Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/August

PD-logo

Would like some input on whether File:Mix 100.5 logo.png needs to be licensed as non-free content. It seems simple enough to be OK to covert to {{PD-logo}} given c:COM:TOO United States because the station its for (WDVI) is a US radio station. It's the bit of shading in the circle element, however, that I'm not too certain about because it's giving a 3D-effect to the part of the logo. FWIW, if the file needs to remain non-free, then it doesn't meet WP:NFC#cite-note-4 and WP:NFG, and will need to be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary about the logo is found and added to the article and the logo is moved near such content.

The above pretty much also applies to File:KRAB logo.png and File:KRAB 1061logo.jpg. They seem pretty close to be "PD-logo", but there are some elements in each logo which just might nudge it above the TOO for the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-ineligible-USonly for Irish logo

File:FT-Logo-onLight.jpg and File:Full Tilt Poker.svg are essentially the same logo in different formats under different copyright licenses. Full Tilt Poker is based out of Ireland, but Ireland's TOO is described as being "unknown" per c:COM:TOO Ireland. There's no real difference between these two files from a copyright standpoint, unless you want to argue that the vector version is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:SVG#Copyright or WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. So, basically, if one's non-free, then both are non-free (or if one's PD, then both are PD). My feeling is that even if we're careful and assume Ireland's TOO is similar to c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, then this would still be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. So, I think it's OK to change both licenses to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but want some other opinions about this. FWIW, if the only reason the vector version is non-free is because it's a user-created vector version, then it would fail WP:FREER because a non-vector version could be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Topgun2.jpg

I have added the non-free File:Topgun2.jpg, used in Kansas City Barbeque, also in Aaron and Adam Weis, getting reverted by User:JJMC89 bot. I think that WP:NFCC is fulfilled even much clearer in the latter case. So, was the bot right, and why? If it is just about formals to be fulfilled, what are they? --KnightMove (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You need a wholly separate rational for the use on the Weis page. Masem (t) 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do I need to describe/claim that rational? I don't find any in case of Kansas City Barbeque. --KnightMove (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You do it on the image / file page. --Masem (t) 14:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Please, one follow-up question: May I use the image for Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron and Adam Weis? How? Or is this impossible? --KnightMove (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a nonfree image, which cannot be used for any Main Page items including DYKs. Masem (t) 17:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@KnightMove: I'm going to go a little deeper than Masem in that I don't think there's really any justification for that file's non-free use in either Kansas City Barbeque and Aaron and Adam Weis, but for slightly different reasons. Adding the missing rationale will stop the bot from removing the file, but adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I'm also not too convinced that the Weis twins meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO for a stand-alone article to be written about them, but that's a different discussion not really related to the non-free use of the file. While you might argue that the Weis twins are Wikipedia notable for their "uncredited appearance" in the first Top Gun film, a non-free publicity still or other image from their childhood years showing both brothers from the front would be much easier to argue for than a profile shot of one of them sitting on a piano in that scene from the film. If you disagree with my assessment, you can follow the instructions given in the templates I added to the file's page and explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive explanation. First of all, I do think that they now easily fulfil the general WP:BIO. Secondly, "a non-free publicity still or other image from their childhood years showing both brothers from the front would be much easier to argue for..." - may be, but this is not part of WP:NFCC. More at your request for deletion. --KnightMove (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Update (to prevent unnecessary further answers): I see that you are right about the image, and I won't issue an objection against deletion. --KnightMove (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-US-expired?

