Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied" Place either: {{subst:nsd}} for no source or {{subst:nld}} for no license on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images. Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s) (the templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own). It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

Instructions

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

1. Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
   • {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
   • {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
2. Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
3. Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
4. List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

Holding cell

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

16 May

• Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits - issue not yet resolved

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

July 21

• Image:Watershed.gif Uploader claims fair use for this, but doesn't give a rationale. This is a work of the New York City government and thus copyrighted.[1] We have deleted this particular image, useful as it is (I should really find a way to do one for us), at least twice before. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Raven-bill_reid.jpg Creator of the sculpture, Bill Reid died in 1998 and there is no evidence his sculpture is out of copyright, so the image of it would be a derivative work. Kevin_b_er 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not a two dimensional work so their is original artistry involved... so, it's not like a copyrighted painting. It's like an photograph of any modern building. gren グレン 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As above. I took the photo, and its not a painting. And don't blame me for the tagging. August 2002 predates the concept of tagging. -- GWO
  • Relicense with {{statue}}. This came up last month and apparently images of other people's statues and sculptures do not have the same blanket fair use protection as images of buildings and clothing do. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already done this. As I said above, this images existence on wikipedia predates image tagging by about two years. Frankly, it'd be a lot more useful if the people who have appointed themselves deleters-in-chief of non-free images would do this obvious stuff themselves. Does it rely require a comment from the photographer to point out that this is self-evidently a photo of a statue... -- GWO
    • I'm sorry I questioned the status of a image from before tagging. Its nice that its not just PD anymore. I don't absolutely agree with the fair use rationale, but, hopefully that can be resolved if some people go through fair use image lists(which are atrocious). Kevin_b_er 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Series of noncommercial images on Sartorial hijab are listed here because they were uploaded way before the May 19, 2005 date for speediablity. Their source is here with "The materials on this page are written by Al-Muhajabah. You may copy, display, or distribute these materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you give me proper attribution as the author." as the license. I dispute any in this list as being anything but noncommercial due to the source licensing.
  • Image:Abaya.jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Boushiya.jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Buknuk.jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Burqa_(1).jpg License says GFDL, but same source as the others with noncommercial license.
  • Image:Burqa_(2).jpg License says GFDL, but same source as the others with noncommercial license.
  • Image:Dupatta.jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Hijab_(3).jpg Listed as attribution required, but its the same source with a noncommercial license.
  • Image:Jilbab_(2).jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Khimar_(2).jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Niqab_(2).jpg Noncommercial
  • Image:Shalwar_kameez.jpg Noncommercial

The above listed by me. Uploader is Grenavitar and has been notified. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all of those copyright tags are wrong. Some user changed to GFDL, free use and whatnot. That is a copyright violation. I didn't tag them properly apparently but they all belong under Template:Noncommercial and since they were uploaded before May 19, 2005. So, you are right that they are non-commercial... but, they were uploaded before non-commercial wasn't allowed. In any case, my solution would be to find free images and replace the ones that we can and slowly phase these bad images out. These were before the days of CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr where I can find plenty of good pictures. gren グレン 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacements:

• • Image:Burqa_(1).jpg → [2] CC-BY-SA-2.0 image from Flickr (that I need to upload) and crop the replacement had mesh and wasn't open eyes
  • Image:Burqa_(2).jpg → Image:Woman walking in Afghanistan.jpg (need to crop)
  • Image:Niqab_(2).jpg → Image:Muslim woman in Yemen.jpg the replacement wasn't tied on at the head.

gren グレン 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stiked-out until I figure out proper procedure for old noncommercial only images. Kevin_b_er 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:MillerMed.gif and Image:Shalala.jpg - nothing at source supports Creative Commons claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The former is likely a copyvio... the second has been remedied and a fair use claim is being used (which I think is proper). gren グレン 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have both been fixed now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Will self.jpg - tagged as PD-user, but it wasn't tagged so by the uploader and I couldn't find any indication that he wished to release this under PD. It's even watermarked... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as an exact duplicate of Image:Willselfauthor.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:1004.jpg - uploader claims to be creator, but gives URL (which is no personal website) as source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:22005126-20052.jpg - uploader claims to be creator, but image is watermarked www.fuji.com.tw. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:5Thugs.jpg - looks like a promoshot to me... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:A7xpromo2.jpg.w300h250.jpg - looks like a promoshot to me... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tfing.jpg - says "I took this picture of my girlfriend and myself (using timered camera) as an illustrative image for relevant article", but, *ahem*, I don't claim to be an expert on the field of commercial pornography, but this looks like something grabbed from a commercial site. Call it a hunch. Plus, it was apparently deleted before as Image:00001.jpg (which can't be 100% verified because it was deleted back in February) and are among the uploading user's very few contributions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And FWIW there's some discussion on this topic on Talk:Mammary intercourse#Image removal (also discussing some unrelated drawings, but this one is the one referred to as the photograph)... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please wikipedia: assume good faith. I did take this picture. I even explained my technique of taking it in its description. Whether it is relevant to the article is a matter of long term dispute and deleting it for that reason is certainly not the role of this page. Ilikeitalot 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was merely citing the article dispute to show that I'm not alone in questioning the image's copyright status. I'm trying to assume good faith; All I was saying I found the alleged origins of the image somewhat questionable (as opposed to entirely questionable). It seems we've reached an impasse; it's extremely unlikely I could prove my case, and you can't really prove it without additional burden on your side (such as providing more photos of the subjects under set terms). Perhaps the image should be best just be IfD'd or something... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, I'll put this image to IfD instead. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Jolin Tsai.jpg No evidence uploader is copyright holder. -Nv8200p talk 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Brown.jpg — tagged with {{pui}} for a month now, I guess the user tagging it forgot to put it here. Clear copyvio. Kjetil_r 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

July 22

• Image:Cbp 210x125f.jpg Not a {{web-screenshot}}, free images available so fair use doesn't apply. Ytny 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Connie-Mack-stadium-1909.jpg Marked as {{PD-old}} but image is less than 100 years old. Ytny 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was taken in 1909, though, so unless we know that it remained unpublished until 1923 or later (which seems unlikely) it is safe to assume it qualifies for {{PD-US}} at least. The image is almost certainly in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:El Toro Y Sat.PNG and Image:Irvine Sat View.jpg - Google Map photos incorrectly tagged as {{web-screenshot}}. Ytny 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Patrick J Frawley.jpg - Not a {{web-screenshot}}, no fair use. Ytny 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:AmoriumKroki.jpg: No evidence that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Addendum: I sent an e-mail to the Head of Excavation in Amorium. If I receive a response, we can act accordingly. I had done the same in the past for this one here [3] as well, and received a written consent. Regards. Cretanforever

