the WMF to step in and take control over image licensing related matters as well as non-free content use assessment. It would certainly make things things easier in my opinion, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. I'm also not sure how pinging one WMF user is going to resolve anything, unless that person has the authority to speak on the behalf of the WMF and is not just providing their personal opinion. As for my opinion, I'm not sure that this logo should be {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} since I'm not sure it falls below c:COM:TOO United States. The individual elements are on their own likely PD, but the combination of them might just be enough to push it above the TOO of the US. It's close perhaps, but being close might be sufficient enough of a justification. If, on the other hand, a fairly strong consensus were established over at Commons that this is "PD-logo" under US copyright law (regardless of c:COM:TOO Spain), then might be convincing enough to me to relicense the file for "local-PD" use here on Wikipedia. Just going to note that this logo doesn't seem to be used in any of Spanish Wikipedia articles about FC Barca teams, but most likely that's because Spanish Wikipedia doesn't allow any non-free use. It is used, however, on Catalan Wikipedia, but only as non-free content; moreover, the file has what looks like more than 100 uses, many of which would not even be close to OK here on English Wikipedia for WP:NFCC#9 reasons. So,it's not as if any inconsistencies related to non-free content use are limited to this file and English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's copyrighted in Spain either. While there are minor changes over time, they are de minimis and do not invoke a new copyright claim. I see zero evidence of a registered copyright. Likewise, as they weren't copyrighted in the US this image is pretty clearly PD. The idea that "We err on the side of presuming copyrighted unless proven otherwise" means that anything one person views as copyrighted or argues against should be protected as such...which really just invokes the opinion of a single person. While "FC Barcelona feels they can protect rights to their logo," that page only shows that they retain all rights, not that they are asserting copyright claim on this logo specifically and cannot be reasonably inferred to construe as such. Buffs ( talk) 23:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• The women's professional football team should have the same rights as the men's team. It makes no sense not to allow the use of this. I think that all of you who do not agree with this happening are strongly discriminating against women (from my point of view). All English professional clubs have their two teams with the women's and men's shield. THERE IS NO DEBATE. Please stop this absurd debate about whether or not women deserve the same rights as men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • To my reading, nobody's making such a ridiculous argument. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Hammersoft: It's ridiculous that there should be a debate about whether women should be allowed to be eligible for the same rights as the men's team. It is not ethical. FC Barcelona is a democratic entity that has defended equality between men and women and free expression since its foundation. At no time will FC Barcelona feel offended or upset that wikipedia uses its shield on the women's team as it does with the men. Wikipedia does not intend to make financial profit or commercialize the image. It should be a free image of application in cases as obvious as these. In addition, there are more than 20 precedents where men's and women's clubs use the same crest images on their respective pages. Is there really more to debate? Ridiculous.. It seems that there is a hidden interest in wanting to introduce impediments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu ( talk • contribs)
      • First, please sign your posts. Second, the {{ ping}} template doesn't work if you don't sign your posts. Third, there is no debate about whether women should be allowed the same rights as men. Please stop asserting this. Fourth, we don't care if an organization wouldn't be upset about using their copyrighted works (unless we get a take down notice from them). Neither WP:NFCC nor WP:NFC have any clauses within them stating it's ok to use a non-free image because an organization wouldn't mind. Fifth, if you want liberal application of non-free images as you suggest, you can start a discussion at WT:NFC to seek consensus to do so. However, though I don't wish to discourage the attempt, you should be aware that due to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, such an attempt will not work. Sixth, just because there are 20 precedents doesn't mean we do likewise. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lastly, there is no hidden interests here. There is no secret WP:CABAL trying to upend this. Please stop ascribing to malice that which is how the project works. If you don't like how the project works, start discussions as I have suggested to get it changed. We are a community. Nobody controls it. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 02:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Limit non-free use to FC Barcelona: This file has just been added to FC Barcelona Handbol and FC Barcelona Futsal (along with corresponding rationales to the file's page). So, those uses probably should be assessed as well since they're essentially no different from the use in the women's team article being proposed here. Personally, I think Hammersoft's point (I hope I'm not misunderstanding things) about this being a "club" with "teams" as different "departments" is quite valid, and it seem lots of professional clubs are set up this way. Whether in this case FC Barca the club should be treated as the primary subject or the FC Barca men's soccer team should be treated as the primary subject seems to be currently under discussion on the article's talk page, but the logo should really on be used on whichever is considered to be the primary or parent entity of the FC Barca articles. At least that's how I interpret the NFCC on this kind of use and how I think it has been applied for the most part over the years. If someone wants to change this and establish a consensus on what a "parent" entity is and was a "child" entity is, then a discussion should be started over at WT:NFCC. For reference, it has come up a number of times before, but a consensus to change things has never been reached. Maybe this time things will be different. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep and change the license Why are we wasting time on copyright applicability? The logo itself is clearly PD by the team's own history. Label it accordingly (see the Hirtle Chart) and move on. We don't need the posturing and lectures. Buffs ( talk) 23:10, 4 September 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Holdmark Burwood Place render.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TAC PlazaMaster ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free render of a proposed development is not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary. The release of the rendered images generated opposition to the development but there is nothing in that section that this image is required to support. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 16:48, 26 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Nakano-Takeko-Portrait-Hokaiji-Temple-Kyoto.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Artanisen ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The public domain claim doesn't work. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the clumsy submission. New to this. There's no indication that this painting was created before the subject's death in 1868. In fact, it looks pretty contemporary. So the public domain claim is bogus. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 17:50, 26 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

File:VBG Logo 20220826.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Copyright violation Squishy5761 ( talk) 20:29, 26 August 2022 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

File:Rajiv Chand.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rajiv Chand ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not a selfie per the source. Needs evidence of a work for hire contract or permission from the photographer. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, textbook definition of "subject of image is not the copyright holder". Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:06, 27 August 2022 (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.