Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied" If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion G12. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}. If an image is missing source or license information, 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 user.

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. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page.

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.

February 23

• Image:Der blatt.pdf, Image:DER YID.pdf, Image:Der yid Translation.pdf: Claimed GFDL-self, but these are articles printed in newspapers (see description at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability). It is unlikely that the uploader is the author of these articles. —Bkell (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Traditional Jews Appalled by Connection to Israel.pdf, Image:Mid East Impasse.pdf, Image:Stats for TTJ.pdf: Claimed GFDL-self. The first was published in the Washington Times by the True Torah Orthodox Jewish Community; the second is a column from the Washington Post; and the third claim is dubious because of the uploader's other contributions (see also the previous listing). —Bkell (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:NSIssuesreenshot1.PNG: Claimed PD-self; this is a screenshot of a Web site. —Bkell (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably usable as fair-use. – Chacor 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Teribly sorry. I really wasn't sure what it would be licenced as. I intended to put it under the unknown option--Whytecypress 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be tagged with Template:Web-screenshot and Template:Windows-software-screenshot and should have fair use rationale --Iamunknown 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • While I realize that this holds no legal weight, I can assert that neither of the administrators for the website in question have any objections to this screenshot being used. If we cannot address this through standard Fair Use procedures (though I'm sure that we can). I am willing to acquire formal permission or replace this image with an equivalent provided by the website for this purpose. GulDan 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    It is always better to get an image released under a free license than to use a screenshot under a claim of fair use. If you know the administrators for the site, please ask them if they would be willing to release a screenshot under one of the free licenses listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. —Bkell (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    I will contact some people as I'm not sure which they'd prefer a screen-shot to be released under. GulDan 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Indian Navy submarine.jpg - User got the image from Flickr and licensed on Wikipedia with CC-BY-2.5. Going to the Flickr source ([1]) shows that it is actually CC-BY-ND-NC-2.0.↔NMajdan•talk 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since it was uploaded only a few hours ago, it can't even be a case of the license being changed on flickr. It is only used on Indian Navy, which already has plenty of other pictures. I say delete it. —RP88 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ what is the problem with this license. It states that You are free:to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work and Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Wikipedia is non-commercial, where is the restriction. The Image will be used in Sindugosh submarines and Indian Navy submarine articles. Chanakyathegreat 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. If the license is {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}} on flickr, why did you mark it with {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}? It is not permissible to mark an image with an inaccurate license. At the very least, you should do that. —RP88 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AlfredHershey.jpg, Image:MaclynMcCarty.gif (persimmion speficied on NLM page), Image:OswaldAvery.jpg, NLM uses a lot of material with permission www.nlm.nih.gov/copyright.htm; nothing there suggests that these images are in the PD. --Peta 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Peta, you failed to mark all three of these images with {{PUIdisputed}} and put {{subst:unverifiedimage}} on the page where they are used. I've fixed this. It is clear that we've got to confirm free copyright for these, since NLM states in their copyright disclosure that the images that appear on their site may be copyrighted, so we can't assume these are PD-Gov. —RP88 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • With regards to Image:AlfredHershey.jpg, I haven't been able to locate the "home" archive for it. It probably should go. —RP88 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Image:AlfredHershey.jpg possibly comes from this article which states National Library of Medicine just below it, a position normally associated with the copyright holder. --Bob 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

        But that is on the NLM website, which as Peta mentioned, says their images may not be PD. For example, as I mentioned below, Image:OswaldAvery.jpg also is marked like that, but it comes from Oswald T. Avery Collection who clearly state that the copyright holder has not been identified. —RP88 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    • With regards to Image:MaclynMcCarty.gif, it isn't used on WP, so I haven't bothered to track down its source. I recommend deletion. —RP88 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • A possibly free image to use on the Maclyn McCarty article can be found here which states National Library of Medicine just below it, a position normally associated with the copyright holder. --Bob 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

        Same problem as above. —RP88 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    • With regards to Image:OswaldAvery.jpg, I found it in the The Oswald T. Avery Collection at the NLM's Profiles in Science program. For this photo they state "The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science program has made every effort to secure proper permissions for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however, it has either not been possible to identify or contact the current copyright owner." They have an alternate picture of Avery whose rights are held by the Rockefeller Archive Center. I'm going to contact them to see if they'll grant the use of it under a free license. —RP88 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

February 24

• Image:Nelida_Roca.jpg - Text says "from my camera" but looks like a scan Nv8200p talk 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Neorion_Bicini.jpg - No evidence copyright holder granted uploader permission to release the image under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Seahawks-logo-copy.png - GFDL claimed, but class ring designs are copyrighted by the manufacturers, and a fair use claim probably would not hold up. -- Donald Albury 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nessie.png - Doubtful that uploader is the creator of this image as claimed Nv8200p talk 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dsg_chapel.jpg - No evidence of permission to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pic_shellybruce.jpg - From a copyrighted website with all rights reserved. No evidence uploader has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Tepexpan.jpg - tagged with GFDL and cc-by-2.5 dual licence, however, the uploader stated in the summary that commercial use is prohibited. I have requested clarification from the uploader (Leftger (talk · contribs). —JeremyA (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bakenshark.jpg - tagged with "use is restricted unless consent from the owner". –Henning Makholm 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Update: Uploader has now changed tags to GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0, but there is no evidence of this licensing; on the contrary the purported quote from the copyright holder that uploader has now added only asserts permission to use the image on a specific page. –Henning Makholm 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Update: I have included the email Mr. Henning Makholm on the license page. Since you are well known to the wikipedia website, perhaps you can help adjust the licensing for this type of permission? -Thatopshotta 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The permission given in the email you quote is not sufficient for including the image on Wikipedia. We need a permission to distribute the image under the GFDL (or a more permissive license), not one that is specific to using the image in a single specific article for a particular purpose. And, by the way, please stop removing the PUI tag from the image page for as long as it is under discussion here. –Henning Makholm 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thatopshotta (or rather his IP sockpuppet) now claims fair use, but with no specific fair use rationale. In particular, it seems extremely doubtful that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Not sure what the right tag for the image page is in this situation, but Thatopshotta keeps removing the tags anyway, so ... –Henning Makholm 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Tagged with {{subst:rfu}}, which marks a non-free image as being replaceable. —Bkell (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As a minor cleanup I've added the {{WithPermission}} tag to the image since Thatopshotta obtained permission from the source. This, however, doesn't really change the fact that we might hope to find a picture of an appropriate sandwich that doesn't require fair use. Thatopshotta, I realize that must be annoying to you, but copyright laws are very strict and WP has to follow them. Perhaps you can convince the author, Gary Gibson, to release the image under a GFDL or other free license? WP needs the author to agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —RP88 07:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, RP88 and Bkell. I don't know this owner of the picture personally, rather I emailed him for the permission to use. He specifically noted "use for that page". I googled like crazy for a picture of this Bake N Shark, but can not find a suitable replacement. I have put the word out to my people in Trinidad, to get a picture of it and email it to me. But knowing my people in Trinidad, they will all forget about this picture once they hit the Maracas Beach! lol Can't this picture be kept, until one such free license picture is found. Do they not have a "Picture Allowed/Valid until a free picture is found" type of tag?

Thanks for your cooperation in adjusting to my level of new beeness. Thatopshotta 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

No, we don't have a tag like that. The reason is that we want to encourage the creation of free content. If an article is lacking an image because no one has created a freely licensed picture yet, then that provides motivation for a free image to be made. If we allowed non-free images on a "temporary" basis, until a free image is created, what would happen is that we would get more and more non-free images, supposedly "temporarily", but really they would remain indefinitely because there wouldn't be motivation for people to create a replacement. —Bkell (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, as the notice indicates, it won't be deleted any earlier than March 5th, so you've got some time to find a suitable replacement. Even after that date it may well be the case that no administrator will delete it for some time to come (they're pretty busy folks). —RP88 08:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a request for a freely licensed replacement photo at WikiProject Caribbean. —Bkell (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission from Wikipedia has been sought for and granted, and they have done what they do on the image page. This discussion can now be deleted I assume, however maybe a more experienced person may delete it. Since I am not sure how the process works. Thatopshotta 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

Thatopshotta, we need more than just permission to use the image on Wikipedia. We need the image to be released under a free license, which will allow anyone to use, modify, and redistribute the image for any purpose, including non-educational and commercial purposes. Unless the image is released under such a license, it is not considered "free" here. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about how you should ask for permission. —Bkell (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I was reading the discussion for Image:Indian Curry Chicken.jpg, which appears to have Wikipedia-only permission (but you mentioned that yourself under the next bullet). I'm confused about the situation with Image:Bakenshark.jpg. The e-mail granting Wikipedia-only permission has been removed from the image description page and replaced by a PermissionOTRS tag, but the fair-use tag was not removed, and no free license tag was added [2]. Moreover, the "replaceable fair use" tag was removed. So has the image been released under a free license? If so, which one? If not, then it's still considered a fair-use image here, and the "replaceable" tag should remain. —Bkell (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is now correctly tagged as used under fair, with permission, and that permission has been archived in OTRS. With regards to the rfu tag, I tend to agree with you. It's a photo of a sandwitch, admittedly a particular kind of sandwich from an island nation, nonetheless it would seem reasonable we could find someone willing to take a picture of one and release the photo under a free license. Rather than sticking {{Replaceable fair use}} back on the image, I've added a note to the image's discussion page, requesting a replacement, if possible. Hopefully Thatopshotta or someone from WikiProject Caribbean will be able to come up with a free image as a replacement. --RP88 07:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See, its hard to get this picture. The sandwich, to my knowledge is only served at one particular place in all of Trinidad. More than that, it is served at a particular store right at a famous beach in Trinidad. So not many people would have taken a picture of this sandwich, or knowing Trini's would even care to take a picture of the sandwich. Too much talk about this sandwich, making me hungry. Thatopshotta 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

• Image:Indian Curry Chicken.jpg - No evidence that copyright holder has granted permission is visible on originating website. –Henning Makholm 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Update: Uploader has changed tags to GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0, but later wrote "Awaiting documented permission" ... –Henning Makholm 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Update on the Update: Perhaps you may assist in ascertaining the correct license tag if it is incorrect? -Thatopshotta 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Documenting that a proper license has been granted is the burden of the uploader. I strongly suspect that proper license has not been granted, and if you claim that it has, it is your job to document that claim. –Henning Makholm 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the frivolous nature of the interruption, but it would do no harm at all if that pic were dropped irrespective of IP issues. If I had never eaten a curry before it would scare me sockless. The other curry pic on the page (not that great, but you could eat it without it trying to eat you) is mine, BTW, but I'm not bidding for the franchise, just be nice to see that page look good. Tarquin Binary 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it is not the best picture. Although, you made a very interesting point, you referred to it as "eatin a curry before it would scare me sockless" , hence you do not realize that it is not a curry. It is chicken seasoned with curry. This is a very good reason why the article should be kept alive, and not deleted. Curry chicken is NOT a curry, it is a chicken, your picture is curry. As to the picture, what can i say? The picture has not been given the license yet. Hopefully it will, let us wait for confirmation from the owner? Thatopshotta 08:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