• Image:Stephen stills.jpg: Seems to be a photo by a professional photographer, not a promotional photograph. —Bkell (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• The following images have been uploaded by Coolkid13, who claims to be the author; however, most of them are logos. The copyright holder is probably MediaCorp. —Bkell (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Suria Logo.gif
  • Image:ArtsCentral.jpg (orphan)
  • Image:MissVasantham.jpg
  • Image:Kids Central.jpg (orphan)
  • Image:Anugerah'05.jpg
  • Image:ArtsCentralGlobe.jpg: not a logo, but I question the claim of authorship based on the uploader's other contributions.
  • Image:KidsU.jpg: also not a logo, but questionable.
• Image:BB-1.jpg: At the bottom of http://www.pppusa.org/, which is acknowledged as the source, is the notice: "Copyright © 2004-06 PPP USA. All rights reserved". There is no indication that the copyright holder has released all rights, as claimed. —Bkell (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lebanon harat hreik neighbourhood.jpg. The photo is all rights reserved on flickr. I did ask the author to release it into CC-BY or CC-BY-SA... but, pending that response the image is in violation of his copyright. gren グレン 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Engie 01.jpg, Image:Brickell 01.jpg, Image:DaySouth.jpg, Image:Casadellibertador.jpg, and Image:Italiachampions.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to have created them, which seems unlikely. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Those I striked were actually created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Pokeicon.gif - From Geopgeop's edit summary when tagging it {{wronglicense}}: "Nintendo owns Poké ball, derivative work, can't be used in template namespace, sorry." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nasrollah.jpgThis picture has been picked from [[4]], a non-offical site for pictures covering anything relating to Shia. There is nothing indicating that it can be tagged as promotional, which the uploader has done, and we must assume that the picture has neither a fair use or a free use status. Thomas Blomberg 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Eisenhorn.jpg: claimed as PD, but I see no evidence for this, especially as the claimed source link is dead. Cheers --Pak21 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see no copyright watermark on the image itself. --Nayl 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Absence of a copyright watermark in no way means the image is public domain. Copyright exists whether the author states it or not, in the same way that I don't have to write "MINE!" in 6 foot high letters on my house in order to make it legally mine. I think you may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights carefully before uploading more images. --Daduzi ^talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Can you prove that the image is copyrighted and NOT in the public domain? --Nayl 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would stress again that you should read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights, you seem to be unclear on how image use and copyright works on here. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the person alleging free use, the default assumption for all images where there is doubt as to their copyright status is that they are unfree and so cannot be used. --Daduzi ^talk 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Seems too much like a "guilty untill proven innocent" system to me. I thought humanity got over that after McCarthy... --Nayl 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The image doesn't actually crop up anywhere else on the internet if we go by a google image search. It is on answers.com but that is simply using the wikipedia articles image. Also, maybe I would bother to read the guides on how to use wikipedia if 1)They could actually be found somewhere. Don't give me some rubbish about clicking the help likn on the left either because I've spent hours there before looking for stuff and found nothing and 2)They wern't full of super-techno-mumbo-jumno that required me to read about 500 other articles, read up on American Laws and spend 3 hours googleing for stuff just so that I could understand the article I wanted in the first place. So now that the image isn't anywhere else to be found, does it count as being in the public domain (not that the internet isn't a public domain anyway)?--Nayl 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• No --Daduzi ^talk 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you don’t want to read the laws, policies and guidelines of handling images, then please just don’t upload any of them. Anyway, here is the original image and this is the website from which it came, stating ‘All copyrights to graphics, icons, pictures, etc. are reserved by their respective owners. Designed & Developed by Dan Byer, 2002’. This amounts in no way to any kind of release to the public domain. —xyzzy_n 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Quite apart from the issue of the copyright of this photograph (and it's true that all photographs and other creative works are to be considered copyrighted and unfree until proven otherwise), there's the issue of the copyright of the figurine itself. This photograph is a derivative work of the figurine, meaning the figurine's copyright still holds too. Even if you yourself had taken this photograph, you still couldn't label it {{PD-self}} because the subject of the photo is copyrighted. There's a good discussion of this at Commons:Commons:Derivative works. User:Angr 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Park ji-sung.jpg and Image:Nemanja vidic.jpg tagged as free image but the source's terms of service say otherwise. Ytny 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:2006LebIsraelpic.jpg is a compilation of one picture that is okay to use (the IDF released one) and one very questionable picture of bombed buildings in Beirut, pulled from a website with a claim that the owner of the website (no name added) has given permission. However, given the nature of that website it is very questionable that the website actually owns the copyright to the picture (looks as if it's a news agency picture), and it's also unclear what kind of the permission the anonymous owner has given. Thomas Blomberg 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Uploaded wanted the pics gone, so I went ahead and speedied it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Erictrophy.jpg - Nothing to justify {{Promotional}} and the source appears to show copyright photos without license. Ytny 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Republica-federative-do-bra.jpg marked as GFDL-self but appears to be a screenshot. Replaced Image:Fca332absfs2004.jpg in Microsoft Flight Simulator. blameless 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Chelsea home shirt.JPG - Image is tagged as {{self}}, but the source website doesn't appear to allow for such use. SteveO 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

July 23

• Image:Hi no Kuni Symbol.gif - I'm not sure about this, but this seems to be a derivative work of the logo that appears on the headband of the character Uzumaki Naruto and as such is probably copyrighted by the company who owns the character. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Chieko001.jpg, Image:Moko000.jpg, Image:Blackmoko.jpg, Image:M19.JPG, Image:Moko002.jpg, Image:Mekkyon.jpg, and Image:Mokona001.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to be the creator, but these are obviously promo shots/screenshots. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I added tags to most of those, hopefully I put on the correct ones, but i'm not sure what to put on image:chieko001.jpg, because I haven't checked up on what rational you are supposed to put on fair use images of real people (i'm new to messing with images) --Aknorals 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:ANWeb-Link.jpg - Tagged as {{PD-self}} but obviously a logo taken from http://www.alnabad.com/. BigNate37_T·C 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:1978 wnt mpf.jpg - seems unlikely that ABC would release this under GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and put a promotional image tag on the image, because the description states it is a publicity shot. If you don't think the image could be kept with that licensing tag, then delete it. After all, the original uploader didn't put the right tag anyway. --Jonyyeh 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:20060524174316 0.jpg - Source makes no mentioning of release under GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:2bzig.jpg - lloks like some kind of promo photo, probably not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mueller_Kanone_1969.jpg - Marked as promotional, but from the image description, seems unlikely. The copyright notice (in German) explicitly forbids duplication, etc. Ytny 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hakeem olajuwon olympian.gif and Image:Olajuwon.jpg - incorrectly marked as promo. Ytny 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tour de France'23.07.06'.jpg - This looks like the screenshot of a television program showing the 2006 Tour de France. Thus, the uploader should not be able to claim it as his own creation and release it under the GFDL license. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Unisa1crest.jpg: Claimed public domain, but almost certainly copyrighted. —Bkell (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged that as fair use {{univ-logo}} and removed the (obviously false) {{PD}} tag. - htonl 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Aiesec experience.gif: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but source [5] says: "© 2006 AIESEC International". No evidence is given that all rights have been released. —Bkell (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lgvanb1.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but watermark in image clearly says "Peter Kramer/Getty Images". —Bkell (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nador11.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but source site [6] says "Tous droits réservés NadorCity.Com" with no indication of GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nador8.jpg, Image:Nador12.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Honeybears.jpg, marked as GFDL but there is no claim as being so Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

July 24

• Image:Shah Mosque in Esfahan.jpg: Claimed PD-old, an unlikely situation for a color photograph. —Bkell (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Waaaf1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, with the justification "permission granted". However, source given by uploader is http://www.womenaustralia.info/, which probably does not have the authority to grant such permission. The image has a watermark of http://www.awm.gov.au/. Refer to the copyright information for awm.gov.au. —Bkell (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Waaaf2.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lena-002.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but watermark in image clearly says "8thStreetLatinas.com". — Fairsing 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lena-02.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but clearly from same source as above image - Fairsing 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:LarraguibelHuaso.jpeg - obvious not pd-self. I'm not sure if it would qualify for fair use or not. --Hetar 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:SarahRhoades.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but acknowledges UPN.com as source. Unlikely that UPN would release all rights. —Bkell (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:M108.jpg - listed as public domain; in fact, "The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin." User:Angr 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Athens-metro.jpg - CV from http://www.athensguide.org/athens-pictures5.html --BigDT 11:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:0657501.jpg - not sure if this qualifies as PD, it may not have been created in the course of duty. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering it says, "© Gordon Grant 1945, William D. Terrill", I'd have to say it's probably not PD BigDT 13:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:18435269.jpg - Source says "Liberty Copyright © 2004-2006" --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Konami barnstar.png - The Konami logo on a barnstar. ed g2s • talk 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely a copyvio. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Caesar Caligula.jpg A sutable replacement in the Public domain has been found. Thus if it ever did fall under fair use it no longer does Commment 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. —Bkell (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Gaius Caligula.jpg A sutable replacement in the Public domain has been found. Thus if it ever did fall under fair use it no longer does Commment 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. —Bkell (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Belly of the beast.jpgThis is not being used for critical commentary on:
  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs

It is being used on the page of a Wikipedia editor. Thus it doesn't fall under fait use.Commment 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this image from Brandmeister's user page, left a note on the user's talk page, and tagged the image as being an orphaned fair-use image. —Bkell (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:HockLeeBusRiots.jpg: Source link is now a 404, but http://www.moe.gov.sg/ne/ still exists. At the bottom of the page is "Copyright 2004 Ministry of Education. All rights reserved." No evidence that this photograph is in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Virginballoon.jpg: The balloon displays the logo of Virgin Atlantic Airways, which was founded no earlier than 1982, so this image cannot have fallen into the public domain; therefore it is copyrighted. The summary claims, "Use on internet permitted by copyright holder Virgin Group", though no evidence is given for this; even if it is true, "use on internet permitted" is not the same as "no rights reserved". —Bkell (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Class 171-cab.jpg noncommercial, uploader is removing tag --SPUI (T - C) 21:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I, among others, are talking with the uploader on his talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Addition: while the image was uploaded before the cut-off date for Non-commercial images, the kind of license that the uploader chose is one of those determined by Wikipedia to be "non-commercial." Also, since the uploader is also the copyright holder of the image, he has been asked by me and others to change the license to something that is free, such as CC-BY-SA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This image was previously listed on this page and deemed to be acceptable. I will hunt out the diff when I get time (not likely for a couple of days, but I think it was about 2-3 months ago) if nobody else has done so. Nothing has changed regarding the license since the last discussion, and I am not aware of any rule changes either (although I've not had time to be active recently, so please do direct me to anything I have missed). Thryduulf 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The tag you used reads "NOTE: The following conditions may not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." Your terms restrict usage to non-profit purposes, as you are free to deny for-profit use. --SPUI (T - C) 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

July 25

• Image:Monica leigh 16.jpg. Uploader claims that the image is public domain, however I highly suspect its an image directly from Playboy, thus making the claim incorrect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Jared Taylor.jpg Picture tagged "public domain-self", but description reads "Taken off the net, cropped and resized by myself." --Calton | Talk 12:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jared Taylor has given me permission to enter it into the public domain. Issue with copyright has been resolved. --Delos
    • Please present this permission in writing. Your understanding of copyright for images seem to be mistaken (diff). Images from the internet do not become public domain by you cropping them. Thuresson 10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The picture you mentioned (Debra Lafave) was taken on public ground, and no copyright notices can be found for this picture. I suspect you are thinking about American Copyright Law, not International Copyright Law. Regardless of this fact, how would you like me to present this permission? I have an email, does that constitute "written" permission? Where can I forward it to? You will have to be more specific in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delos (talk • contribs)
        • Actually, you the uploader earlier claimed this was copyright ABC News. Additionally, just because the image was taken on public ground does not at all disqualify it for copyright. American Copyright Law applies here because the Wikipedia servers are (at least in part) located in the U.S. --Yamla 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Then that is my mistake, I assumed you were an international organisation. --Delos
            • Well there is no such thing as "international copyright law", however in all nations that have signed the Berne convention (about 162 nations) have matched theyr respective copyright laws to include scertain "minimum standards", one of wich is that copyright is automatic upon the creation of a work, and no copyright notice is required, that is not spesific to US copyright law. --Sherool (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• All images at Marin Yonchev. Extremely unlikely to be free and licensed the way they're tagged, given that there was a section with links to warez videos and MP3s in the article and the uploader being a new user. Todor→Bozhinov 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Michael_Johnson_running_side.jpg - Claimed as GFDL, but it is clearly taken from an Angelfire web site and looks to be a scan of a picture. Sue Anne 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Michael_Johnson_200m_record.jpg - Another taken from Angelfire and claimed as GFDL. Sue Anne 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

July 26

• Image:Cyrus3.jpg and Image:2500 sal4.jpg are claimed as GFDL, when they are blatantly not. The uploader himself even states that they are "used with permission," meaning they cannot be GFDL. He does not note or link to the actual source, nor to the real licensing information. The discussion has been added to RfC, and is being continued on the Cyrus the Great talk page. ♠ SG →Talk 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The mentioned webadresses in the summary have given this work to be used as long as their website adress is mentioned in the summary. Thus: "permission given" as i have stated. In the future refrain from using the word blatantly. --Spahbod ☼ 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• These should be speedy deleted. The permission given on the site is a form of limited non-commercial license, which is not accepted by Wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses.) There is already a free alternative for Image:Cyrus3.jpg, so there is no reason to use it in Wikipedia under fair use. The other image may possibly qualify for fair use if a proper fair use rationale is written. KWH 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See Cyrus II talk page regarding my comments on this. --Spahbod ☼ 07:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Cor2.gif - looks like a promo shot, probably not taken by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Gia tail lgw small.jpg "Copyright 2005 by Sean Mendis - Unrestricted license for online use" See also commons:Image:Gia_tail_lgw_small.jpgPyb 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg - Image lifted from the New York Times, copyright is actually owned by Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters. Fair use justification fails WP:FUC#2 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedied as egregrious imagevio. This isn't "possibly" unfree, it fails WP:FUC and needs to not be republished by us. Jkelly 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Pic 73 .jpg No evidence uploader has rights to release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Carrier shokaku.jpg - posted by IP on image talk page: "This image cannot be a work of the U.S. Navy. The unknown photographer must be a sailor or employee of the Imperial Japanese Navy." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A new tag was added: "This photographic image was published before 31th December 1956 or photographed before 1946 and not published for 10 years thereafter under jurisdiction of the Government of Japan. Thus this photographic image is considered to be public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan. This applies world wide." PHG 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Raymont Harris Bears Action Shot.jpg Not PD-self, image comes from ebay Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Yoko.ono.ap.jpg - marked as {{tv-screenshot}} and cites a blog as its source, most likely wrong on both counts judging by the AP copyright mark on the photo. Ytny 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Jim_Ryan.jpg - Image comes from another wiki site which has no source info. Ytny 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

July 27

• Image:TownHall1924.jpg - If it was published in 1924, it isn't public domain US by old publication date, and there's no author information. Cannot assume its in the public domain. Kevin_b_er 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Dino Zoff.jpg - Source does not allow commercial uses and the image is tagged CC but the source doesn't seem to use CC. 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Zuleyka1.jpg - Reuters given as source, very unlikely to have be created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:King Clancy suit.jpg - image does not appear to be a promotional image. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bardotcalendar.jpg Image is taken from a calendar. It might be promotional in a very loose sense, but not within our policy. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bintang Plaza Miri.jpg Image clearly was not taken by the uploader. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:New Building 2.jpg Marked as fair use but it's clearly a copyrighted image from a newspaper. I don't believe it qualifies under an FU license, although I could be mistaken. BoojiBoy 13:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lahore mosque and fort.jpg - "All Rights Reserved" according to source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Torroro1.jpg - "© 1997-2002 Comune di Cremona" according to source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Asd-planetarium-catwalk.jpg - according to source "All photographs/diagrams, except where noted, are copyright Gary A. Becker" - coudln't find any note regarding this picture saying otherwise. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:K8-2.jpg, Image:PAF Super 7.jpg - listed as no rights reserved without evidence
• Image:Susie Dent.jpg - apparently taken from [7] and thus probably not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg Source would help determine this. Komdori 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tadaejin.jpg Google image is basically the source listed; more details would be helpful. Komdori 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:BMWM6.jpg - claims GFDL with no evidence of such at the source site. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Now claimed under fair use. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Image:Mikhail Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner.jpg no source Pyb 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

