Is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under but there is no as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. Gujarati fonts gopika two font.

In addition to the, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with. Noti pesni bumer dlya bayana. Please go to and edit it to include a.

Using one of the templates at is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on. If you have any questions please ask them at the.

22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) This image has had it's rights released, like all TPB logos. Look on their doodles page, you'll see it there.

I'm changing it now. (No, I'm not expecting the bot to reply, of course!)-- 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Alright, I changed the image info, but someone should put it back on the actual article's page. -- 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) The whole process (tagging image and posting here) is done by the ( ). I can't imagine TPB suing someone for copyright violations, though:-) -- () 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC) The images were actually removed () by someone saying they're non-notable. I agree - it's not really encyclopedic.

-- () 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I disagree they're not notable. The logos have been TPB's main channel of communication since the beginning - their logos send a pictoral message, which needs to be seen in this article, if you are to *get* what TPB is about. In fact I looked up this article to find them here during my research. So I reinserted them right back. -- 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you don't understand the term 'notable' in context. We're talking about, which states that the logos should be the subject of multiple, independent published works. Even if we accept your argument that they're notable as the main method of communication for the website, Wikipedia is not in the business of merely repeating verbatim what other organisations say (or draw) without comment.

As it stands the logo gallery is simply an unannotated list of pictures. If they're such an important form of communication, then why is there no accompanying commentary? I have once again removed the gallery. — 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you don't understand that is, as its first sentence says, an article inclusion policy. There is no requirement that every item in an article be notable. -- 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC) More to the point, where does it say the rights are released?

Just lists the images. -- () 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Look at the other images on our page. See their tag?