Update: The permission has been granted for use. But when I had asked, I had asked for that article, (since I did not know about asking for this modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. So the license tags have been changed, and will be changed again depending on whether the latter asking is granted from the author. Although, it would be nicer to get a much more illustrative picture of curry chicken. Thatopshotta 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

Update I appreciate your perseverance in the correct licensing of this image. I am new here, but it seems that this topic, as well as all topics/images I have done, has received (from what I can see) the most discussions. I like that people are paying attention to these topics. As for this image, I have know obtained rights to for a GFDL license. Again, since I do not know procedure, perhaps a more notable user can delete this discussion, and the disputed tag on the articles where the images are in use. Also, I would encourage more "hotter" pictures be posted to attract the popularity for the article. Thatopshotta 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)ThatopShotta

The discussion is good. I am pleased you've worked to get the license issues fixed. Most people don't bother and the image gets deleted. In any case, he didn't agree to a GFDL license, he just agreed to the general principles of a free license. Nonetheless, this is more than adequate for WP. I've changed the license tag from {{GFDL-en}} to {{Attribution}} —RP88 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Oops, thanks for the correct license tag. I am continuing to learn every day. Thatopshotta 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta

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.

February 25

• Image:Nicktate.jpg - No evidence the copyright holder granted permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Midlake.jpg - No evidence the copyright holder granted permission to release under the GFDL. 18:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:FacultyUFI.jpg: Claimed GFDL-no-disclaimers, but source [3] does not seem to mention the GFDL anywhere. —Bkell (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Ethzurich.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but source [4] does not seem to mention the GFDL anywhere. —Bkell (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:PBB Status1.png: Claimed PD, but obviously derived from copyrighted promotional images. --Howard the Duck 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

February 26

• Image:Sauro Cesetti.jpg: Claimed PD, but source site says nothing about it. // Liftarn 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Copyright statement from source says "You may download pages from this site for your private use. No other reproduction, re-publication, re-transmission or other re-distribution of any part of this site in any medium is permitted except with the written consent of the copyright owner... © 2004 Doppiovu Press". This is not PD, and not a free license. I removed the PD claim, copied in the license from the site, marked it PUInonfree and recommend deletion unless the uploader can get it relicensed or supply a valid fair use argument. —RP88 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• It has been claimed (on commons:Image:IkeaRestaurant.jpg) that Image:IkeaRestaurant.jpg is licensed for use on Wikipedia only making it a non free image. // Liftarn

  Update: Walterk29 deleted this entry on 26 February 2007 with the comment "Image is CC-BY-SA; as original uploader, I recognized the image doesn't belong on Commons". I've restored it. —RP88 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Walterk29, if you are the copyright holder, you're going to have to remove the "I hereby grant unrestricted use on Wikipedia only" clause that you've placed on Image:IkeaRestaurant.jpg. It implies that you don't give permission elsewhere. Per WP:IUP#Free_licenses, licenses which restrict the use of images to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted. If you're truly willing to license the image under the terms of CC-BY-SA, why not just leave it at that? —RP88 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  The image is also available from http://www.flickr.com/photos/walterk29/359068189/ as CC-BY-SA-2.0 // Liftarn

  I have updated the image licensing terms appropriately. My original intent was not to make the image available only to Wikipedia, but to permit any use by Wikipedia, with all other potential uses being granted the CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. --Kevin Walter 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks for the clarification. As just a note, I noticed that you also updated the license tag on the commons version (commons:Image:IkeaRestaurant.jpg) to accurately reflect your CC-BY-SA-2.0 license, but left the "Permissions" field saying CC-BY-SA-2.5. You might want to fix that inconsistency. —RP88 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. --Kevin Walter 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:WesselHorst.jpg - Tagged as PD, but no reason given. —xyzzy_n 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Uploader changed from PD claim to a fair use claim and removed the PUI tag. I've restored the PUI tag pending official resolution. I believe I've located the source of this photo. It appears to originate from Erwin Reitmann, "Horst Wessel, Leben und Sterben," Berlin, 1933. Erwin Reitmann was Horst Wessel's biographer. I haven't been able to find his date of death (although he'd be about 100 if still alive). This photo is almost certainly not PD. The image itself appears have come from here. I've added this source information to the image description. Now all it needs is a fair use rationale (shouldn't be hard for Horst Wessel, but may not so easy for Horst-Wessel-Lied). —RP88 07:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Walter_ReMine.png - Lacks any indication of source and claims CC-BY-SA-2.5 license as well as free license "Wing-Wong". I doubt the existence of said license. —RP88 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gwyneth.jpg - BJG71 (talk · contribs) claims {{PD-self}} on what appears to be a publicity shot. User is no longer active and source is uncorroboratable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  I agree, on the Gwyneth Paltrow page the image has the caption "Paltrow at press conference for the BAFTA Awards in 2002, photo by D L Parker". I don't see any evidence that BJG71 is D L Parker, and hence can claim the right to use the PD-self license. —RP88 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

February 27

• Image:Markk.jpg - [5] shows similiar (but not same) image, doubtful user took this image or has rights to release it under GFDL/CC MECU≈talk 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Miltonbradley.jpg - doubtful user took image to release under GFDL/CC, appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mikepiazza2.jpg - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Alanembree.jpg - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:UOG Campus.jpg: Claimed GFDL-no-disclaimers, but neither source page [6] nor the linked copyright page [7] has any mention of the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Bofo-lolo.jpg - likely professional image or from copyrighted website without permission to release under GFDL MECU≈talk 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KevinMartin.jpg - Watermark on side of the photograph clearly identifies it as the property of NBA Entertainment via Getty Images. Such works are commercial and decidedly not freely distributable. nba.com web site makes clear that distribution is prohibited. Mwelch 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Kobevs.artest4ko.jpg - This is an Associated Press-owned photo and uploader has admitted as much. It is from a Sacramento Kings vs. Los Angeles Lakers game that was played in February of 2006 and was run with AP stories that reported on that game. Mwelch 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Chembai.jpg, Image:ChembaiSSI.jpg - Source information points to the website www.chembai.com for permission. the website does not exist or cannot be accessed. The licensing/permission to use on WP cannot to ascertained. It is not clear whether the uploader took the photograph or whether he is the license holder. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Well the uploader was Srkris, and this neatly matches up with whois information for the chembai.com domain. I think it is a fair assumption that he owns that site. Perhaps it will come back online soon and the copyright statement can be verified. By the way, you should use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:Chembai.jpg}} and {{subst:idw-pui|Image:ChembaiSSI.jpg}} on his talk page, to let him know that you've listed his photos here.—RP88 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, but there is no dispute as to who owns the website. The question is whether the license can be verified and whether the user has ownership of the rights in order to release them. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  OK. By the way, you also put a PUI tag on Image:Cvbmsgtvg.jpg, but failed to list it here. I'll add a note to Srkris's talk page, noting that you've listed these three images here. —RP88 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:MACSamuelTopWall.jpg: Claimed GFDL-no-disclaimers, but source [8] has no mention of the GFDL. The uploader is not the photographer, since the source listed on the image description page is actually a Google Images results page. —Bkell (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:CastleSamuelAboveLake.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:View of Prilep.jpg: Claimed GFDL. Incomplete source given, but copyright page at TrekEarth.com [9] states very clearly "all rights reserved" and does not mention the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Citadela.jpg: Claimed GFDL-no-disclaimers, but source [10] has no mention of the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pelagonia.jpg: Claimed PD-release. Uploader "took it from internet"; source [11] does not indicate that the copyright holder has released it into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Images claimed to be in Public Domain under {{PD-India-Gov}}. According to the guidelines for IT managers of GoI websites, they are expected to state the copyright status of the works (text/images/media) published in them. However, the images listed below have been taken from websites that don't publish any copyright information about the works available in them, and assume them to be "Public Domain" in the absence of the contrary. Many of these also claim the images to be in public domain on the basis of the Right to Information Act (India), which only grants the right to access information and does not indicate the information being in public domain. I have not edited the template to indicate the correct copyright status of such images, and will do it as soon as the fate of these images is decided.
  • Images from Ministry of Defence.
    • Arjun tank.GIF. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Wing Commander Jayashankar hanging on inverted biplane.png. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary.citing non-commercial, education-related use
      • Could you please tell me what part of the summary are you referring to? I'm not seeing it. —Remember the dot (t) 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The summary I am talking about is in the "Licensing" section just before the {{PD-India-Gov}} template. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • CoastGuardRescue.JPG. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use. Image has additional fair-use tag that is in conflict with the PD-India-Gov template.
  • Images from Indian Navy
    • Indian Navy crest.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • INS Tabar.jpeg.
    • Tarangini passage.jpg.
  • Images from Press Information Bureau. The website states that "[...]This, along with reasonably high quality photographs are provided on the website for free download by anyone." This does not mean out of copyright.
    • Pinaka launcher.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Pinaka replenishment vehicle.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Pinaka loader.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • IAF Rank.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • IAF Prithvi.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indian Para Commandos march.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indian Para Commandos.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Sukhoi-30 MKI flight.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Sukhoi Trishul.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • SUKHOI-30MKI.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • President's bodyguard.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Akash.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Agni-I.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Rapid Action Force.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Shishumar submarine.jpeg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Srakshak.jpeg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Samyukta Jammer.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Samyukta direction finder.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indra MK-II.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.

  — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Additional note: The images were uploaded by multiple editors. Each editor has been notified at least once. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you read this part about the basic rules of nic websites.
  • "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged.

However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

and if there is any work is copyrighted it will be mentioned as in http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/NewPfr06/index2.htm

and

• • However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

• • So the rules clearly states that the images are in public domain and is copyrighted if specifically stated as such. I would expect you to remove all unnecessary tags added to the images immediately.