July 28

• Image:Tokyoskyline.jpg - clearly a commercial image, uploader does not claim to be the copyright holder but lists a GFDL license, source is a forum with no licensing information -- Rick Block (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hongkongskyline.jpg - another one from the same uploader. Source clearly shows a copyright notice which does not match the claimed license. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Shanghaiskyline.jpg - and one more. Source shows no copyright information and uploader is clearly not the copyright holder, but GFDL is claimed. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*Image:Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah.jpeg License now provided. Bertilvidet 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Comment It is a photo, taken by undersigned, of a billboard. I have licensed the photo. The bilboard complies obviously with Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images, which states that reproduction of billboards - even if they have copyright - is fair use according to US copyright legislation. Bertilvidet 13:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't license your photo under Creative Commons, because the photo is in effect an exact copy of the image on the billboard. The original copyright applies to this photo also. As such, you need to put on the correct fair-use license in place of the CC license that's currently there. User:Angr 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand two sets of copyright apply 1) the copyright of the photo, which I as the creator have licensed and 2) the copyright of the depicted material, which falls into the regulations of fair use. Please let me know if I am wrong. Bertilvidet 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can only claim copyright on your photograph if there is a significant element of creativity in the photograph itself. —Bkell (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now there is both the CC and the fair use license. Guess the problem is solved. Can I remove the copyvio tag from the page now? Bertilvidet 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Zaritayta incident.jpg - Clearly not self authored as it comes from Google. Obvious copyvio. --Hetar 07:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lhsgb drum major.jpg and Image:Albhall.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source says "all right reserved", no hint of release under GFDL. User:Angr 10:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Rusty ps.jpg and Image:Alterra.jpg - both listed as PD-self, but image summaries do not agree with that tag. User:Angr 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Kara501sq pic.JPG tagged as GFDL-self but actually from [8]. Thuresson 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cap074.JPG: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but apparently a screenshot of a video. —Bkell (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Galley neelix.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but no source given and no justification of this claim; image includes a copyright watermark. —Bkell (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mulgrew.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but taken from NNDB, no justification for claim. —Bkell (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Fereshteh.jpg: Claimed GFDL and lists uploader's own website as source, but doesn't appear to be his own work (compare with sketches on uploader's user page). Doesn't mention any reference for a GFDL release of the image or its original author. Ali Mohajerani 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Engineering college of Yazd U.jpg: Claims fair use. But the rationale provided does not convince me. Ali Mohajerani 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ahvaw.jpg: There is no confirmation of GFDL on the source provided. Ali Mohajerani 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Priestly ordination.jpg: Tagged as PD-self, but looks similar to one of these from the same location (from 2003) which are copyrighted. I asked the uploader about this and the response was: "... I was not there. But I have them from non-copyrighted private photographs in my possession. So I can place them online. There is no copyright attached to them."[9] Since the user is not the original author, it's not clear copyright has been released. Gimmetrow 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Sighişoara city.750pix.jpg. Tagged as PD-self, but very low resolution and watermarked with "WEBSHOTS" in the lower right-hand corner, so presumably both copyvio and plagiarism. Jkelly 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Brasov0144.750pix.jpg -- same uploader. Higher res, but no metadata and a weblike filename. Jkelly 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Timisoara03.750pix.jpg -- as above. Jkelly 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Romanian landscape.750pix.jpg -- as above. Jkelly 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:MoldovaMonastery.750px.jpg -- as above. Jkelly 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:CountBasie.jpg labeled as {{PD-USGov-Military}}, however it is actualy from Stars and Stripes, and while it's the Official military newspaper I do not believe it fall under the federal government work PD rule, at least theyr reprint permission section states: "Stories and photos by Stars and Stripes staffers are copyrighted, and may not be reprinted or used without permission. E-mail permission@stripes.osd.mil, and let us know what you need.(...)". The image itself is also labeled "Edward Dixon ©Stars and Stripes". --Sherool (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked Sherool about the above... as members of the Stars and Stripes staff are normally military personnel on their official duty... Journalist in truth but also members of the US military in the action of discharging their duties, so such wide copyright claims by Stars and Stripes may not be legitimate depending on which code sections are invoked in what order, etc., and so this tagging may be entirely apropo. I didn't know, but suspect the photo's are indeed PD. I'm asking for informed legal opinion on this one to be posted here for all our future references! Best regards. // FrankB 01:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • U.S. government agencies can not produce copyrighted works, but they can acquire copyrights from others, by purchase or assignment - do we know that Edward Dixon was a service member acting in the course of his service when he snapped the pics? I would not risk that, better to use a low res display of this image and frame it as fair use. bd2412 T 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

July 29

• Image:Leto.jpg: widely used on the web and in magazines. Unlikely that User:Xephyrwing is the author. Kjetil_r 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• The following all appear to be publicity pictures. As above, it is highly unlikely that the uploader (Varsital Cop) is the author.
  • Image:Brewbrew.jpg
  • Image:Jebrew.jpg
  • Image:Rob sm.jpg
  • Image:Coulter_sean3.jpg
  • Image:5741178.jpg
  • Image:Piven_h04.jpg
  • Image:Promo03-peaches.jpg
  • Image:The_night_porter_PDVD_00901.jpg
  • Image:The_night_porter_PDVD_00601.jpg

--Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:San Vitale Ravenna.jpg - very vague source ("From a personal voyage site"), PD assumed because "no copyright stated" which is not how PD works. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Images by Taoc. Claims own work but this does not seem very likely (one is a Google Earth sreen shot). --Matt314 10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:K8L floorplan HansDeVries.jpg - The source www.chip-architect.com has no mention of GFDL or any other free licecnse. Thuresson 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:MichaelChiklis.JPG - Unlikely that copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights. Garion96 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Evosamp.jpg Available at http://www.motorsm.com/motorsport/auto/AUS_Rally/2006.asp, user clearly specifies that source is google images Blu3d 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I added {{nld}} to this image. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Parthian persian empire2.jpg, Image:Map of Iran under Parthian Dynasty.gif, Image:Persian gulf sasanian empire.gif from Encyclopedia Britannica Subst:nsd 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:AJCContainer.JPG - no evidence uploader is copyright holder. *drew 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Chaminda vaas 2.jpg - tagged as cc 2.5 but the image's source page on Flickr clearly says that it is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. --Hetar 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See also: Image:Kumar sangakkara.jpg, Image:Sangakkara.jpg
• Image:CSS NewStudio.jpg and Image:CSS Studio.jpg. Identical images, no sources, uploader states for the first that the copyright is held by the studio yet put on a tag saying he released it into the public domain. --BaronLarf 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

July 30

• Image:Joywins.jpg Labeled as {{GFDL-self}}, but I suspect the uploader have been playing the "license roulette" rather than actualy taking the photo himself, he have a history of slapping GFDL tags on everyting he uploads. --Sherool (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Photokarl 1.jpg - nothing to support PD claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Acrobat wiki.jpg: Orphan, uploader's only contribution, apparently taken from http://www.u2acrobat.nl/studio/slides/groeps.html (watermark added by uploader maybe?), nothing on source page to support no rights reserved claim. —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ginn.jpg: Claimed {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, but seems to be taken from a third-party site [10] with no indication of GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Guit.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but taken from [11] as evidenced by image watermark. —Bkell (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hotnasties.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but doubtful, given uploader's other contributions (see previous two listings). —Bkell (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Linkgaetz1.jpg: Again, claimed {{PD-self}}, but doubtful. —Bkell (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Link Gaetz and Hot Nasties Pictures

---

I took the Link Gaetz picture. The name you see there is mine. So I am the sole owner of the copyright to this picture and I have NO PROBLEM having it put on Wikipedia. As for the Hot Nasties picture, I took a picture of my old Hot Nasties poster and here it is. For the two other pictures, do as you wish, I don't care. Terveetkadet 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you took that photo yourself, you still need to resubmit it without the watermark; see the link on the image policy on the image site LactoseTI 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Starfhp.jpg: No license provided, and the user's talk page suggests a history of uploading unlicensed images. --Oden 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hwacha-firing.jpg: Published on a blog--but no release of copyright/rights? LactoseTI 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an image made by "an agency". However it is a photo took by a tourist who visited the aerea in 2002.--HappyApple 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it public domain though... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image:King of hearts.jpg - appears to be copyrighted by the U.S. Playing Card Co. -SCEhardT 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hwacha.jpg: Anything I could find just said "Copyright," I couldn't find a release? LactoseTI 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture was taken by an Italian tourist during his trip to Korea named Angelo Toscano, who released the rights to use this picture for promote Korean culture.--HappyApple 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, he has contact information on his site--but so far I haven't seen any licensing info there except for the notice of copyright. I'm hoping he'll be willing to help out with the project. The ideal might be for him to submit/modify it saying he's the owner and is willing to drop all claims to it? LactoseTI 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