File:Alexander Archipenko, ca. 1920, Atelier Riess, photographer. Alexander Archipenko papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution..jpg was uploaded in 2013 as non-free. The file's description says it's a photo from ca. 1920. The source link states the photo's current copyright status is "undetermined". This file has been replaced in the main infobox Alexander Archipenko by a free image; so, if it needs to remain non-free, then it's not needed any more per WP:FREER. Given the photo's apparent age, however, I'm wondering if it's now OK to relicense as {{PD-US-expired}}. I don't know when the photo was first published and if that was after January 1, 1927, then perhaps the photo could be relicensed as {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Another thing that might need to be taken into account is that Archipenko apparently didn't come to the US until 1923 (he was naturalized in 1929). So, it's possible the the country of origin and first publication are not the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any evidence that the image was published prior to its being microfilmed and made available to researchers by the Archives of American Art in 1967. See Provenance note and Journal article. If the 1967 date is the date of first publication, automatic renewal would apply with a total copyright term of 95 years. While there is mention that the originals were on deposit at Syracuse University prior to 1967, merely being on deposit without making copies available would not constitute publication as far as I can determine. See Definition of publication ("Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public.") 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would automatic renewal still apply to works published in 1967 without a copyright notice? — Marchjuly (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If we could examine the 1967 microfilm and determine if no notice was included, {{PD-US-no notice}} could apply, but I don't think that the current webpage saying that the copyright is undetermined would suffice to demonstrate that it was originally published with no notice. Perhaps others will disagree. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of adding too much information, if the attribution to "Atelier Riess" is a reference to the Berlin studio of Frieda Gertrud Riess (d. c. 1955), German copyright law would protect even an unpublished work created in the 1920s for the life of the author plus 70 years, which would be either until 2025 or 2027, depending on differing dates of death (see, e.g. MOMA). If "Atelier Reiss" might refer to some other anonymous photographer in that studio, German law would protect copyright for 70 years from first anonymous publication, for which our first evidence is still 1967. Even if the 1967 microfilming was the first publication and no US copyright notice was included, the 95 year term from first publication would be honored after the URAA copyright restorations. Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany has a helpful summary of these rules. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to try and sort this out. The more information the better. It's looking as if there's still quite a bit of reasonable doubt regarding the file's copyright status, which means (at least in my opinion) it's probably best to err on the side of caution and keep the file licensed as non-free. Unfortunately, that means it really can't be kept per WP:FREER, but there's no real away around that given a free image of Archipenko was found and used to replace this non-free one in the main infobox. The file will be deleted per F5 in a day or so if it continues to remain unused and continues to be licensed as non-free. F5 deletions are, for the most part, considered non-contentious and the file can possibly be WP:REFUNDed at a later date if it's copyright status can be furthered clarified and shown to be PD for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion and am glad if I have been of some help in working through some possibilities. It is a shame to have to lose such a great photograph. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NFCC eligibility of a famous photo

Please comment at Talk:Jean_Moulin#Suggestion_to_add_"the"_photo. (Summarized: can we include a copyrighted photograph when there is a free photograph for visual ID but the copyrighted photograph is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary?) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In the exceptional cases where a particular non-free artwork, such as a painting, engraving or photograph, is truly admissible as legitimate fair use for the reason of having attained in itself an iconic status, then the existence or the non-existence of anything else is irrelevant. Because, by definition, that particular artwork itself is the only thing that can illustrate that particular artwork. It is not in competition with anything else.

But if, on the contrary, one is thinking of an artwork as competing with a different image representing some subject also represented in the artwork, then that is an indication that the use contemplated for the artwork may not really be a fair use.

A test can be to ask if the artwork deserves its own encyclopedic article (e.g. A, B) or a major section in an article about its author. IMHO, the photo you refer to may indeed be one of the rare cases that can meet the notion of a work having attained some iconic status, thus usable in fair use to illustrate itself. It has its story and it has been used and derived in numerous monuments, plaques, homages, drawings, stamps, etc. Even its apparenly unclear copyright may be part of its story.

A weak point is that you plan to use it essentially in an article about a subject represented, which may be an indication a non-fair use. Would it be feasible to find enough relevant references to create an article about the photograph, and then mention it in the other article?

By the way, what is known of the copyright status of this photograph? In a quick search, I found these mysterious statements from a 1983 interview [1] of Marcel Bernard, saying he is not officially recognized as the author of this photograph and could never perceive rights on it ("dont il n’a jamais été officiellement reconnu l’auteur et pour laquelle il n’a jamais perçu de droits") and that his interview allows better knowledge of the history of the photograph but it does not clarify the ownership ("s’il permet de bien préciser l’histoire de la photographie, il ne donne pas d’éclaircissement sur la propriété du cliché"). -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, fair use (in the US sense) is almost always going to be OK on Wikipedia - the "purpose and character of use" and "effect upon work’s value" tests are highly favorable. However, NFCC is intentionally more restrictive; to my knowledge, this serves not only to push editors to make an effort to find free equivalents and/or eliminate borderline cases that could get the WMF sued, but also to make life simpler for reusers (i.e. as much as practicable someone should be able to copy images off Wikipedia and reuse them under CC BY-SA terms without a deep inquiry in the license tag). As far as I can tell, for WP:NFCC purposes, whether it’s a standalone article or a paragraph in a parent article does not really matter - the only criterion it could impact is #8 (contextual significance) which is much easier to pass than a full notability test. For instance, we routinely include logos in article about companies or release posters in articles about films without any specific commentary.