Thanking you. Chanakyathegreat 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. Read the sentence in context and don't quote things out of context. The page says: "The information, material and documents made available on a government website have to be backed up with proper copyright policies explaining the terms and conditions of their usage and reference by others. In cases where the document is in public domain and there is no restriction on its reproduction, the copyright statement could be worded as follows: ". The copyright notice that you quoted follows. Hope you see that in context now. You can help speedy up the deletion process my marking all the files you uploaded as {{db-author}}. It will be appreciated. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you state a single government webpage that contains the policy directive. The website designers did not follow the directive to post the information that it is in public domain. But that does not make the information not to be in public domain unless they state it specifically it to be Copyrighted as in the President's fleet review link provided. The Navy want's to put the high resolution images of the fleet review which is an important event and in that page they specifically say that it is copyrighted. Otherwise the front page must have contained the copyright information. There is no mention of copyright in any of the government websites making it very clear that the Government of India websites are all in public domain unless specifically stated as in the Navy website case. The links provided by me is enough evidence to prove the above. Even the guidelines state that if any information is copyrighted it need to be properly mentioned in that webpage. Since all the pages that contain the images that you are trying to remove did not contain any copyright information it is in public domain. Chanakyathegreat 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to bring to your notice a very important point that will put to rest all your suspicions. http://nicsu.up.nic.in/guidelines.pdf states

In cases where the nature of information/document calls for a restriction on its reproduction, the copyright statement would indicate the following terms

Material on this site is subjected to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material is subjected to the approval of -----. Application for obtaining permission should be made to (email and complete postal address of the concerned department)

This statement is absent from the pages from the images are downloaded clearly indicating the image is in public domain.

Now you can remove the unnecessary tags, that you added.

Chanakyathegreat 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is totally wrong. You have totally misunderstood copyright principles. Images are always assumed copyrighted unless specifically stated to be in public domain. You cannot force public domain to any work. I rest my case for the closing admin. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is correct if there is no specific copyright information on the status of information on the website. In the case of the democratic goverment of India website nic.in the rule states that the information available in this site is in public domain until stated otherwise. So if the rule itself is stating so how can one and why should one make it copyrighted. Chanakyathegreat 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. Please read Guidelines for IT managers of GoI websites (pp 15–16) to find out the copyright status of images on nic.in servers. Please also check if any of the sites mentioned have any copyright disclaimer. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional note. The image summary of many images have been changed post posting here. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Peeled_Onion.jpg Image is not >100 years old, as claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollar (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not only is it not PD-old, it is a copy from here. The uploader has also recently been blocked indefinitely. I've marked it with db-copyvio. —RP88 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Abaallstar.jpg is claimed PD-self, but it looks like a derivative work with a copyrighted logo. With Image:Allstar2006.jpg, claiming fair use may not be feasible.--Jusjih 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Novodevichiy night.jpg: Claimed {{attribution}}. I can't read the Ukrainian on the source site [12], but the English translation on the image description page seems to indicate that the copyright holder has not necessarily licensed the image to be freely modified. —Bkell (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Outright nonsense. Copyright statement clearly allows any use provided the attribution is given. --Irpen 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Irpen: you failed to answer a simple question: "Is the image licensed for derivative works?" --Iamunknown 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I provided more details from the original statement. What is really annoying is that the fellow could have just asked me, the uploader, first and then list. I've seen it all, but generally, the enforcement of copyright policies is a very delicate business and those who choose that this is what they want to do, should do it more sensitively to editors. Arrogant retagging, hitting talk pages with standard templates, and listing for deletion instead of just asking nicely first, drive many new enthusiastic editors, appalled by such arrogant treatment away more than anything else. Perhaps user:Bkell will give it a thought for the next time. --Irpen 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

        • I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of that: since when should the enforcement of copyright issues be a delicate business? How is that arrogant? Rather, it is a knee-jerk protective reaction in hopes that the Wikimedia Foundation is not sued for copyright infringement. --Iamunknown 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

        • In fine, this image seems to be appropriately dealt with. I regret my nasty tone in the previous text, but I don't wish to argue anymore, and will refrain from any further discussion, if necessary, about this image. I just wish that users who interact User:Bkell and every other user who deals with images and copyright licenses would assume good faith: we truly do have the best inerests of the encylcopedia at heart. --Iamunknown 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm sorry that I offended you. I did not intend to appear arrogant or insensitive, nor do I want this image to be deleted. I'm just trying to make sure that images tagged as free here really are free. I brought it here to present the issue to a group of editors, hoping that someone would be able to find out whether the licensing allowed modification, and I left a note on your talk page so that you could participate in the discussion. I used a standard template on your talk page not due to any disrespect, but because it is easy to do and conveys all the information I wanted to say. Please don't take this listing as an attack; I meant it as a request for clarification. Thank you for clearing up this issue. —Bkell (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:20070223 100 Cans.JPG - I've invited the uploader and am bringing this here for broader discussion. I, as far as I know, think that this image should not be licensed under a free license. It is a derivative work of Andy Warhol's 100 Cans. As such, it is subject to the same (non-existent) license of Warhol's work. At least that's what I think. Am I right? --Iamunknown 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have seen other images posted of personal photos of artwork. I believe these are O.K. TonyTheTiger 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, these other personal photos of artwork still protected under copyright are inappropriately tagged. --Iamunknown 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I changed the licensing a bit to make it look like others I have seen. TonyTheTiger 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    If you use one of the fair use license tags, you must, as mentioned by the tag, include a fair use rationale. This is very important. However, in this case it was very easy to write a rationale justifying the use of your photo on the Campbell's Soup Cans page since that page entirely consists of analysis, commentary and criticism on the work in question. —RP88 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I should note that I am a little concerned that for fair use the resolution is a little high, but as far as I can tell WP doesn't have any specific policy on where the limit lies. Fortunately, the quality of the photo is fairly low, so I don't think it will interfere with the Warhol estate's ability to benefit commercially from their copyright on this work. —RP88 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I have done my best to refine the fair use rational according to your commentary. I will assume I am clear now. Drop a note on my talk page otherwise. TonyTheTiger 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Udugov_movladi.gif - Appears to be taken from a Russian news site. Dylan 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Moist.gif - Taken from a newspaper photo at http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/1997/February/06/photos/moist.gif (Universiity of Western Ontario) Dylan 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Flemish flag.jpg No source or author is given for that image, yet it is claimed to be PD. It is also not a recognised flag of Flanders, which means both title and summary are incorrect. Apparently the only reason it was uploaded is to be to support Flemish separatism. The image is ccurrently only used in two places, the Flemish people article where I plan to link a coat of arms image instead (will dig it up tonight) and a user page. A better quality image Image:Flag_of_Flanders.svg of the actual flag of Flanders exists on commons and is used in all other relevant en.wikipedia articles.--Caranorn 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

February 28

• Heron Indian Navy.gif. Reason same as given for these images. Missed tagging them in previous session. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:BHornsby706.jpg. Tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. However, the source does not license the image this way. It states explicitly © All rights reserved . It would also fail fair use as it is of a living person who frequently performs in public --Bob 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was sourced using Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg, one of a myriad other images taken from Flickr used on band pages within the Wikipedia category jam band. The Hornsby image was uploaded by me in good faith, assuming these other Flickr-sourced images as precedents. I'd appreciate help assessing the correct Flickr licensing, RATHER than simply stating Delete, Part Deux. Remember to assume good faith in this community! BoaTeeth 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HornsbyReq.jpg. Tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. However, the source does not license the image this way. It states explicitly © All rights reserved . It would also fail fair use as it is of a living person who frequently performs in public --Bob 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was sourced using Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg, one of a myriad other images taken from Flickr used on band pages within the Wikipedia category jam band. The Hornsby image was uploaded by me in good faith, assuming these other Flickr-sourced images as precedents. I'd appreciate help assessing the correct Flickr licensing, RATHER than simply stating Delete, Part Deux. Remember to assume good faith in this community! BoaTeeth 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HornsbyBandNew.jpg. Tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. However, the source does not license the image this way. It states explicitly © All rights reserved . It would also fail fair use as it is of living people who frequently perform in public --Bob 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly the wrong flickr license. Part Deux 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was sourced using Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg, one of a myriad other images taken from Flickr used on band pages within the Wikipedia category jam band. The Hornsby image was uploaded by me in good faith, assuming these other Flickr-sourced images as precedents. I'd appreciate help assessing the correct Flickr licensing, RATHER than simply stating Delete, Part Deux. Remember to assume good faith in this community! BoaTeeth 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HornsbyDead.jpg. Tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. However, the source does not license the image this way. It states explicitly © All rights reserved . --Bob 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was sourced using Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg, one of a myriad other images taken from Flickr used on band pages within the Wikipedia category jam band. The Hornsby image was uploaded by me in good faith, assuming these other Flickr-sourced images as precedents. I'd appreciate help assessing the correct Flickr licensing, RATHER than simply stating Delete, Part Deux. Remember to assume good faith in this community! BoaTeeth 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct, then, in assuming that Yahoo's copyright over the Flickr public FILE-SHARING network is meant to de facto copyright all of the files contained within...therefore posting to a public forum constitutes a loss of rights for any of the forum members? This logic doesn't make sense. Please post a link here to a suitable image of Bruce Hornsby for use in his article, as an example, and post the proper format for sourcing that image on my user talk page, and I will take it from there. BoaTeeth 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that copyright refers to the image, not the entire site. If you look at a CC-licensed photo, it'll say "Some rights reserved" instead. Assuming good faith does not mean we need to keep copyright violations in articles. —Chowbok ☠ 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Image:MnF=mcnightview.jpg - From website, no assertation of freely released MECU≈talk 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MnF=sauderpiano.jpg - From website, no assertation of freely released MECU≈talk 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MnF=sauderpiano.jpg - From website, no assertation of freely released MECU≈talk 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Goshenadmissions.jpg - Claims GFDL-self but gives url that doesn't work MECU≈talk 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mllake_farmhouse_lg.jpg - claims GFDL-self, but gives url that doesn't work MECU≈talk 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MnF=postcard.jpg - claims released for public use from website, but no url given, related to above, fair use may apply MECU≈talk 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:GoshenSST.jpg - claims GFDL-self, but per above images, believe the user got from a website not GFDL MECU≈talk 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Art_terrace_za.jpg - Claims GFDL-self, but gives url that doesn't work MECU≈talk 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All pictures here taken from the Goshen College link are used by permission from the Public Relations department. How can I best identify that they have been taken with permission and are allowed to be used? Hochstetler51 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the copyright holder (presumably Goshen College) to agree to release the image under the GFDL or other free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. If they don't agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must specifically agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Finally, the image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag. For example, in many of these images by tagging them with {{GFDL-self}} you're claiming be the copyright holder, which is clearly not the case (e.g. Image:Art_terrace_za.jpg)). —RP88 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