July 31

• Image:Coomar.jpg—doesn't keep its story straight in describing the source and license of the image. See Image_talk:Coomar.jpg for details.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hobo.gif - Source seems not to exist; GFDL claim highly suspicious. User:Angr 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Snipermap.jpg - tagged as non-specific public domain from http://www.friends-partners.org/bosnia/snipemap.gif but I cannot find any copyright statement on the http://www.friends-partners.org/bosnia/ site, nor have I found any mention of the original source. A Google image search finds it only on the source website and answers.com (a Wikipedia mirror). Thryduulf 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:BetaLyrae.jpg - no evidence that the creator has released the image under the GFDL, in fact it is explicitly stated that modification (other than resizing) is not allowed [12]. Chaos syndrome 10:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:NICARAGUAN BOY.jpg - GFDL-self is claimed, but image apparently actually comes from here. User:Angr 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Rugby Ball.JPG - based on image source, no reason it should be GFDL -SCEhardT 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:CorgiDB5.JPG - same as above -SCEhardT 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Eddiestobarttruck.JPG - same as above -SCEhardT 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mission historic.jpg: Claimed {{PD-self}}, but summary says "turn of the century"; unlikely that the uploader was alive then. —Bkell (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:General Shabeg Singh1.gif: Claimed {{PD}}. Source given as "www.sikhworld.co.uk" [13], which is unlikely to be the copyright holder. Shabeg Singh died in 1984, so it's unlikely this photo was taken before 1923. No justification for public-domain claim. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bandabahadur1.jpg: Claimed {{PD}}. Source given as "www.sikh-heritage.co.uk" [14], which is unlikely to be the copyright holder. No information about who the painter was, when the painting was done, etc. No explanation given for public-domain claim. —Bkell (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bandabahadur2.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cobwebglass earrings.jpg - uploader claims PD-self, but gives external source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ad2005-amberannette.jpg - uploader claims photo was taken by a federal employee however lists a California State government website as source. Stubbleboy 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Page19.jpg - can't see anything at source which verifies that this is cc-by-sa licensed. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Replica1.jpg - as the image has been reuploaded five times and was originally tagged {{somewebsite}}, it appears extremely likely that it is unfree and the uploader randomly changed tags until he got one that didn't say the image would be deleted. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

August 1

• Image:Admiral yi statue.jpg - photo from webpage, no discussion of rights as of 7/31/2006? LactoseTI 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nanjung Ilgi.jpg - not a 2D photo; photographer could claim "artistic arrangement" LactoseTI 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Kimura.jpg - no support for saying rights have been released? LactoseTI 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Korean_knives.jpg - no support for license listed; went to source page, couldn't find such a claim. LactoseTI 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Kim Yu-shin Hwarang.jpg - no support for license listed; went to source page, couldn't find such a claim. LactoseTI 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Yi Sun Shin's Swords.jpg - no support for the license listed; nothing on source page about artist giving up rights LactoseTI 03:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Choi Bae-dal.jpg - nothing to support the author dismissing his rights... LactoseTI 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Breckinmeyer.jpg obviously not PD. --Hetar 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Moroccan.jpg - claimed GFDL-self, but doubtful. *drew 08:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Calvary Lutheran Church front view.jpg - summary and source seem to contradict PD-self claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah: You're right. I didn't word that license correctly. I release the image to to the public domain. ~Kruck 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:damavand.jpg: Claimed to be promotional material, while the website it's copied from [15] is not a promotional website. Ali Mohajerani 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't claimed to be public domain, it's claimed to be a publicity photo. Whether that tag is correct or not is a different question. Last I heard, mountains don't have publicists. User:Angr 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Come on. It's an old picture and I'm sure it's scanned from somewhere. DO NOT DELETE. 66.36.130.103 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither being scanned, nor being old (unless it's more than 83 years old and published, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case here) are sufficient to remove copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image use policy for a full explanation of how copyright works on Wikipedia. --Daduzi ^talk 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any problems, Damavand is a famous Iranian landscape and the image summary clearly explains the image's status as promotional material, for Tourism I believe, hence fair use. --Mardavich 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Generally the criteria for tagging an image as "promotional" are fairly strict, ie they must come from a source that is clearly labelled as a press pack or press release. There is no indication given on the image page that this is the case, hence the promotional claim remains dubious. Besides, if it really is a famous landscape finding a free alternative shouldn't be that hard. --Daduzi ^talk 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Shiyemap.jpg: Claimed to be public domain, but the source does not say such a thing. Ali Mohajerani 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Jalaseh Majles.jpg: Claimed to be fair use but I don't agree with the rationale provided. Ali Mohajerani 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's claimed to be a publicity photo. But the source is the Iraian Students News Agency, not someone promoting the The Majles (The Islamic Consultative Assembly). Bejnar 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The fair use rational provided by Wikiacc seems convincing to me, The Majlis is a significant public building and essential to the related articles. --Mardavich 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad front view.jpg: Photo is from Associated Press. Fair use rationale provided does not seem right. Uploader is banned forever. Ali Mohajerani 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Fraiser.png: Uploader claims {{PD-self}}; unlikely as image appears to be a screenshot of Frasier. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:IotaHorologii-b.jpg: Uploader claims the image was made for him and is released under the GFDL, however there is no evidence for either claim at the source. Chaos syndrome 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2

• Image:Cúa 1.jpg: Uploader says image is from a 1990 book cover. It is not being used to illustrate the book in question, nor is the book even identified, so this is almost certainly a copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:LebIs.gif Uploader claims {{PD-self}}, but this is a cropped version of the copyrighted UN map of the UNIFIL positions [16], with some text added. Obvious copyvio. Thomas Blomberg 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:MetiriaTurei.jpg: Claimed {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but source information seems to indicate that it comes from [17] (maybe a previous version of that page?), which says at the bottom, "Copyright © 1996-2005 The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand". No indication that the copyright holder allows anyone to use this image for any purpose. —Bkell (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this page on their website [18] says "you are allowed to use any of the images". That page, incidentally is linked to from the page you cited, using the link word Copyright. Be interested to hear if you had any better wording suggestions. I'm happy to arrange with the Green Party webmaster for an alternative wording to be adopted to avoid this happening in the future. - Drstuey 11:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Changed tag to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} and added conditions from http://www.greens.org.nz/office/copyright.htm. User:Angr 12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Cigli.jpg: No info provided, Looks to be from Google Earth. --Scienceman123 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:DLTV 7-14-06.JPG: Claimed {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, but it seems to be a screenshot of a television program, which is probably copyrighted and not released under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Alffusco.jpg: Orphan, claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}. Source is given as http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/34302/cat/641 (warning: pop-ups), which is almost certainly not the copyright holder; instead the site seems to be a fruitful garden of copyright infringement. —Bkell (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mussolinia.jpg: Claimed {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but description says "Image usable only on Wikipedia org". —Bkell (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Dolianova Cathedral back.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Sassari San Pietro in Silki.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Sassari Santa Maria di Bethlem.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cagliari Porta S'Avanzada.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cagliari nostra Signora di Bonaria.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cagliari Cathedral.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cagliari San Saturno.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Twogunhart.gif: Source says taken in the "1920s". This would be ok if the US public domain cutoff date were in the 1930s or something, but its not, its in the middle of the 1920s. There's pretty much a 70% chance this image is NOT public domain. I'm quite dubious about fair use for this image as well, which is why its here. Kevin_b_er 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Armadillo-Fiber-Optics.jpg: licensed with {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}, but source gives no indication of such licensing. User:Angr 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:SomalilandClanDisturbution.jpg: Source is "Scanned from a book". Licensing is PD-70. The image is captioned "Clan Border of 1930s". So basically, we're hoping that this is the first half of the 1930s and the author immediately dropped dead after publication. BigDT 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Somaliland map.gif Image source is [19]. There is a copyright notice on the site "Copyright © 2006 Somaliland Mission". There is no evidence that they have released their copyright to this image. BigDT 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Aldrovanda1.jpg Uploader claims the image is in the public domain, however there is no evidence of this at the source site. Chaos syndrome 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Another copy of this image (maybe the original?) appears on [www.kobe-u.ac.jp/mimura/image/Aldrovanda.jpg this page]. The page is on an Asian site, so I am unable to verify whether it has been put into the public domain or not. Can someone fluent in that language (Japanese I think) check it out? Thanks --NoahElhardt 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:NGC 6822.jpg Uploader claims the image is in the public domain, however the license at [20] says that the image is only available for non-commercial and non-printed use. Other uses need to have request for publication made. Chaos syndrome 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I deleted the image as a copyvio (uploader has a history, and I verified Chaos syndrome's description of the copyright policy); the image exists on commons, too, but without the source given. I have removed it from the only article it appears in. Mangojuice^talk 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Acheron-1.jpg Movie screenshot, however no detailed fair use rationale is provided. Also the use of this image to illustrate a single bullet point in the Zeta Reticuli article is, I feel, dubious under the fair use terms in the screenshot fair use box. Chaos syndrome 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually initially posted the picture as part of "Titan in fiction", and the image was meant to illustrate the similarities between the fictional moon LV426 and Titan (the thick atmosphere, the ringed gas giant in the background) but someone swapped it out, saying that it wasn't actually about Titan. Fair enough, though the similarities are so strong it's difficult to see how they could be coincidental. Serendipodous 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Gaborone map.png from a tourist department site, nothing on the web site gives permission to use "for any purpose", though it does claim copyright. CDC (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:R p.jpg - The copyright holder says this: "You have my permission to use the image with your article in Wikipedia.org, a free encyclopedia/ Reza Parsa article/ web publishing only and for free, and the picture's copyright will be attributed to me." I don't believe that this is free enough. BigDT 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Nope, not free (enough). Others can't use it, permission to modify isn't given, can't be used on a CD project. Kevin_b_er 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