In that case, I am not sure a standalone article is plausible. The two sources I cite on the talk page are decent (one museum notice of decent length, one semi-scholarly article), but they are the only sources that I could find which are specifically about that photograph (rather than mention it in passing during a biography of JM). For that reason, it seems to me that a section in the main article is more reasonable.

Regarding copyright status: I assume you are asking for article development rather than licensing purposes; I agree the whereabouts of the physical picture and its attribution history might be of interest but I have found no source for those. For licensing however my WP:OR is fairly clear. There does not seem to be real dispute among historians that Marcel Bernard is the author; nobody seems to claim that it was a work-for-hire kind of stuff either; and France never required registration for copyright to apply. So that puts a term of at least pma + 50years (maybe it’s pma+70years, or pma+50years+war extensions, or something; at any rate it’s not free in 2022). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Travis Scott - Escape Plan.jpg

My addition of the "Escape Plan "cover art to "Mafia" was reverted, even though the cover art on both is the same, I was wondering why that was the case, no malice, just inquiring, thanks. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

4TheLuvOfFax: As the history of the page tell you, there was no rationale for the use in the Mafia article. Each use of a non-free image must have a rationale justifying its use for each article it is used in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

restoration needed on public domain image

I recently updated the file description and license template of File:Asia Magazine Cover October 1921.jpg, which previously had a non-free, fair-use template, and the image was reduced in size accordingly. However, the pre-1923 image has been public domain for quite a while (Asia magazine was published in New York at this time), so the original full size now needs restoring (which should also facilitate easier transfer to Commons). Can an admin do this? Also, is there a better place to ask questions like this in the future? I do a lot of work with images and copyright material on Commons, but am not as familiar with the customary image related notice boards or procedures here on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong per se with posting a request like this here since administrators often monitor this page, but you might get faster results by posting at WP:REFUND or even on the user talk of the administrator who deleted the file (if it was done by an administrator) instead. Another possibility would be to simply upload the higher resolution version directly to Commons if that's where it's going to end up anyways. The local file could then be deleted per WP:F8 or via WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the tips. I try to keep the edit history of a file intact as much as possible during a transfer rather than do a clean start at Commons that completely obliterates the version on Wikipedia. Good for record keeping and attribution. Some tools transfer all the file history and metadata cleanly to Commons, but get snagged when there is potentially unfree content in the previous versions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND#File:Asia Magazine Cover October 1921.jpg for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Jay 💬 08:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Canadian threshold of originality

Hello! I am wondering if File:Mmmuffins.jpg is in the public domain per {{PD-textlogo}} in its country of origin (Canada). I am not familiar with c:COM:TOO Canada, so I figured I would ask here. — HouseBlaster^talk 18:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster the Commons page says that Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States. If you go by that, that almost certainly falls under pd-textlogo. Even so, it is just text with colour and a stroke, and even if Canada had slightly more conservative ToO I still don't think it would be copyrightable. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 18:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Right to use the copyright symbol

When I clicked a photo [2] in an article, the photo came enlarged, but there was no mention of copyright. But when I clicked 2nd time, the macro button "More details", there was a text: "This file comes from the websites (mil.ru, минобороны.рф) of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and is copyrighted.", which is strange because copyright and the owner or photographer's name are usually presented in media in the article without extra clickings and searches. Is it wrong to use the text "© mil.ru" in its usual place in the article (right next to the miniature picture)? And if not, why don't wiki-people follow the common practices? Jari Rauma (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