March 1

• Image:Hurley.jpg - Appears to be standard professional promotional photo MECU≈talk 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:GRDilley_(6).jpg - scanning the photo doesn't mean the user owns the copyright to release it under GFDL-self MECU≈talk 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, my Uncle (who is dead now) left this and many other Cricketing Pictures and he took all these photos himself as he was a professional Cricket Photographer. I possess all his collection now and I've scanned this photo myself just last night. Can you please remove this deletion tag if this satisfies the copyright issue.Ghanghro 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you're not the creator of the photo you can't use {{PD-self}}. However, if your uncle did not sell the copyright to the photo, then you, as the heir to your uncle's estate, can use {{PD-release}}. In the disccusion page for your image I've suggested how you can change the image description to accurately reflect your intentions. I don't know the name of your uncle or the date he took it, so I've just included place holders in my example. If it looks OK, copy it from the discussion page to the actual image description page. —RP88 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Centerguys.jpg - I uploaded this CC-licensed photo myself and I now believe that it fails fair use as replaceable. Requesting deletion, but wasn't sure db-author was appropriate in this case. Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, since it is CC -NC license, it can't be used on WP, it's got to go. In addition, since you're the uploader, no one else had made any changes, and it isn't used in any WP article, I think you can safely put a {{db-author}} on the image if you wish. —RP88 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was used, but I removed it as a prelude to deletion. I've now added a speedy deletion template. Thanks for the advice. Dekimasuよ! 10:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:011cynthiat.jpg - listed as CC-BY-SA-2.5 but source web site says "All rights reserved." —Remember the dot (t) 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Afar Girls.jpg - uploader tagged as CC-BY-2.5 but source only says "© All rights reserved", nothing about CC. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Brodeur30.jpg - 74.120.133.16 left this message on the image page in December:

"Copyright violation: User has falsely claimed that this photo was taken by himself for the following reasons:

1. Brodeur is currently wearing the Devils "Home" Jersey. The user claims this photo was taken at Nassau Coliseum, the islanders home arena. The islanders alternate jersey is also dark, so there is no possible circumstance that would result in Brodeur donning his home jersey in Nassau.

2. Brodeur is wearing a jersey with the "Reebok" logo on the back. The reebok-jerseys are only a year old, while the user has claimed this is a pre-lock out photograph." Khatru2 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I take a lot of pictures, this is one of them, I may have classified it wrong. Jesus Christ...Am I supposed to know EXACTLY which game I took the photo from? I should not have guessed at it, that was dumb. I've gone to tons of games, I thought this one was from a few years back when the Devils wore Red on the road but I didn't notice the Reebok logo. Good catch, I really don't have a keen eye for things like that. I just picked the best picture I had and assumed it was from the Island because I went to a lot of Devils-Islanders games pre-lockout. Leave the picture's status as it is please, this is my work. Sportskido8 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sportskido8, no problem. If you own the copyright, you have the right to release it to the public domain. To the extent possible possible, the image summary should accurately identify the subject and source of a photo - perhaps "Photograph that I took of Martin Brodeur at a Devils-Islanders' game. Unfortunately I don't recall which game." —RP88 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well its definitely 2005-06. The jersey would have been made by KOHO pre-lockout ( see nhluniforms.com ). It looks like he's got a playoff beard going. The Devils played at home Apr 22 and 24 in the first round against NYR. The played at home on May 10 and 13 vs Carolina in the second. Does that help? ccwaters 15:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident that its 2005-06 playoffs. Searching through gettyimages.com he is clean shaven on Apr 1, but has similar facial hair on Apr 29 at the end of the 1st round. ccwaters 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, I went to all four of those games. Since we have confirmed it's from the playoffs can I just say the 05-06 playoffs on the image's page? Sportskido8 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't go wrong with describing, to best of your ability, the source, subject, and date of the photo. If it were me I'd say something like "Photograph that I took of Martin Brodeur at a Devils-Islanders' game. I believe it was from the 05-06 playoffs." —RP88 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You had great tickets and/or a great camera. Do you have other pics you wish to share? ccwaters 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:RomMontage.JPG - collage used to illustrate Roma people. Tagged as {{PD-self}}, but includes unlicensed copyrighted photographs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:USTC_auditorium.jpg - Copied from [13], but no evidence of release under CC–BY–SA. —xyzzy_n 10:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg - Copied from [14], but website says ‘All Rights Reserved’. —xyzzy_n 11:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:STU-dhanmondi.jpg - Copied from [15], but website says ‘All Rights Reserved’. —xyzzy_n 11:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:0_61_021307_Beyonce_SportsIllust.jpg - Scan of recent Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ben Stone.jpg - This is a TV screen shot apparently from "law and order". It's being used in the Benjamin Stone but it violates fair use counterexample #8. "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." [[16]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Wikidudeman, the tag {{fair use disputed}} mentions you should put {{subst:No fair|Image:Ben Stone.jpg}} ~~~~ on the uploader's talk page in order to give them a chance to respond (although, admittedly, it seems unlikely in this case). The image could be deleted for lacking a detailed fair use rationale, nonetheless I don't feel fair use counterexample #8 applies in this case. That would apply if this image was used on Michael Moriarty to merely show what the actor looks like. However, it is fair use on Ben Stone to identify the character. —RP88 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Captain eo.jpg - questionable "UNCONDITIONAL" release - www.progressiveboink.com/archive/captaineo.html --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

March 2

• I beleive the following are all copyright of The University of Manchester:
  • Image:Manchester Mark I.jpg
  • Image:New Maths Building4.jpg
  • Image:John Rylands Inside3.jpg
  • Image:Manchester Aquatics4.jpg
  • Image:Ashburne outside5.jpg

The user has uploaded them a number of times previously today and previously acknowledged they were University of Manchester images (claiming "University image allowed to use" as rationale). He/she now claims that they took the image and they are releasing them into the public domain. These images have been in circulation at the university for a number of years, and the editor provides links to their loacations on the university's website. Whilst it is possible that the author is originally took these pictures it is unlikely they also produced the render as well, and if they did why did they originally claim the university of Manchester owned the image.

See also: Image:Ashburne outside4.jpg, Image:John Rylands Inside2.jpg, Image:New Maths Building3.jpg, Image:Manchester Aquatics3.jpg, Image:Ashbourne outside2.jpg, Image:Ashbourne outside.jpg, Image:New Maths Building2.jpg, Image:John Rylands Inside.jpg, Image:Manchester Aquatics2.jpg.

Pit-yacker 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SomalipeopleSawir.jpg, Image:Somalis1234.JPG and Image:Somalis123.JPG are all photomontages, comprising individual photographs for which we have no source nor licensing information. All are tagged with "PD-self". I do not believe these montages meet a threshold of originality whereby the uploader could claim to be the creator of the work (much less release them to the public domain). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Durand Line Border Between Afghanistan And Pakistan.jpg - I do not beleive that this image has been created by the user as he attests. I am of the reasonable beleif that after looking at the full sized image it has been lifted from a map book or other similar source of geographic materias by methods of scanning or similar, before being passed off as his own work. thewinchester 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It’s CIA (the ‘Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative.’ note is a good indication for that). I’ve fixed the description page. —xyzzy_n 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Con333.jpg is tagged as GFDL-self, but it has the hallmarks of being lifted from a website (professional quality, low resolution, no metadata). I couldn't find it on Google Images, though. —Angr 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Elena_Turks.png - looks like a screenshot from some video game. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Susiedenttt.jpg - looks like a cropped tv screenshot. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Headshotonea.jpg - looks like a promotional headshot, probably not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Final_Fantasy_Wallpaper.jpg - looks like it incorporates copyrighted screenshots. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Liksyou-1--1-.gif - this is all over the net and I highly doubt it was created by the uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Experiment_Devil.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Spangel.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Sasa-maria.JPG - scanned from manga, not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Ksne.jpg - incorporates copyrighted promotional photos. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Given the uploader's contributions, there might be more images that need to be tagged. To be honest, I'm somewhat inclined to go the other way and assume good faith on the part of the uploader. I think there is a good chance he is part of KSNE's marketing staff. However, the sourcing and identification of the copyright holder are all pretty vague. —RP88 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much worried about the other images from the same uploader, but this one clearly incorporates promotional photos that the station's staff does not hold the copyright to, and as such is in no position to release derivative works under a free license. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, if you recognize the works of others in this image then this image has to go since this image description doesn't, as required, accurately identify copyright ownership. —RP88 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kelly Clarkson photo is the same one as on one of her album covers... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Many images uploaded by Polypmaster (talk · contribs) including:

Image:Rickenbacker warehouse.jpg

Image:Rickenbacker tower.jpg

Image:Port columbus timeline.jpg

Image:Columbus terminal map.jpg

Image:Port columbus ultimate site plan.JPG

Image:Port columbus terminal.jpg

Image:Port columbus tower.jpg

Image:Port columbus new terminal.JPG

All images appear to come from http://www.columbusairports.com. The website's "statement" of use is at this page and states, "The images below are available in high resolution for print publications and low resolution for Internet publications and presentations." I don't interpret this statement to mean that the copyright owner is irrevocably releasing all rights to the photo, as the uploader states. Unless the uploaded can get an email from the copyright owner stating the image is released into the PD, then I think these need to be deleted. It also might be worthwhile for an admin to peruse this user's photo contribs a bit more to see if there are any that I missed.↔NMajdan•talk 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the website does state the images are available in low resolution for internet publications. It is my understanding that this is what Wikipedia is. If that is not the case then it seems silly that I can use information from the same site, but not the images which clearly state how they may be used. As for the licensing, I could find no appropriate licensing option when uploading them. If there is one I would like to know. I tried uploading an image which I was given the explicit permission to use in Wikipedia articles by the author, but using that license apparently is not sufficient as it was deleted. If the author of an image gives permission for its use in Wikipedia and I do so, I do not understand the copyright problem. It could be edited by someone, but that is understood when permission is given for its use in Wikipedia. If need be, I can get written permission for the images' use in Wikipedia. That will not be a problem. To be on the safe side I will do so now, but if there is an applicable license, I would like to know. Please do not delete these images yet as I will be getting any needed permission. Thank you..↔Polypmaster•talk 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you've got at least two weeks before they'll be deleted (and even after that admins generally don't delete while permission is being actively pursued). Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Finally, the image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag. If you have question about choosing an appropriate tag, don't hesitate to ask. —RP88 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and with regards to having permission for use on Wikipedia, unfortunately that isn't sufficient. Wikipedia's content is intended to be used by others, including commercial users, so getting permission for an image to appear on Wikipedia is not enough - Wikipedia needs permission to redistribute the images (as I mentioned above). —RP88 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe all the images hae proper licensing and source info. If so, could the dispute tags be removed? Thank you. -Polypmaster

Polypmaster, thank you for your work. I don't think, however, that they are now correct. Where in the statement, "The images below are available in high resolution for print publications and low resolution for Internet publications and presentations." at [17] is there any indication of "...the copyright holder [allowing] the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed," with which you have tagged the images? --Iamunknown 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the summary, I contacted the Columbus Regional Airport Authority and recieved proper permission from their general council prior to uploading the images. I believe his e-mail address is posted in the summary. If there is something else I should add to the summary, please let me know. Thank you. -Polypmaster