August 3

• Image:Rahimuddin Khan and Zia-ul-Haq.jpg - GFDL-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:General Zia announcing that Islamic laws would be enforced in the country.jpg - PD-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Zia's Funeral.jpg - PD-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Zia's Burial.jpg - PD-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti.jpg - GFDL-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:General Rahimuddin.jpg - PD-self is claimed, but it's highly unlikely the uploader is the photographer. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Pak-india.jpg - Although the source, http://www.informationwar.org/, says "No rights reserved unless misused by warmongers", it's unlikely they actually hold the copyright to this picture, which was probably taken either by a soldier or a reporter. No further information about the photograph is available at informationwar.org. User:Angr 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Midlandlibrary.jpg - CV from http://www.midland.biz/photos/ --BigDT 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Beirut before 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.jpg and Image:Beirut after.JPG - Google maps/Google Earth are not fair use and it should be deleted immediately.

Speedied as imagevio explicitly prohibited under WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Child female victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg - it's not a fair use picture. it's stealing from the photographer.
  • All three of the above images have fair-use rationales. Please explain why you consider the rationale invalid. User:Angr 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I use wikipedia for a long time, and that's not a fair-use. Taking pictures from commercial sites or companies that are not related to them (like logos for example) and use pictures that companies like AP took (and other sites have to pay money to them to use the pictures) and excuse it with: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is the same like stealing. That's really don't get inside a "fair use" license. there are several more pictures in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (please check it) that have the same problem. You can't say it's "fair use" just because you don't find free pictures. Thank you, 88.155.198.100 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
      • The same thing goes to the GoogleEarth maps - it's a unique service that google had to invest a lot of money to build it, and there is specific copyright sign in their programs - of course you can't find similar pictures... you can't use that excuse for stealing the pictres - it's the exact reason why you can't use it. 88.155.198.100 11:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
        • Which specific fair use criteria do you consider these images to violate? Right now your arguments are broad enough that they could be applied against every single image used at Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. User:Angr 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Not really - Using for example pictures that AP took in the article about AP is fairuse. Using pictures of US presidents, from the US pictures library, is fair use. But using pictures from AP for example for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and use the "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" excuse it the same like stealing. That's really not a fair use. GoogleEarth is even more clear - There is no doubt that you can't use it just beacuse there isn't an alternative. Of course there isn't an alternative - Google had to pay alot of money to build this program and uses a copyright sign everywhere. What you do, is actually permit stealing pictures from each company that has a unique service, and that's of course not a fair use. 88.155.198.100 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Child female victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg at least is exactly an example of the fifth fair use counterexample. —Bkell (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's almost an example (it would be an exact example if the article were about the girl), but I suppose it's close enough. (This is part of the reason I wish Wikipedia wouldn't allow "fair use" images at all; it would make life much easier deciding what is and isn't allowed.) User:Angr 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • ??? Are you actually saying that I can use all the pictures that I want from GoogleEarch, AP and other companies if I don't find free pictures? That's absurd! I don't understand that does it mean "it's almost an example" - an example for what? We are taking a product that people need to pay for (like google-earth) and call it "fair use". It's absurd!
  • The use of this image falls under the fifth fair-use counterexample: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." Consequently it cannot be claimed fair use. —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedied as imagevio explicitly prohibited under WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:SEFI.png - The website hosting the PDF document this was taken from may be a branch of the U.S. Federal Government, but this map seems to have been taken from a privately written book and is therefore not public domain. User:Angr 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This PDF document by a U.S. government agency contains a total of nine graphic images. Six of them have the note attached, "Warning: This material may be protected by copyright law." The map of Southeast Farallon Island taken from this PDF document did not have the copyright warning note attached.--Ratzer 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but it does have the credit "From The Farrallon Islands: Sentinels of the Golden Gate by Peter White". That book was published by Scottwell Associates, which seems to be a private publishing house and not a branch of the U.S. Government. User:Angr 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Iran.PresidentKhatami.jpg, Image:Iran.Khatami.Family.jpg, Image:Iran.PresidentKhatami.02.jpg, and Image:Iran.Khatami.Happy.jpg: All uploaded by a single user. The fair use claims don't sound right at all. Ali Mohajerani 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Trpimir.jpg: Uploader claims "made it myself", but it appears to be a scan of a paper map. —Bkell (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:El conde del Guacharo.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but source is given as http://www.globovision.com/, which says at the bottom: "© Copyright 2006. Globovisión Tele C.A. Todos Los Derechos Reservados". No evidence given that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Thalia SSS.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but source is given as http://www.thaliasworld.com/, which says at the bottom: "Copyright Thalia's World 1998 - 2003 / All rights reserved". No evidence given that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Logo of Sabado Sensacional.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but source is given as http://www.venevision.net/, which says at the bottom: "© Copyright 1996 - 2005 by venevision.net / VENEVISION - Compañías de la Organización Cisneros - Todos los derechos Reservados". No evidence given that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Eugene Weidmann on his way to the guillotine.jpg - the article Eugene Weidmann states he was executed in 1939, so this picture is likely under copyright of the photographer. However, this website appears to be the source of the picture, and FAQ states "never use any of my photos, graphics or illustrations elsewhere on the internet or in any printed form without my permission please". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mostar night.jpg - Claims not copyrighted but no such indication at source. Then again, maybe it says it in Bosnian, which I can't read. --BrownCow • (how now?) 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Midtown Madness 1 CD Case.jpg - it's unlikely that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Raimundo Andueza Palacios.jpg: Has two public domain tags, but also a fair-use claim. No source given. —Bkell (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:José Antonio Delgado.jpg: Rationale for GFDL claim is "This image is promotional, because is used in many websites, magazines and newspapers." —Bkell (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Coat of arms of Baruta.gif: Three different licensing claims: Public domain, fair use, and GFDL. No source given. —Bkell (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Uploader has changed licensing information to {{Seal}}; still no source information. —Bkell (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Flag of Baruta Municipality.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently tagged with {{PD-self}}. Previous history of tags: public domain claim, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, {{fair use in|Baruta Municipality}}. —Bkell (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The evolution of this image seems to be apparent in Image:Flag of Baruta.jpg, Image:Flag of Baruta..jpg, and Image:Flag of Baruta,.jpg, likely in that order (as that order is also consistent with the uploader's naming scheme for images that replace other images). It seems to me that the uploader did not actually create the image himself, but rather found an image somewhere and cleaned it up. The only thing that puzzles me is the lower right-hand corner of the first image. Maybe it was a torn paper or cloth flag that was scanned and touched up? —Bkell (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:The young Morella Muñoz.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but source is given as http://www.cantv.net/, which says at the bottom: "Todos los derechos reservados." No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released this under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Morella Muñoz in a concert.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but source is given as http://www.venezuelatuya.com/, which says at the bottom: "© venezuelatuya.com S.A., 1997-2006. Todos los derechos reservados." No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released this under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Orfeón Lamas 2.jpg: Conflicting licensing information, source is apparently a CD. —Bkell (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previous history of copyright tags: {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{NoRightsReserved}}, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, {{PD-ineligible}}. —Bkell (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Orfeón Lamas .jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previous history of copyright tags: {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{NoRightsReserved}}, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, {{PD-ineligible}}. —Bkell (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:People dancing merengue rucaneao.jpg: Conflicting licensing information, source is a book. —Bkell (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:The Malagueña.jpg: Claimed GFDL; source is a book. —Bkell (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ricardo Aguirre.jpg: Claimed GFDL; source is a CD. —Bkell (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Fulgencio Aquino.jpg: Claimed GFDL and public domain. Source is an LP. Basis for public-domain claim is that the LP was released in the 1950s or 1960s, so public domain in Venezuela; this seems unlikely to me, but Commons:Licensing doesn't have a section for Venezuela. In any case, if PD claim is correct, then GFDL claim is baseless. —Bkell (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:José Antonio Abreu.jpg: Claimed GFDL; source is a 1983 book. —Bkell (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previous history of tags: {{bookcover}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. —Bkell (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Evencio Castellanos.jpg: Claimed GFDL; source is a 1955 book. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Antonio Estévez.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Moisés Moleiro.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:José Ángel Lamas and the school of Chacao.jpg: Same as above; original source is a 1948 painting by Arming Barrios. —Bkell (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Rhazes Hernández-López1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, from same 1955 book as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ángel Sauce.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Victor Guillermo Ramos Rangel.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  User has now changed this to read, "This photo is of my property because Victor Guillermo Ramos Rangel was my grandfather." This is generally false, as the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject of the photo. —Bkell (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Mira illustration.jpg: Claimed PD-NASA, source is Astronomy Picture of the Day, which isn't necessarily PD.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Los Amigos Invisibles 1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, summary is "Promotional band picture". —Bkell (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:The punto.gif: Claimed GFDL and also fair use, source is http://www.sonidosdelfolklore.com/ (which appears to have devolved into a parking page); no evidence is given that the copyright holder has released this under the GFDL, and no fair-use rationale is given. —Bkell (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Fulía in celebration of la cruz de mayo, Carapita, Caracas.jpg: Claimed GFDL and also fair use; source is a book; no evidence to support GFDL claim, no fair-use rationale. —Bkell (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Velorio de Cruz, Tacarigua, Margarita.jpg: Claimed GFDL and also fair use; source is a 1972 book; no evidence to support GFDL claim, no fair-use rationale. —Bkell (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ignacio Figueredo 1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, source is a book. —Bkell (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previously tagged with {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. Description says, "Image from the book, Atlas de Tradiciones de Venezuela, Fundación Bigott, author unknown/unavailable, image has circulated freely for many years as have many other photographs of this and other Venezuelan musician. Such images are considered as having no commercial value." —Bkell (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Galeron 1.jpg: Claimed GFDL and also fair use, source is a book, no evidence to support GFDL claim, no fair-use rationale. —Bkell (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Los Cañoneros.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, supposedly a promotional photo, no evidence given that copyright holder has indeed released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:(saints)st moses the black-001 medium.jpg No evidence this image released for free use -Nv8200p talk 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Smathers.jpg: Claimed {{PD-USGov}}. However, source [21] credits "MLK Library", which is not a United States federal government agency. —Bkell (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Noplacethatfar.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but doubtful for an album cover. —Bkell (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nptfvideo1.jpg and Image:Nptfvideo2.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but doubtful for a music video. —Bkell (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ann Richards.jpg - Claims PD because it's from a government site, but it's the State of Texas, not the US Government, so it's probably not PD. howcheng {chat} 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:42 Burns.jpg - Claims public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government but is from the State of Florida; likely still PD but I am unsure of the relevant state law(s) and in any case the copyright template associated with the image is incorrect— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElKevbo (talk • contribs)

