This non-free image is being used in two articles with the same rationale that it is for primary visual identification. It is indeed being used for that purpose for Kuantan, and I recommend we keep that usage. However, its use in List of cities in Malaysia is entirely decorative and is certainly not identifying the topic of the article which is the list and recommend to remove the usage in the list as it fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stated rationale says it’s used to illustrate subject of biographical article, when in fact the article is about an event and not a person. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event sort of doubles as a biography, involving the victim's life and how it ended, etc. An image is as necessary to understand the event as it is for any biography of a person. Nearly all GA and FA class articles of this type use this same rationale - while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, FA articles using it generally is a sign it is accepted practice. See Murder of Joanna Yeates, Murder of Dwayne Jones, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, all FA class event based articles with fair use victim images.
In fact, I can't find a single FA class article of this type that doesn't have an image of the victim. This is standard practice. To remove images would effect hundreds of pages on every single article of this type and requires much wider discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A notable murder case almost always involves why a person was murdered and their background. It is necessary for the same reasons to identify the murder victim as a biography article, as they are the key focus of the event, therefore fulfilling the same reasons a dead person's biography allows a non free image of them - for identification. Your interpretation is overly literal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Vancouver logo is very simple in design. Although Canada's copyright law is inherited from the British Empire, Canadian judicial precedents are very different from those in the UK or Australia. The minimum copyright protection in Canada is probably greater than that in the United States, and Vancouver's city logo is unlikely to meet the minimum copyright protection in the United States.
Please replace the original fair use tag with {{PD-textlogo}} and move it to wikicommons.
Merely identifies Britney Spears and two other females in waitress outfits. Doesn't contextually signify the whole song or the whole music video or text description that can be already understood without this image. Omission may not impact such understanding. George Ho (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's the back cover of the 1982 (not 1976) UK release. The front cover contains a photo of the Beatles. Furthermore, the back cover contains one of EMI logos, which apparently looks complex enough for copyright, especially upon close-up (45cat,ebay).