If you're confident that your e-mail from the copyright owner specifically states that they permit their images to be "freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose" then all you have to do now is forward your e-mail request for permission and the copyright owner's response to OTRS (permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) as specified at WP:COPYREQ#When_permission_is_confirmed (making sure that both the Internet URL for the image and the Wikipedia link to that same image is provided for each image). Then add a note to the image descriptions that you've forwarded the permission to the OTRS system. —RP88 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Vandersaar1.jpg - Tagged as PD-Self, but claim is dubious as all of this user's other similarly-tagged image uploads have been identified as imagevios, and a cropped version of this image is available at the UEFA website. --Muchness 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Danny_gomes.jpg - Uploader says it was taken from www.fc-dynamo.ru. I can't read Russian, but it looks like a commercial site. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Akamaru.gif - looks like a screenshot/grab from copyrighted show. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Northeastdrive.jpg - Couldn't find anything at source website that supported GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Orry_the_boxer.jpg - Uploader does not seem to be in the position to release this into public domain or under GNU license. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Oklahoma_History_Center.jpg - Couldn't find anything at source site to support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Robert_Stewart.JPG - apparently copied from BBC article or similar source. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ringdocus.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:RollPU.jpg - claim that copyright holder has released rights is unsupported. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:RustyMagee.jpg - Looks like a publicity photograph. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SJMSS.PNG - Previous version clearly shows Google watermark, was cropped out in new version (probably to disguise source). Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Seka_Aleksic.jpg - nothing found at source to support license claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:WorldTradeCenterAttack.png - probably not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:WallyGilbert.jpg - the uploader only THINKS the copyright holder "would agree to put it into the public domain." Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this "belief" with my context is a strong word. It's gonna be changed "The creator of the picture Jochen Brocks gave me all necessary permissions to release the picture to the public domain" --Lumidek 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Zing1.jpg - summary claims "non-commercial use" only, which contradics license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:1upMushroom3d.jpg - screenshot. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AlisonFraser.png - Looks like a publicity photograph Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Asian_girl_by_swanky.jpg - "All rights reserved" according to source. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I’ve asked the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence. —xyzzy_n 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Copyright holder changed licence on Flickr to BY–SA–2.0. I’ve changed the tag here accordingly. —xyzzy_n 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This should be moved to commons where we can have it Flickr reviewed so we don't run into this problem again. gren グレン 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Evsatda.jpg - looks like a screenshot. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Frances12.jpg - looks like it was scanned from a magazine; probably not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Frances11.jpg - looks like a promo photo, probably not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jay_12onmoney.jpg - summary contradics license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nicky_lee.jpg - scanned from magazine, not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hedwig hp.jpg - promotional photo uploaded without copyright tag in 2005. {{PD-release}} tag later added by another user but the source website doesn't say anything about this being in the public domain. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  I find it terribly unlikely a major movie studio would PD-release a frame from Harry Potter. On the other hand, I think a fair use justification for this image on Hedwig (Harry Potter) is possible. It's use on Snowy Owl is, however, definitely not fair use. —RP88 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SomaliCoastLine--.jpg
• Image:060626 SOMALIA AWEYS vsm.rp420x400.jpg
• Image:Nuruddin Farah .jpg
• Image:MogadishuBlock.jpg

  Were Uploaded by me believing these images because they were from flickr they were automaticly in public domain, a fellow editor at a talk page explained to me that i did indeed misinterpret the words the photo is public with public domain i have given the images the appropriate tags, i have contacted the copyright owners and i would like the images to remain on wikipedia untill i have received email-confirmation from the owners RoboRanks 23:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  You need not be concerned, images are in PUI for at least two weeks before they're deleted. Since these images are all from Flickr, all you have to do is convince the account holder at Flickr to change his or her license settings for those particular images. Flickr allows the account owner to choose from a range of license options - the ones on Flickr that are acceptable for use on Wikipedia are the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licenses. After they change the license you can change the image description on Wikipedia is use the corresponding Creative Comons copyright tag. For Flickr images it is also a good idea to include a note that mentions the date you checked the license on Flickr. —RP88 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Image:Nuruddin Farah .jpg i have received an Email[18] saying i'm allowed to use it, but was unable to convince BOOKphotoSA to change it's license on flickr. Could it now fall under {{Attribution}} if i mention the site aswell as the photographer? -RoboRanks 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a {{permission}} statement, not {{attribution}}, big difference. The fact that he won't change the license on the Flickr page itself also indicates that he did not actualy agree to allow everyone to use the image for any purpose (modify, commercial use etc). Please see WP:COPYREQ for more info. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 3

• Image:Oli_Hamdani.jpg - From a copyrighted TV show. No evidence permission was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KobeMVP 070218.jpg - Uploader ackowledges the picture came from nba.com. Such works are not freely distributable. nba.com web site makes clear that distribution is prohibited. Mwelch 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  You didn't use one of the PUI tags (i.e. {{PUIdisputed}} or {{PUInonfree}}) on this image, so it shouldn't be listed here. Use {{subst:nld}} to request a speedy delete, and if the uploader then adds a license (presumably copyrighted nba) you may list it here or at WP:CP (depending on how the uploader responds).

• Image:Brahma_beer_advertisement.JPG - Copy of a copyrighted work without additional originality (Bridgeman v. Corel). The copyright status of the original work is unclear; it may be old enough for PD, or maybe not. —xyzzy_n 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is a night-time shot of a company's buildboard taken in a public place. I took the photo and released it under GFDL. The photo is being used on the article for the product in question. As such, it is undoubtably a valid fair use on Brahma (beer). If necesary, we can change the licensing to fair use. Johntex\^talk 21:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, please add those details to image description - all images on Wikipedia are required to have an accurate description of their source. May I ask where was the photo taken, if you're a Brazilian citizen, and if the photo was a digital photo? The reason I ask is that I notice that Brahma beer is a Brazilian beer. Brazil's freedom of panorama legislation Article 48 of Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 says that "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." So if you're Brazilian, the photo was taken in Brazil, and the digital image was produced in Brazil, then you are free to take a photos of the billboard and license the photo as you see fit (just mention all of this on the image's description page). —RP88 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of Brazilian law, but, taking it literally, is the billboard with this particular ad really a permanent object? —xyzzy_n 10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't know, it probably depends on the character of the billboard - I can easily image billboards as running from very temporary (roadside billboards constructed for a particular ad campaign) to very permanent (billboards incorporated into a company's HQ). Perhaps it is best to include a fair use claim (the photographer can still claim GFDL on the photo itself). —RP88 10:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Bridgeman v. Corel, there’s nothing on that to claim GFDL, since only the two-dimensional work is visible in the image. I’ve tried enhancing the margin, but still can’t tell what kind of billboard it is. —xyzzy_n 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeman decision might apply, however it was regarding high-quality museum reproductions that the Judge described as "slavish copies" of the original work. I'm not so sure if this photo meets that mark. Works that are "artistic" reproductions of other works are eligible for their own copyright, although the original rights holder also holds rights in the new work since it is a derivative work. In any case, if the author doesn't respond, I think it will need a fair use argument. —RP88 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone - thanks for your input. The photo was taken in Brazil. The advertisement is on a very-solid looking signpost, but I don't know for how long it has been there. Johntex\^talk 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve scaled the image and changed the description page for fair use. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Band001.jpg - looks like a promotional photo, probably not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Evflow01.jpg - looks like a screenshot. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:M7_Bleach_ch260_18-19_resize.png - scanned from some manga, not created by uploader. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MegamanPU.jpg - nothing suppoprts claim that copyright holder released all rights. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:RafaelJimenez.jpg - couldn't find anything at source website to support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:RichardSkipper.jpg - Looks like a publicity photograph. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Shortest_straw_front.jpg - GNU unlikely for a Metallica T-shirt design. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Villagestreetwear_1925_67796320.jpg - source website seems to contradict uploader's claim that they created this photo. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Talarurus2.jpg - Another Wikipedia is not a sufficient source, and I can't find the image at ru. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Terualsiege.jpg - Copyrighted according to [19]. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Uclalawlib.jpg - "All Rights Reserved." according to source website. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Toyotapark.jpg - From source website: "Use of the materials contained on this website on any other Internet site is strictly prohibited." Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Babymaya.jpg - IP made comment on image description page claiming to be actual copyright holder and asked for the image to be removed. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Co-operativeBankStockportPyramid.jpg - I don't think Wikipedia qualifies as "press related purpose" and the image definitely isn'T PD. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have way too much time on your hands Fritz, this image is listed on the Co-Op Press site, for press related purposes. If they did not want you to use it they would have said so on the site. I would class Wiki as Press Related. Fkmd 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, "use for press related purposes" does not equal public domain. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Color_TV_Game_System.JPG - Couldn't find anything at source to support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dongdaegu.jpg - creator and copyright information are undetermined, according to summary. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the summary say that these images are not copyrighted? (Wikimachine 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but it seems to be a dubious claim, since it also says that the image images on the website where taken from other websites and that the copyright holders are unknown. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Area3.JPG - Couldn't find anything at source website to support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AreaOneCBD.JPG - Couldn't find anything at source website to support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Downtown_Tulsa.jpg - Source website makes no mention of image being either PD or GNU. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ford_contour.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gnarkill3.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ford_Center,_OKC.jpg - Source does not support GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:JamieSaintLyon.JPG - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:JHHS_Front.jpg - High school is not U.S. Federal Government. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Month8fetus.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:VictoireEst a Nous.ogg - Excerpt from a performance of a public domain piece of music ripped from a music CD. I am not sure if this should be considered a copyright violation because the performance introduces enough originality to allow copyright, in which that this work must be deleted, or if this work has no originality, in which {{PD-old}} must be used. Either way, {{GFDL-self}} is inappropriate. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mullahomar.jpg - no information on the original source, and I doubt the uploader was the original author. If we could get information on the original source of the image, I would be happy. Author has history of mistagging images: see Image:Omar3.jpg. Part Deux 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Two more images: Image:Omar2.jpg and Image:Omar3.jpg. This user has a boatload of images marked as pd-self which clearly aren't: Image:Richardharrison.jpg. I've left a notice at WP:AN, hopefully someone will pick it up. Part Deux 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This photo should be deleted IMO; a link to a press story which includes this image, would be enough. The press seems to get away with publishing it, but whether the guy in the picture even is Mullah Omar is at present impossible to determine. And it's an undated photo of a person. And it's a colorized photo. Out with it. LDH 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"update": The US State Dept. http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=MullahOmar kindly provides two purported photos. One is an uncolorized version of the photo under dispute here. That's all the more reason to dump the current one. Somebody says here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mullahomar.jpg that he is the creator of the piece, but that assertion is not credible, at least to me. LDH 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:00783.jpg - screencap, not PD-self ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dangun_t.jpg - Summary apparently contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Lahill.jpg - Taken from TV network's site, unlikely that the copyright holder released all rights. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:VeteransAbove.PNG - Given that the same uploader took another similar image from Google Earth (Image:SJMSS.PNG) with the same license claim, I have my doubts about this one. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have any actual proof please feel free to share it. Gateman1997 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have any actual proof that the image is PD-USGov-Interior-USGS please feel free to share it. --Iamunknown 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Iamunknown feels silly for being confrontational. --Iamunknown 07:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not get into a contest here. Gateman1997, all images uploaded to WP to are required to indicate the source of the image and the image's copyright status. Since you, Gateman1997, are the original uploader of the image the easiest way to handle this issue is for you to tell us where you got the image or, if you created it yourself, how you created it. Under Wikipedia's image use policy it is the uploader's responsibility to provide this information. Given that the Google copyright was cropped out of Image:SJMSS.PNG, Fritz Saalfeld's suspicions aren't unreasonable, even if they a little brusque. —RP88 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SJMSS.PNG - see above (just making sure that there is a separate entry for this image, should independent discussion be necessary). —RP88 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is a listing for this from March 2 above... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm embarrassed, I overlooked the earlier entry. Sorry. —RP88 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Achart_uv8filerwR7rY-u1158697777_58520_5607.gif - Uploader claims to be creator, but image is tagged from some website. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Cam_Ranh_HQ500.jpg - Summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