We are not the copyright holder(s). I believe the format you describe is normally used by the copyright holder(s) to declare copyright. And for legal reasons we don't allow copyright symbols or trademark symbols in the text of articles, including captions, to avert attempts to claim some kind of third-party copyright in Wikipedia articles themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I know you aren't copyright holders. It was not my question. Now it's not used by copyright holders (this is simple English) but information about who is the owner of the copyright. This is an easy question, but don't change it. Once again: is Wikipedia banning or restricting the use of copyright symbols or text (and the photographer's name) next to copyrighted photos in contradiction to other media? I don't understand the logic why this can't be shown. I have waited for your answer for 3 hours to proceed with writing a Wikipedia article. Yeah: "you don't allow the mention of copyright in articles" But can you show the help file location where this is said, that this is not only your opinion? Also, if copyright is banned from next to copyrighted work, why then it is allowed in a separate place that has to be searched for? Please, don't change my questions for your answer. Thank you. Jari Rauma (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma, when clicking on the link you sent, I see the correct attribution at the bottom: "Mil.ru" at the bottom left and "CC BY 4.0" at the bottom right, no need to use the more details button to click through to the media page. On Wikipedia we don't embed attribution in captions, it is done in the Media Viewer. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that Orange Mike couldn't answer my simple question and Berrely either. And you can't make my statement "there was no mention of copyright" false. A simple bust doesn't mean the same as ©. I suppose now that there is not a single written Wikipedia rule that bans informing readers of the photographers' name and copyright holder alongside the photo. So ye make up rules from a strange source. OrangeMike referred to cases about 3rd parties who can make false copyright claims. I refer to the Syrian civil war, where multiple countries have presented their pictorial views. But now it is "criminal" even to show where the pictures came from. What a strange logic ye have! Ye have no law, and Berrely says "On Wikipedia we don't embed attribution in captions". And we don't do the same things that NASA does. But that was not my question—I asked about text alongside photos. I have also noticed that Wikimedia doesn't put copyright captions under photos. I think it could. And so could we. In Finland, we don't click every picture to see captions. If it's "criminal" in Wikipedia to use copyright and photographer's name alongside photos, then as with all criminal laws, what punishments an editor receives who respects photographers' works and puts their names under photos against the laws that ye seem to know well? Or is it so that despotism rules—but how hard? Jari Rauma (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

From our Manual of Style: Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate. And remember that readers wanting full detail can click through to the image description page. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Mission San Buenaventura (1866).png

I'm wondering whether File:Mission San Buenaventura (1866).png needs to be licensed as non-free. It's described a being a photo taken in 1866 but having no known date of first publication, and it's sourced to Museum of Ventura. The museum states its copyright status is unknown and it appears that the museum might be trying to claim some type of ownership (copyright?) over its uploaded version of the photo, but I'm not sure that's really a valid claim under US copyright law. Mission San Buenaventura is in Ventura, CA, and California became a US state in 1850, so this photo seems as if it should be subject to US copyright law. I've got no idea when the museum uploaded its copy or whether the photo was previously published by the museum or someone else in a book or something else. If it needs to remain non-free, then the justification given for it's non-free use in Battle of San Buenaventura seems rather weak given it supposed to have been taken almost 30 years after the battle and the fact that there might be other images of the mission from roughly the same period as this non-free photo which are in the public domain. Moreover, I'm not sure WP:FREER would be satisfied if the only reason the photo is treated as non-free is because it's being digitalized or scanned and then uploaded to the Internet by a museum. If, on the other hand, it doesn't need to be treated as non-free, then it probably should be relicensed, added to the main article about the mission and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