  There is a {{PD-FLGov}} tag, if that's appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  That appears to be valid. I've made the change. Thanks so much for your help! --ElKevbo 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

August 4

• Image:Laudelino Mejías 1.gif: Claimed {{PD-old}}, but if the author died 100 years ago, then the photograph must have been taken before the subject of the photo was 14 years old, which seems not to be the case. No information is given about the photographer or when the photo was taken or published. —Bkell (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Heraclio Fernández.jpg: No source given to support public domain claim. —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Mario Suárez.jpg: "This image is of public domain, because is a tribute to Mario Suarez,of the Alcaldía de Valencia, Venezuela, this image is copyleft." Not a valid reason for public domain. —Bkell (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Armando Molero-1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, source given [22] says at the bottom: "© 2003, 2004 Producciones León Magno". No evidence given that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Chelsea home shirt.JPG: Taken from this website. The licence summary is "All content included on this website including but not limited to website design, text, graphics, audio clips, visual clips, logos, button icons and the selection and arrangement thereof is the property of CVML, Kitbag or its content suppliers and is protected by UK and international copyright laws." There is no evidence to suggest the image is available for use here. SteveO 11:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Archimedes-lab.org Logo.jpg. Speedied once, then re-uploaded. There's no evidence uploader owns copyright. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Body everywhere.jpg. Speedied once. Undeleted without any reason given. From the image description page: This image is from People Diary [23]. According to the information on the link, the picture is still in copyright. However the link provided gives no information on the copyright, nor is there any justification on the image link or the wikipedia page for the image as to why it is fair use (according to the tag used). It is being used to try to depict events of the Nanking Massacre, yet there is no evidence that it is what the captions says it is. Kimchi.sg 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Read your own talkpage. When there is a POV dispute about an image, an editor is not supposed to add {{unknown}} (with date set to more than 7 days ago) to make an unsuspecting admin delete the image without a second glance, like you did. Read the page history and talk page, first. -- Миборовский 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of that indicates why this picture is fair use. John Smith's 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the real (non-website) source of this image? When was it created? Where was it first published? If it is unfreely copyrighted, how does it meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? Accusations of bad faith aren't helpful in general, and certainly don't tell us what we need to know here in order to republish images. Jkelly 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Eddie Van Halen rocking.jpg. The source noted for the image goes to a myspace.com page for a user that does not exist. Uploader claims it is a self-made image, but guessing by the quality of the image I'd suspect it was done professionally. I did find the image on three other websites, including one [24] claiming copyright at the bottom of the page (other two: [25][26]).Given all the images in the world available for this famous performer, certainly we can find an image with less potential copyright concerns. --Durin 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Apple II Plus.jpg - taken from http://www.oldcomputers.net/appleii.html that gives no indication that the picture is free to use. // Liftarn
• Image:BradInSuit2 0.jpg - "I release the rights of this photo for the sole use of inclusion on Wikipedia." That may be a problem... // Liftarn
  • Speedy deleted under criterion I3. User:Angr 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Buckcherry 05.jpg - copied from http://www.myspace.com/buckcherryworldwide that does not seem to release it. // Liftarn
• Image:Camille Keaton camillekeaton.jpg gives http://www.flashbackweekend.com/past_fbw05_celeb.html as source and they say "Site contents copyright © 2002 - 2006 Flashback Weekend unless noted otherwise. All rights reserved." // Liftarn 20:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Eduardo Serrano.jpg: Image taken from a Web page, claimed {{Attribution}}, but doubtful (seems like licensing roulette). —Bkell (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently tagged with {{GFDL}}. Previously tagged with {{bookcover}}, public domain claim, {{promotional}}, nothing, {{Fairusein}}, {{Attribution}}. —Bkell (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Lorenzo Herrera.jpg: Image taken from an unnamed LP, currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Image has previously been tagged with {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}, and {{Fairusein|Lorenzo Herrera}}. —Bkell (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Parranda La Flor de San Joaquin.jpg: Image taken from a book, currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Image has previously been tagged with {{bookcover}}, {{Promotional}}, a public domain claim, and a fair use claim. —Bkell (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:The aguinalderos.jpg: Image taken from a CD, currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Image was previously tagged with {{albumcover}}. —Bkell (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Carátulas y portadas 4.jpg: Image taken from an LP, description says: "Image from the World Wide Web, author unknown/unavailable." Currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previous history of copyright tags: {{PD}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{promotional}}, {{PD}} again, nothing, {{albumcover}}. —Bkell (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Juancho Lucena.jpg: Image taken from a 1972 magazine, currently claims {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previously tagged as {{magazinecover}}. —Bkell (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Augusto Bracca.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}. No source is given. Previously tagged with {{HistoricPhoto}} and {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. —Bkell (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Otilio Galíndez 1.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}. Previously tagged with {{albumcover}}, until I disputed the fair-use claim. —Bkell (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Enrique Hidalgo.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL}}. Previously tagged with {{albumcover}}, public domain claim, fair use claim, {{promotional}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, and then nothing for a while. Source is given as [27], which cites a "Rafael Salazar" as the photographer, and says at the bottom: "© Copyright 2004, Editores Orientales, C.A. - Todos los Derechos Reservados". No evidence that this has been released under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Gualberto Ibarreto- 1.jpg: Currently tagged with both {{albumcover}} and {{GFDL}}. The GFDL tag was added when I disputed the fair-use claim. —Bkell (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Pedro Antonio Ríos Reyna2.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}, but it apparently comes from a 1955 book by the Venezuela Symphony Orchestra. —Bkell (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Pedro Antonio Ríos Reyna.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Juan Bautista Plaza.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Aldemaro Romero and his hall orchestra 1.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL-retouched}}. Summary says, "This image is of a collection of books and lp´s of 1967, in the celebration of the 400 years of Caracas. This collection was made by the Circulo Musical". No evidence that the original image was in the public domain or under a free license. —Bkell (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Luis Alfonzo Larrain.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL}}. No source is given. Summary says, "Image from the World Wide Web, author unknown/unavailable, image has circulated freely for many years as have many other photographs of this and other Venezuela nmusicians. Such images are considered as having no commercial value." Previously tagged with {{albumcover}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{bookcover}}, {{promotional}}, and then nothing for a while. —Bkell (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Anselmo López.jpg: Currently tagged with {{GFDL}}. No source is given. Summary says, "Image from the World Wide Web, author unknown/unavailable, image has circulated freely for many years as have many other photographs of this and other Venezuelan musicians/composers. Such images are considered as having no commercial value." Previously tagged with {{albumcover}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, {{promotional}}, three copies of {{promotional}}, and then nothing for a while. —Bkell (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Relative situation of the Baruta municipality..jpg: Tagged as self-created, but it is clearly a derivative work of Image:Relative situation of the Baruta Municipality.jpg. The summary of this latter image states that it comes from "the Baruta municipality official website" and from "the city hall of the Baruta Municipality". —Bkell (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Morella Muñoz 1.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but says, "This is the official photo of the Morella Muñoz Foundation", and gives no evidence that said Foundation has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Quinteto Contrapunto.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but photo is apparently from an LP. Summary also says, "Image from the World Wide Web, author unknown/unavailable". —Bkell (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• About 165 uploads by the same editor, Benzmit (talk • contribs) were all marked self2, but many demonstrably not, and most were highly suspect. One image (already tagged as cv) carried a copyright notice, several were sports trading cards, most seemed to be from catlogues of clothing. None appeared to be linked to. I have taken the liberty of listing them all here. See also WP:AN#Massive_upload_of_possibly_unfree_image.