March 4

• Image:JTrohman.jpg -- source at Flickr says "All rights reserved". Uploader asserted it was CC-BY at the time of upload, but we have no way of demonstrating that. Jkelly 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Template:PD-Gov - this appears to be a non-license. What is a "public copyright"? and not all states relinquish rights to their copyrights. I'm bringing it here to be sure. Only two images link to it: Image:Cbaker.jpg and Image:Frank Morris.jpg. --Iamunknown 05:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the correct tag for a prison photo such as Morris's? Quadzilla99 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{PD-USGov}} for works of the US government. —RP88 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the tag on Image:Frank Morris.jpg to {{PD-USGov}} (unlike the states, works of the US federal government are PD). —RP88 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Image:Cbaker.jpg, it appears to be a work of a municipal government. Such works are not automatically in the public domain and thus copyright must be presumed, absent documentation that mentions otherwise. In this case the city of St. Petersburg says "Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of its page about its mayor. —RP88 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: there are four images at http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Rick+Baker+mayor&m=text, three which are non-commercial creative commons. Perhaps the photographer could be contacted and might release them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? --Iamunknown 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent find. I've often found that Flickr users are more than willing to change the license terms on their images in order to accommodate Wikipedia. —RP88 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So should the Possibly unfree tag now be removed from the Frank Morris pic? Quadzilla99 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, PUI tags stay on for ~14 days of discussion to give any editor of Wikipedia an opportunity to comment, dissent, etc. After 14 days any admin is free to look at the discussion here and then either remove the PUI tag or delete the image. Don't worry, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to delete Image:Frank Morris.jpg. —RP88 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:ScottasRears.jpg - image was originally uploaded with a license indicating it was a DVD cover, even though it is clearly not. After I tagged it as "nosource", uploader added to the copyright the "GDFL-self" tag. Problem is the image is almost certainly not self-created as I found a modified form of the image here. As well, looking back over the history of the uploader's talk page, there is a history of of uploading images with questionable copyright status (the user keeps blanking the warnings though). Tabercil 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gogol_Bordello_Roskilde.jpg - No reason for GFDL Fred-Chess 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nazipunks.jpg - Picture taken from "Ethnic Cleansing" by Mary Hull (1997 Lucent Books, Inc) so "public domain" is suspect. // Liftarn
• Image:KentRoosevelt1.jpg - source website seems to be offline, but Wayback Machine mirror of site says "All Rights Reserved. Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher." Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:HarrisFirearms.jpg - taken from [20] where nothing indicates who the copyright holder is, or that they released all rights to the images. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KleboldFirearms.jpg - taken from [21] where nothing indicates who the copyright holder is, or that they released all rights to the images. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mitchel_field.jpg - If this was taken in 1931, Msh25, born in 1985 according to their user page, can't be the creator. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Kerry king.jpg - apparently ripped from www.intunegp.com by someone who doesn't know what GFDL means. Besides, subject is very much alive so there is no rationale of FU at all. Delete, yes? --87.52.25.155 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Evesedgwick.jpg - nothing at source ([22]) indicates image is PD. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Cebocap.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Cebocap%20Placebos shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:FourPlacebos.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Placebos shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AntiliriumPlacebo.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Antilirium%20Placebo shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of these 3 images above is that they are marked "courtesy of" because the objects themselves are owned by Elaine and Arthur Shapiro (notable placebo effect researchers). It seems to imply that the objects themselves were donated/lent to the NIH for the History of Medicine Division project who then took the photographs. IronGargoyle 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

here is a relevant comment on Commons. IronGargoyle 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Courtesy of" means that the photos are owned by the Shapiros, and that they have let the NIH use the photo with their permission. Jesse Viviano 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice the similar grey photographic backdrop for all the images on the page. Some of these images are not courtesy of the Shapiros. I would argue that they were taken by the same person, which implies a government photographer. IronGargoyle 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Not so fast.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The image is of a scene in the episode Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow but it is not a screenshot. The positioning of the characters as well as the fire comming up from the bottom of the shot and the debris falling down never happens in the show. This image is either self created or was from some other source. I believe the other images you list below are the same but I haven't watched the episodes to compare. Looks like they were drawn in a vector graphics program probably by the uploader from a source image. --Sndbox 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Randy sharon cuddle.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dinner fight.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Time for dinner.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This one on the other hand, while still looking like it was drawn in a vector program as opposed to being an actual screenshot, is an exact duplicate of a shot in the episode. Here is a screenshot I took of the scene. --Sndbox 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Anti war.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

SXC images

• This is a bit "non standard" (uploaders NOT notified, just too many images, will "anounce" this at the village pump instead.): All images in the Category:Unfree SXC licensed images category. They have been sitting there for a while and it's time to take action. Listing here to give people one last chance to contact these photographers and secure a free license release. Images in this category that have no comfirmed (or at least pending) free release by the end of the 14 day period shoud then finaly be deleted as the SXC default terms are not acceptable for Wikipedia use. --Sherool (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless uploader is notified - We need to notify the uploaders personally. That is the way we do it. A bot can be created to do the work if you don't want to do it by hand. Johntex\^talk 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think contacting the uploaders are of only secondary importance in this case. I know it's the standard procedure, but IMHO in this case making that a show stopper would be a good example of the rules preventing the maintainance of Wikipedia. The ones we need to be contacting are the copyright holders, they are the only ones who can say wheter or not the images are in fact free licensed or not. That said I have asked Carnildo if it would be possible to use OrphanBot to contact the uploaders, but even if that doesn't work out I don't see any benefit in delaying cleanup even further for purey procedural reasons (these images have been tagged as needing the copyright status verified for a year already). --Sherool (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that a lot of ill feelings could be created if this were done without personal, or at least bot-level, notification of the uploaders. And frankly, I'm opposed to such quick actions. I'd rather start phasing them out, and deleting any newly-uploading images that are tagged as such. Instead of mass-deleting them all, why not mass contact all the owners? I'll try that instead. --Iamunknown 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There seeems to be fewer than 100 images there. If the nominator wants them deleted then it is proper that the nominator find a way to notify the uploaders. The surest way to lose contributors is to arbitrarily offend them by unilaterilly deciding to ignore our own policies. Haven't we seen that enough times recently to stop touting this "ignore all rules" business? Johntex\^talk 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, Orphanbot has begun notifying uploaders, e.g. [23]. --Iamunknown 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And it's done. --Carnildo 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Carnildo, I also edited the SXC warning template to include a (modified) PUI notice so now all the image pages point here as well. Hopefully that will satisfy all procedural concerns so we can get down to the actual business at hand: Getting the copyright status of these images sorted out. --Sherool (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Gmaxwell 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The image I used states "No usage restrictions". Admittedly it is now orphaned, but I think that is a clear statement of intent to release into the public domain. Rich Farmbrough, 10:28 10 March 2007 (GMT).

The agreement states "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." - "No usage restrictions" IMHO grants those rights. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 10 March 2007 (GMT).

What image are you talking about? The one you got a notify about on your talk page? Because the source of that image has a link to this license which is not free enough for wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to make things simpler: SXC allows uploaders to pick a couple of licensing options. There is a standard SXC license and then the uploader can select (via a drop down) a number of other additional restrictions such as no commercial use, or contact before all use. If the uploader did not select any of these additional restrictions the site would display "no usage restrictions". This caused some confusion where people thought this was claiming that the SXC license did not apply. Even if that were true the content would not be acceptable because "no usage restrictions" is likely not enough to wave the exclusivity of all aspects of copyright (think derivative works, for example.. you can 'use' but not change). SXC has since adjusted the site to use less confusing language. --Gmaxwell 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

and speaking about this particular case, the uploader has placed restrictions that mean his images are unfree, see here. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 4 cont.