it's a weak rationale. There are free photos from the late 19th century of the mission e.g. this which dates from 1895 and shows as much, i.e. nothing, about the mission during the battle as this 1866 image. The 1866 image is almost certainly PD due to either having been unpublished (and anonymous) before 1987 - assuming the museum digitalisation is first publication, or if previously published is PD due to non-compliance with US copyright laws. I'm not seeing anything on the image that suggests it has been registered and published, but that's me making an educated guess rather than with certainty. Nthep (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As an anonymous work and absent any evidence that this image was published prior to the library's faithful digitization of the photograph (which Wikimedia does not deem as creating a new copyright, see meta:Wikilegal/Sweat_of_the_Brow#Effect_and_Limitations_of_Bridgeman and following), the question comes down to whether that publication occurred before or after 2002. If after 2002, copyright extends only 120 years after creation (1866 + 120 = 1986) and it can be relicensed as {{PD-US-unpublished}}; if between 1 March 1989 and 2002, copyright extends through 2047. See Commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Works_except_sound_recordings_and_architecture or Copyright at Cornell Libraries: Copyright Term and the Public Domain. I cannot tell from the museum source page (linked above) when this photograph was digitized and published, but perhaps someone more versed in the use of the Wayback Machine or other such archives might be able to at least tell when the webpage first appeared. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Following up on the library's first publication date, WHOIS shows the original registration date of venturamuseum.org as 2004-01-16. [3] While it remains possible that the museum published this image online under some other domain name before 2003 (and I am no expert on domain registrations), that possibility seems unlikely enough to me to allow us to relicense this image as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep and 68.189.242.116 for taking a look at this. I was pretty sure that the museum wouldn't be able to claim copyright over this just because they might've digitalized the photo and uploaded it to their website, but 68.189.242.116 seems to have confirmed that to be the case according to Bridgeman (at least for WMF purposes). I've got no problem with relicensing the image as 68.189.242.116 suggests, but maybe asking for some feedback from Commons might be a good idea since Commons is really where the image should be. The claim for non-free use is pretty weak so I can't see a justification for keeping the file licensed as such; at the same time, it shouldn't remain a local file unless there's really a good reason it can't go to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy it over to Commons as PD-US-unpublished. I can't see any objections except an ultra-purists who wants 100% certainty, which is virtually impossible for any photo. Thanks to 68.189 for doing the investigatory work. Nthep (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to flagging this to some forum such as Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright for another opinion if this seems prudent to anyone, either before or after relicensing and transferring to Commons. If relicensed as public domain, I do not see any reason to keep the image hosted locally. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed the discussion now. The photo at issue is the oldest known photograph of the Mission -- and thus the one closest in time to the battle. The Mission was the focal point of the battle with the army of Northern California surrounding the Mission, placing one cannon in the front and another on the hill behind. The army of Southern California was based inside the mission and escaped in the night after a day of taking cannon fire on the Mission. Being the oldest known photo of the Mission, I find it to have high educational value in depicting the scene of the battle. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Gray area on content links

Hello, over at Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography, there's a large number of URLs in the references from (https://alexsingleton.files.wordpress.com/) hosting what appear to be copyrighted PDFs.

But as User:GeogSage points out at Talk:Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography#Copyright notice, the Quantitative Methods Research Group of the Royal Geographical Society link to that same content on their own website, at https://quantile.info/catmog/.

Is it legal for Wikipedia to use those WordPress PDF links in the references? Or should we omit the URLs from the book citations, and instead add https://quantile.info/catmog/ to the External links section of that article? Thanks. Storchy (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here to ask User:Storcy. To add a comment, from what I can tell, it seems that the web developer for the organization used WordPress to host the PDFs they had rights to. They are currently our of funding so everything is legacy, and they might not have had the money for another website or a more formal way to host them. This is probably not the best practice, but it seems they intended these links to be public. They have also preserved the PDFs on Github, with links to the public github here https://qmrg.github.io/publications GeogSage (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FC Barcelona (crest).svg to FC Barcelona Femení page

Why can the image (FC Barcelona (crest).svg) be used on the page of the men's football club and not on the women's club? 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. What i have to do? English women's clubs like Arsenal ladies it is permited. Why not in the FC Barcelona case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vicpumu quite simply, you need to add an additional rationale to the logo file to use it on the Barca women's article. It is a requirement of WP:NFCC that each use of a non-free file has its own rationale. The bot undid your edit as this criterion wasn't being met. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep Thank you for your reply. Could you help me? I don't know how to do this action… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep and Vicpumu: While it's true that's why the bot removed the file this time, it's not the reason why the file was originally removed from that article. This file's non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg and the consensus at that time was that its non-free is only acceptable in the FC Barcelona article. Of course, a consensus can change over time and that might be the case here as well. The best thing to do would be to seek a new consensus for the file's use in the women's club article; this is what has been done in some other cases involving similar files. I don't think a consensus can be established for the youth and B team article since they are essentially "child entities" of the main men's team per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI, but perhaps one could be established for the women's team article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I see it is already at WP:FFD so conversation to be continued over there. Nthep (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep:@Marchjuly How can I request a review of the use in the women's team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vicpumu you already have by listing it at WP:FFD. Nthep (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)