• Image:Ac milan goaliedida.jpg
• Image:Ac milan goalie.jpg
• Image:Ac milan 3rd.jpg
• Image:Ac milan away.jpg
• Image:Ac milan home.jpg
• Image:New juventus goalkeeper buffon.jpg
• Image:New juventus away.jpg
• Image:New juventus home.jpg
• Image:Hamburger SV home.gif
• Image:VfB Stuttgart fc.jpg
• Image:Lazio away.jpg
• Image:Birmingham away.jpg
• Image:Crystal Palace away.jpg
• Image:Crystal Palace home.jpg
• Image:QPR away.jpg
• Image:QPR home.jpg
• Image:Wolves away.jpg
• Image:Wolves home.jpg
• Image:Southampton home.jpg
• Image:Leicester away.jpg
• Image:Leicester home.jpg
• Image:Sunderland away.jpg
• Image:Leeds away.jpg
• Image:Leeds home555.jpg
• Image:Weah.jpg
• Image:Wender bremnen away.jpg
• Image:Derbyc.jpg
• Image:Smechsavelarge.jpg
• Image:Stiles Cantona.jpg
• Image:Porthsmouth away.jpg
• Image:Wigan 077777.gif
• Image:Fulham gk.jpg
• Image:Marseilles away.jpg
• Image:Sporting lisbon away 2007.jpg
• Image:Sporting lisbon home 2007.jpg
• Image:Benfica away.jpg
• Image:Benfica home.gif
• Image:Psv away.jpg
• Image:Psv home.jpg
• Image:Feyenoord gk.jpg
• Image:Feyenoord away.jpg
• Image:Ajax 99home.jpg
• Image:Johancruyff88.gif <--sports trading card
• Image:UntitledJurgen Klinsmann.gif
• Image:UntitledSocrates.gif
• Image:UntitledGianfranco Zola.gif
• Image:UntitlcedAlen Boksic.gif
• Image:UntitledMarcio Amoroso.gif
• Image:UntitledHiroshi Nanami.gif
• Image:UntitledJuanSebastian Veron.gif
• Image:UntitledDejan Savicevic.gif
• Image:UntitledDidier Deschamps.gif
• Image:UntitledIvan Kaviedes.gif
• Image:UntitledPatrick Mboma.gif
• Image:UntitledAriel Ortega.gif
• Image:UntitledMarcel Desailly.gif
• Image:UntitledPatrick Kluivert.gif
• Image:UntitledJean Pierre Papin.gif
• Image:UntitleccdZvonimir Boban.gif
• Image:UntitledFaustino Asprilla.gif
• Image:UntitledDarko Kovacevic.gif
• Image:UntitledThierry Henry.gif
• Image:UntitledYouriDjorkaeff.gif
• Image:UntitledRobertoFabianAyala.gif
• Image:UntitledGeorgeWeah.gif
• Image:UntitledLeonardo.gif
• Image:UntitledNwankwoKanu.gif
• Image:Untitledf44FrancoBaresi.gif
• Image:Untitled44FrancoBaresi.gif <-no license, speedied
• Image:UntitledFrancoBaresi.gif
• Image:UntitledfabrizioRavanelli.gif
• Image:Untitledsundayoliseh.gif
• Image:Van der sddaar.gif
• Image:Galawy.jpg
• Image:Galt.jpg
• Image:Bleccc.jpg
• Image:Bmgk.jpg
• Image:Bddb.jpg <- contains promotional text not likely on a self image
• Image:Mdmap.gif
• Image:Am8888.gif
• Image:Am444.gif
• Image:3rd lyon.jpg
• Image:Lyonkid.jpg
• Image:Riverpl.jpg
• Image:UntitleDSADSADSADd2.gif
• Image:Chelsea keeper.jpg
• Image:Mukeeper.jpg
• Image:Liver new.jpg
• Image:Spurszacora.jpg
• Image:Zid bdddarsi.gif
• Image:Ajax away.jpg
• Image:Juv awadddy.jpg
• Image:Milian away.jpg
• Image:Milan home.jpg
• Image:Inter 3 kits.jpg
• Image:Close card del p.jpg
• Image:Close card park.jpg <-seems to be a photo of promo material in japanese
• Image:Close card drog.jpg <-card
• Image:Muvodslo.jpg
• Image:Ruudbadboy.jpg
• Image:Spurz23332.gif <-Seems to be promotional
• Image:Spurz.gif <-same as above
• Image:Giggskit.jpg
• Image:Mumeadly.gif
• Image:Chelsea6988.jpg
• Image:Sockshimj.jpg
• Image:Shortyhoof.jpg
• Image:Muggkit.jpg
• Image:Ronahin.jpg <-trading card
• Image:Cupfrog.gif
• Image:Chelseahome.jpg <-similar to Chelsea6988.jpg
• Image:Chelsea 06 third99 .jpg
• Image:Chelsea 06 third .jpg
• Image:Chelsea 06 away .jpg
• Image:Chelsea 06 home .jpg
• Image:Kahnmanuy.jpg
• Image:Kahn.jpg
• Image:Backshirt.jpg
• Image:Westkit.jpg
• Image:Watfordkit.jpg
• Image:Sheffield llnited home.jpg
• Image:Sheffield united home.jpg
• Image:Reading away.jpg
• Image:Newcastlekit.jpg
• Image:Middlesbourough away.jpg
• Image:Blackbaway.jpg
• Image:Rangers home.jpg
• Image:Portokit.jpg
• Image:Rangers away.jpg
• Image:Celtickit.jpg
• Image:Bmaway.jpg
• Image:Marhome.jpg
• Image:Psg home.jpg
• Image:Val away.jpg
• Image:Valkit.jpg
• Image:Barhome2.jpg
• Image:Baraway.jpg
• Image:Barhome.jpg
• Image:Bestclub.jpg
• Image:Realkit.jpg
• Image:Efckit.jpg
• Image:Fulhamkit.jpg
• Image:Mcfckit.jpg
• Image:Ipswichtwn.jpg

Several other images the editor contributed had already been tagged. The editor had been previously warned about uploading images with incorrect tags on his/her talk page. --TeaDrinker 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)