• Image:5626.jpg - Image description give photographers name, and that it was "donated by the photographer for public use", but no assertation (other than the GFDL-self license) that the uploader is the photographer, and if not, that the photographer intended GFDL license "for public use" MECU≈talk 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image MECU≈talk 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas_3.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image (orphaned) MECU≈talk 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas_6.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image (orphaned) MECU≈talk 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• All images uploaded by User:Max Thayer appear to be mistagged as pd-self. I've listed a few above, the rest are here: Judging from his comments at Image:Renemonory.jpg, it appears that the premise is that he made the vidcap, so it's his image. But this is clearly not correct. Some of these may be relicensable, as they are vidcaps of comics, etc.; others are vidcaps of people, and I will leave it up to the closing admin to decide if these can be WP:FU.
  • Image:Pierremendesfrance.jpg
  • Image:Michelponiatowski.jpg
  • Image:Francoisleotard.jpg
  • Image:Guymollet.jpg
  • Image:Mauroy.jpg
  • Image:Jeanlecanuet.jpg
  • Image:Alainmadelin.jpg
  • Image:Raffarin.jpg
  • Image:Edouardballadur.jpg
  • Image:Francismer.jpg
  • Image:Renemonory.jpg
  • Image:Zuril.jpg
  • Image:Ladygandal2.jpg
  • Image:Laurentfabius.jpg
  • Image:Duclos.jpg
  • Image:Waldeckrochet.jpg
  • Image:Brunomegret.jpg
  • Image:Michelrocard.jpg
  • Image:Richardharrison.jpg
  • Image:Tomasmilian.jpg
  • Image:Gandal.jpg
  • Image:Ladygandal1.jpg
  • Image:Christianponcelet.jpg
  • Image:Francoisfillon.jpg
  • Image:Henriemmanuelli.jpg
  • Image:Edgarfaure.jpg
  • Image:Blaki.jpg
  • Image:Kingvega.jpg
  • Image:Johndrewbarrymore.jpg
  • Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg
  • Image:Micheldebre.jpg
  • Image:Malraux74.jpg
  • Image:Chabandelmas.jpg
  • Image:Alainpoher.jpg
  • Image:Pierreboussel.jpg
  • Image:Laguiller74.jpg
  • Image:Laguiller.jpg
  • Image:Lepen74.jpg
  • Image:Saddampresident.jpg
  • Image:Marchais.jpg
  • Image:390px-Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004.JPEG
• I have left out a few: two, I believe, were retagged by someone else, and some others had some copyright information missing. Still, please go through the user's logs to make sure I didn't miss any once you've deleted them (it's easier to spot the blue links vs. red links). Thanks. Part Deux 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so just explain me which tag should be used. Max Thayer 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Max, I'd be happy to help you fix up your image descriptions so that they comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. I'll post a list of suggestions to your discussion page. —RP88 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that a tag existed which fit exactly the kind of images I have used : {{film-screenshot}}

If you confirm it'll do, I'll add it to all of the images within a few days.Max Thayer 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are fair use copyright tags for film and television stills. If you use one of these tags make sure that the image is only used in articles for appropriate identification and critical commentary on the film/tv/program/character that appears in the still. In addition, you must include in licensing section of the image description a fair use rationale for every article on which you wish to use the image. —RP88 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, I have changed the tag for each and every image.Max Thayer 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You still need to add a fair use rationale for each of those images. In addition, since you're no longer claiming to have entirely created these images yourself, you need to include in the image descriptions the source of these images. If you captured them yourself please mention from which program they came, if you got them from from some web site, please include the URL. For example, you put a {{film-screenshot}} tag on Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg, a headshot of Gaston Monnerville, a French politician. Did he really appear in a film? If so, which one? Without the source, no one will be able to verify the copyright. Finally, you shouldn't have removed the PUI tags. Only an administrator is supposed to do so, and only after the 14 day discussion period. —RP88 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How should the sources appear ? All screenshots of french politicians come from the freely available archives at www.ina.fr And what is the "fair use rationale" that should be added ? Sorry, but it's all hebrew to me. Max Thayer 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The material from www.ina.fr, while free to view, is generally not in the public domain (the video in their archives is still copyrighted). In order to use their material without permission, we need a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale is an explanation describing why you believe it is fair use to use the material without permission from the copyright holder. In order to assist you I tracked down the source for Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg and updated the image description with a source, license, and fair use rationale. My french isn't very good so you might have to fix some of the details in the source and fair use rationale. In particular, it would be good to add to the fair use rationale an additional bullet point explaining why this particular image is historically important. —RP88 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, RP88. I'll try to fix it as good as possible in the course of this week (don't know if I'll have the time to use the "information" infobox, though).Max Thayer 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to post to my user discussion page if you have any further questions. —RP88 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, I believe everything is now fixed. Thanks for your help.Max Thayer 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Template:PD-NYGov-OAG, Template:StateGov-NY and Image:Plattsburghcityhall.gif — I found this triplet while comprehensively searching through Special:Prefixindex/PD. The two templates totally contradict each other. I brought it here for wider attention. I will not be able to research in depth today, but will (hopefully) be able to later this week. To the closing administrator: if the decision is that these templates are inappropriate, I will list them at WP:TFD. — Iamunknown 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  These two templates and the image you mention were all created/uploaded by Adam12901. The first template, {{PD-NYGov-OAG}}, claims that works of the government of the State of New York are automatically in the public domain. I've done some research, and insofar as I've been able to determine, this is invalid. As confirmation of this, note that {{PD-NYGov}} redirects to {{no license}}. The second, {{StateGov-NY}}, is categorized as a non-free license and the terms on the second are clearly non-free, but I haven't researched these terms yet to see if they're accurate. If they are accurate the template should be modified to mention that it is invalid if used without also including a fair use tag. —RP88 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

March 5

• Image:Gablesflag.gif - While the image is tagged GFDL-self, the descriptuion says, "Flag of Coral Gables created by me. Rendered from a photograph." I believe this image should be treated as a derivative work of art, which means that it needs a more appropriate copyright tag and 'fair use' justification. -- Donald Albury 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm, copyright violation? The uploader, Skillz187, claims to have created this image, but it is bit-for-bit identical to this FOTW image for Coral Gables, Florida. The FOTW image is identified as created by António Martins-Tuválkin, but Skillz187 says his name is Alejandro. —RP88 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the flag using Adobe Photoshop CS. Here's the proof Screenshot. As for the reference picture, it is Right here. Skillz187 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you say you created it yourself, I'll take you at your word (although it's an amazing coincidence that you chose exactly the same dimensions, color palate, compression, seal positioning, etc. as Martins-Tuválkin). The only remaining issue to resolve is who owns the copyright to the Flag of Coral Gables. Unless we can find evidence that the city of Coral Gables placed their flag design in the public domain or the design was published before 1923, we'll have to assume that either the city or the original designer still holds copyright to the flag. Absent such evidence, you can't claim sole copyright to your version, and thus can't release it under the GFDL. You'll need to retag it using one of the fair use copyright tags and then write a detailed fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used. —RP88 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As the City of Coral Gables was founded in 1925, we can assume the flag was not designed before then. -- Donald Albury 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bauza.JPG - Uploader's comments indicated copyrighted image. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Cavalier-Tank.jpg - There is nothing to indicate that the British government created either of the photos in the revision history. Jesse Viviano 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Narn emblem.JPG - Not a screencap, but not necessarily self-made. grendel|khan 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:HGrynszpan.jpg - No reason why this image would be PD. Uploader not notified because talk page is protected. —xyzzy_n 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Lotic Meander at public unveiling imgp3695.jpg: derivative work of the original artwork. Lupo 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:VirtualDub_1.7.0.png - Incorporates screenshot from copyrighted anime not released under GNU. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would require you to know which anime it came from. I, for one, do not know if it's a self-generated image in photoshop or something else. So i am against removing the image. Robert 22:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is SOP to presume that a copyrightable work is copyrighted and non-free until proven otherwise. Anyway, in this case, the filename in the window title identifies the material as being from Elfen Lied. —xyzzy_n 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notice. --Nyp 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Junsu.jpg, User:Yukare129 claims that the image is free under GNU free documentation, but the copyright of the image actually belongs to Korean news outlet http://www.mydaily.co.kr/, as the watermark on the image indicates. Also, the user does not indicate that the she uploaded this image with permission. mirageinred 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user lists www.tvxq.com as a source. The website is the official website of TVXQ, whom the subject in the picture is a member of, but the logo in the image, again, indicates that the image is copyrighted to mydaily.co.kr. mirageinred 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Tvxqgroup.jpg same reasons listed above by me, except that this image is copyrighted to http://newsen.com/. This image also has been orphaned for some time (but only for one month.) mirageinred 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Yoochun.jpg and Image:Jejung.jpg per the reasons written above. Mydaily.com also owns copyright to these images. mirageinred 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Yukare129 claims Image:Jejung.jpg came from here, some internet website. The image policy here is that images from the internet cannot be uploaded here. When I typed in the address, I saw a different picture of the same subject. mirageinred 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Rome_in_Cardiff_Castle.jpg - According to http://www.modelmayhem.com/toc.php, using the image is a copyright violation. There's a tag on the image claiming a license, but no reference to how that license was obtained. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thinfoot (talk · contribs) has uploaded approximately 33 images, the majority of which appear to be screenshots and similar. He has tagged all of these images (which I cannot take the time to list here now) with {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

March 6

• Image:Coop_rock.jpg - Belongs to teamyoungbmx.com (watermarked) Burzmali 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Timberlake07.jpg - from a problem user. Doubtful that it's a valid pd-self. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Demo72.JPG is claimed PD-self with the argument "captured myself". // Liftarn

March 7

• Image:Tv Bob-Woodward-and-Carl-Bernstein 1jun05 150.jpg. There is no evidence that this is the work of the US Government, just because it was pulled from Voice of America's website. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AngeloRossi.gif - Tagged PD-release, but no indication on source that it's public domain. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

March 8

• Image:Jew_nose.jpg - Claimed PD-self, but the caption in this image says it's an Andy Warhol advertisement and since Warhol is dead, it's unlikely the uploader created it. howcheng {chat} 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - clarly a scanned image. Part Deux 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Bbcore.jpg - Claimed PD-self, but it really looks like something out of a magazine that's been scanned. Madmaxmarchhare 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Author, on his discussion page, has an explanation. I can't prove otherwise, so I'm assuming good faith at this point, but will leave the tag in place for procedure's sake at this point. Madmaxmarchhare 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. Sometimes when making an image file into jpeg, it looses resolution. Part Deux 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Shaquille-ONeal-2006-NBA-Finals-Photograph-C12232042.jpeg - This is a commercial image for sale at the art.com web site. It's copyrighted and may not be freely distributed. Mwelch 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  you're not disputing the source or copyright status of this image, you're outright claiming that it is a copyright violation. You probably shouldn't list it here - it would be better to list it at WP:CP or even just mark it with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Shaquille-ONeal-2006-NBA-Finals-Photograph-C12232042.jpeg}}. —RP88 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  If it is unaequivocally a copyvio, tag it, don't list it. --Iamunknown 03:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

March 9

• Image:Kelly_rowland_5.jpg - High rez image doesn't classify for fFU Burzmali 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Honda Remix 1.jpg - no source and GFDL claimed (highly dubious). // Liftarn
• Image:Keane_robert.jpg - Taken from newspaper site: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020606/sp3.jpg -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KeaneCeltic.jpg - Appears to come from Getty Images. No indication that it's been licensed. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KeaneContro.jpg - This image was taken from Getty Images and doesn't appear to be licensed. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

March 10

• Image:Willis_McGaheeHI02206.jpg - Image appears to have professional editing with inclusion of logos and test, no reason to believe the user has ownership to release under CC, image is orphaned and has fair use rationale MECU≈talk 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MoldovaTIP2.jpeg - Image is a logo for which the user may not have the rights to release into the GFDL and might have not created themselves (so not GFDL-self), used only on userpage of user MECU≈talk 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AndreaRussotto.jpg - appears to be standard soccer promophoto, being "cleanedup" by the user doesn't give permission to release under GFDL-self MECU≈talk 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Vikkiblows4.jpg - Image appears to be a professional photo which would more than likely not be released under a free license. Photographer is unknown according to the image page so how can copyright be determined? Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Masuimimax5.jpg - Image appears to be a professional photo which would more than likely not be released under a free license.
• Image:JesseJacksonJr.jpg - While this portrait appears on Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s official U.S. Government website, there is a copyright in the lower right corner that is left intact (I enlarged the image and increased the contrast; it seems to read "Backrach(c)", with (c) standing for the copyright symbol). This indicates to me that this was likely made by a non-governmental photo studio, which are often times quite restrictive of the use of their works. --Tom (talk - email) 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously I missed that at the time. Nolo contendere. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 11

• Image:USPSMoneyOrderFeatures.jpg - The image does appear on the website of the Post Office, which is part of the US Government; however, the context appears to be a reprinted article from the New York Times, which certainly claims copyright on images it creates. The typography etc. also looks similar to the sort of thing the Times usually does.
  • This image is on commons. Disputing it here will do you no good. Nardman1 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (Co-)nominated, see [24] --Iamunknown 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Kellymadisonbikini.jpg, Image:Sophie Howard2.JPG, Image:Sakura01.jpg, Image:Sabrina 3.JPG, Image:RioNatsume.JPG - All uploaded by the same WP:SPA, Dctrsax (talk · contribs). Claims {{cc-by-2.5}} on all images from a given flickr account, which by all appearances does not seem credible for being copyright holder. Would recommend searching for more images from same flickr account and tagging appropriately. Can the url for that flickr account be blacklisted unless copyright coroboratability can be proven? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:ReaganGov.jpg - This image's copyright is held by the State of California and is not {{PD-USGov}}. Permission from the California Department of General Services is required to use images of California's official portraits. —RP88 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg - No assertation that permission has been given by author, website states copyright, not CC license MECU≈talk 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the guy that took it, and he told me specifically that he was releasing a downsized version under cc-by-2.5. You can contact him through his website to confirm this. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. If you know him personally it shouldn't be difficult for you to fix things so that the image won't be deleted. —RP88 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission has been sent to the m:OTRS system. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The permission is ok (Ticket#: 2007031210002019). I have removed the PUI tag and added {{permissionOTRS}}. Kjetil_r 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple images: Image:Djacob.gif, Image:FredUptoncong.jpg, Image:Oxleyreprep.jpg, Image:Repinsleeofwa.jpg, Image:Oldcitymrqtfrontst.jpg uploaded by User:Chflitwick. This user has a long history of uploading images with GFDL tags that are used incorrectly. I also seriously doubt the credibility of the "permission of source" statements added to these four particular images. See also this user's upload log; note that most of the images in the log have been tagged for speedy deletion.--Tom (talk - email) 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:President Macia.jpg is uploaded from ca:Imatge:President Macia.jpg where it has a non free tag. Legal notice from the original source says "no commercial use". --Vriullop 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:James2.jpg - been tagged as pd-self by uploader, but is obviously a screen capture. Wouldn't qualify for fair use in the article James Sutton (actor) either as it would be a replaceable image of a living person. DWaterson 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 12

• Image:Salvatore2.jpg, claimed as PD-Self, but the comment and external link heavily imply that it's a google-grabbed image. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:45m556.jpg, Image:Norasp.jpg, Image:Ma11.jpg and Image:Ma4.jpg, and most (if not all) the images uploaded by Lazauk (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). He uploaded some of them with a unfree license (in example, here), got them deleted, and then reuploaded it with a free license stating he is the creator. Since they are military images, I really doubt he is the copyright owner. And although the images appear to be free (US military apparently), there is no source for them. Also check this AN thread (in case someone agrees with me and deletes or sources them all). -- ReyBrujo 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KLM_Asia_Mexico.jpg - See license information at http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/ -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Melissasmith.jpg - uploader claiming he was the creator, yet the description says that it was taken at the tv show photoshoot and the caption on the article states it was by "Patrick Ecclesine". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mdsi logo.jpg - seems highly implausible that the uploader is creator or has the power to release into the public domain. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

March 13

• CephBase images. It appears this sites terms have changes since 2004; they now advise that all their images are copyrighted and to re-use one you should contact the copyright holder. These images therefore are not free:

Image:Needle Cuttlefish.JPG

Image:BlueLineOct.jpg

Image:Longfin Inshore Squid.JPG

Image:Orangeback Squid.JPG

Image:GrBlueRingOct.jpg

--Peta 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, it doesn't appear that you notified the uploader of these images. It's not fair to the uploader if you just list them here. Use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} to let the uploader know. Its also a good idea to add {{unverifiedimage}} to the image captions on the pages where the images are used. —RP88 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:1978_Brands_Hatch_Ferrari_312T3_Gilles_Villeneuve.jpg - permission for use on wikipedia isn't free Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:1978_British_Grand_Prix_Brands_Hatch_Fittipaldi_F5A_Ferrari.jpg - same as above Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:1978_British_Grand_Prix_Brands_Hatch_Lauda_Brabham_BT46.jpg - same as above Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit it always puzzles me that we have so many templates for image copyright which are apparently actually unacceptable for use. Why have them in the first place? First off, let's make sure we've got the full set, not downloaded by me but from the same source and originally listed with the same copyright notice. All six images have had their copyright notices changed over time, but not with the same end result. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SurteesTS7BarryBoor.jpg uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SurteesTS19BarryBoor.JPG uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Mr Boor about use of these photos, he was content with the copyright notice as it then stood for both the Surtees and Villeneuve/Fittipaldi/Lauda set - his only real concern seems to be that his does get credit for them. Give me a little time to look at the changes that have been made to the notices since I originally uploaded them. I'll post back soon. Cheers. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, all six F1 images were originally uploaded under the template {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|due credit is given to Barry Boor}}. The Villeneuve/Fittipaldi/Lauda ones still are. Can someone confirm whether that template still acceptable (sounds similar to cc-by to me)? 4u1e 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that that template is still listed at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All as an acceptable free use template. The condition (provided that due credit is given to Barry Boor) does not violate the non-commercial or educational caveat, so I can see no reason for these six F1 images to be listed here. I'll de-list them tonight (i.e. about 10 hours from now) unless someone can explain what it is that I've missed (I'm sure there's something.... :-)) 4u1e 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the template you used, the problem is with the permission you got. Unless you're Barry Boor (in which case there's no problem at all), the permission you received seems to be permission for use of the image on wikipedia, not a release of the image provided attribution is given. Either way, permissions need to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org otherwise the images have to be deleted anyway. Maybe if you contact the copyright holder again he'll agree to release it for use anywhere for any purpose provided attribution is provided (a good license for this is CC-BY 2.5, by the way. Also, make sure it's 2.5 and not 3.0 as the latter isn't accepted on en nor on commons yet. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 08:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer. I will check what Barry Boor's e-mail to me actually says (but not until this evening, I'm afraid). The actual template makes no reference to the restriction you're worried about, but the blurb under it does muddy the waters by mentioning Wikipedia and could be interpreted as such a restriction, I agree. If Barry didn't actually make such a restriction, then I will alter the blurb to suit and send a copy of his permission to the address you have provided and I think we are then OK. If he did restrict use in that way, or if it is not clear, I will contact him again to discuss a different arrangement. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 13:04

Aren't we supposed to wait 14 days, rather than about 10 hours, before deleting these? 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 17:07

The PUI process takes 14 days to delete an image. According to the log for one of the images, it was deleted by Enochlau. The justification he gave for the speedy deletion was WP:CSD#I3. If you get permission to use the image from Barry Boor, I recommend you ask Enochlau to undelete the image. —RP88 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check what Barry actually said. 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 18:30

Not clear enough to make it 100% clear on my part (although I don't believe he intended any such restriction). I'll approach him again and suggest cc-by 2.5 instead just to get everything completely clear. Cheers. 4u1e 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, when/if you get a permission that's clearer just send it to the address i gave you with a link to the image files that fall under that permission (so they know where to add it to) and since they're all en admins they'll undelete the image and add the permission. Sorry if I came on a little bit too strongly, I probably should've given you a better explanation in the first place. :) Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Emgee.jpg is a characted from a video game, but labelled as PD-self. In any case it's derived. // Liftarn

• Image:Walls_of_jericho2.jpg - appears to be a modified publicity photograph ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 14

• Lack of a copyright notice does not mean an image is PD, Image:Sea palm pair 1.jpg, Image:Pirellula01.jpg, Image:Sargassaceae.jpg, Image:Sea palm group 1.jpg. --Peta 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, while it's pretty obvious the uploader is in the wrong here, it doesn't appear that you notified the uploader of these images. It's not fair to the uploader if you just list them here. It'd be nice if you'd put {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} on the uploader's talk page. —RP88 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Tom_Pryce_Jacques_Laffite._Brands_Hacth_1974.JPG - License says copyright owner has allowed use on Wikipedia. Releasing only for Wikipedia's use is not appropriate and the image must have a free license. Also, there is no documentation that the copyright owner released the image to Wikipedia, let alone to the public. ↔NMajdan•talk 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottanon uploaded Image:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG from the same site saying that they were copyrighted, but the aurthor, Barry Boor, has allowed them to be used on Wiki as long as he is attributed. You'll have to contact Scottanon for any extra infomation on this.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, saying they can be used on Wikipedia as long as he is attributed is still not permitted. He has to say they are released into the PD, or license them GFDL, or CC or something.↔NMajdan•talk 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above on other F1 images from 13 March. Depends on exactly what Barry said in granting permission, I don't think he actually intended to limit use to Wikipedia for the pictures of his that I uploaded, but perhaps Scotanon can confirm. Cheers. 4u1e 14 March 2007 16:56

• Image:NaomiCampbell.png - It appears to me that the website where the uploader got the image (http://www.ruid.com) is an image hosting service so I'm pretty sure the uploaders of these images do not own the copyrights, and thus cannot release them into public domain. Also, this website appears to be in a very early beta stage because all the informational links (disclaimer, terms of use, copyrights) lead nowhere and so thus the legality of the image cannot be verified. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Brad37.jpg - User stated the image is a magazine picture but then tagged the image pd-self. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Northeastern_long.jpg - This user has uploaded copyvio after copyvio. I've been able to Google Image Search for many of his images, which I've listed at copyright problems, I've tagged many of his images as lacking a source, and I've tagged others as orphaned. This is the sole remaining image I can't find an obvious source for. He claims that he took the image himself, but with similiarly false claims elsewhere, it probably wouldn't be smart to believe it. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)