Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Craigy144 (talk | contribs)
31,329 edits
Line 121: Line 121:


==== Phase II - August 17 ====
==== Phase II - August 17 ====
*Some porn: [[:Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg]] [[:Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg]] --[[User:Nikai|Nikai]] 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[[:Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg]] [[:Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg]] [[:Image:Dimaggioclapic.jpg]] [[:Image:4292 rocco siffredi.jpg]]--[[User:Nikai|Nikai]] 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
⚫
:[[:Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg]] is nudity, not porn. It appeared in the pages of the defunct Spy magazine. It shows that Spy cheerfully published embarrassing pictures of powerful celebrities at a time when no other U.S. magazine would do so (which contributed to its going bankrupt). Probably fair use. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 23:49:35, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

⚫
::[[:Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg]] is not porn either. It is an early physique modeling portrait, which was common in that era (the 1930-50s) for body builders. This picture is so old that the copyright is believed to be expired. More information about this picture can be found at: http://www.v-m-p.org/lalanne01.html
⚫
*[[:Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg]] is nudity, not porn. It appeared in the pages of the defunct Spy magazine. It shows that Spy cheerfully published embarrassing pictures of powerful celebrities at a time when no other U.S. magazine would do so (which contributed to its going bankrupt). Probably fair use. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 23:49:35, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

⚫
* [[:Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg]] is not porn either. It is an early physique modeling portrait, which was common in that era (the 1930-50s) for body builders. This picture is so old that the copyright is believed to be expired. More information about this picture can be found at: http://www.v-m-p.org/lalanne01.html

*[[:Image:Posadas.jpg]]. Scanned from ''Fortean Times'', August 2003. [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] 10:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
**The above image is blatent garbage: see [[User talk:Weewilly]]. [[User:AlbertR|AlbertR]] 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
***Can I speedily delete it without further formalia? --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 13:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

*[[:Image:Eddie the Head.jpg]] marked as public domain, but it's hard to believe and no explanation is given. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 20:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:*That image seems to be taken from the front cover of Iron Maiden's '''Killers''' album. --[[User:Cholmes75|Cholmes75]] 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::* Yep, it's a small part of the album cover, which should be fine I'd think. --[[User:PopUpPirate|PopUpPirate]] 18:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


==== Phase II - August 18 ====
==== Phase II - August 18 ====

Revision as of 02:29, 3 September 2005

Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page is intended for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or are missing important copyright or licensing information.

How to list

  • 1 - see if the image can be listed at Wikipedia:Images for deletion (if it's unneeded) or at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used by Wikipedia under any license or under the fair use doctrine).
  • 2 - place one of the tags listed below on the image page
  • 3 -contact the user who uploaded the image on their talk page with {{subst:idw-pui|IMAGENAME}} (Be sure that IMAGENAME includes the Image: prefix). For large numbers of images, merely copy a list of images on to their talk page.
  • 4 - place the image under today's section in Phase I.
  • 5 - after 15 days of Phase I, if the issues has not been cleared up, move to the section of Phase II for the date you move it and add {{unverifiedimage}} to the caption on articles the image is on.
  • 6 - after 15 days on Phase II, if the issues have not been cleared up, a judgement is made. If it appears likely that the image is not free, it is deleted, and removed from all articles, otherwise it remains, with the unverified image caption.

General notes

  1. Images are listed here for a total of at least 30 days before they are unlisted.
  2. Images can be unlisted immediately if they are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these).
  3. Images which are claimed fair use must have two people agree to this.
  4. If you see in the contribution history that the editor hasn't visited in a while, it might help to also use the "E-mail this user" link rather than relying only on the talk page. There may also be contact information on the editor's user page.
  5. As always, assume good faith when making contact.


Image tags

Add one of these templates:

  • {{PUI}} (if information on the image's copyright status is missing)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{PUIdisputed}} (if the copyright information is disputed)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{nonfreedelete}} (if the image is only available under a non-free license) to the description page

Template:Nonfreedelete

Once the image is tagged, create a new listing in today's section in Phase I.

Listings

Final

These images have been listed in the #Phase II section for at least 15 days and now need to be dealt with. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

For deletion

These images have been listed at this page for at least 30 days and remain unsourced or unfree. They should be removed from any pages linking to them and deleted.

Possible keep

These images have been listed at this page for at least 30 days, but further time is needed while waiting for a response from the copyright holder or the uploader, or further discussion of fair use or other issues. Please contribute to the discussion of each image, or find replacement images with a clearly free license.
Uploader claims PD. Confirming source. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tagged by nonuploader as copyright free use, contacting uploader. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
The image is from the gallery on the band's site. I'm guessing that the anon who tagged it as copyright free use is actually from the band, but that's just a hunch. Their gallery indicates no license, so we have to assume that the pictures are not usable by us, except as promo or fair use. We probably should just email the band and ask for permission. kmccoy (talk) 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
This user uploaded a bunch of images, including some album covers and screenshots. I think this image might be a video box, but I'm not sure. kmccoy (talk) 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
Image of Hunter S. Thompson. Looks like it could be a promotional photo, as the tag claims, which may be usable. However, the uploader hasn't provided a source, so it could also be a commercial photo shot for a magazine, which would be less likely to be usable. kmccoy (talk) 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
This picture is widely used in public domain.Image was obtained from Metropolitan Police Department [1] which is a government source. It should not be deleted. --DuKot 15:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Getting something off a government site does not make it public domain. There's a good fair use case for the image, but it is not free in and of itself. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being widely distributed does not make an image PD (ie Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg), nor being on a Govt website. Also the photographer given has a website http://www.jmtphoto.com/ which would appear that he is a professional photographer who tend to have copyrights on their images. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Probably not public domain. Could be fair use, though. kmccoy (talk) 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
The image can be found at http://www.bugaup.org/gallery.htm. There is no copyright information on the website. This may be especially hard to get since the organisation that "owns" the image is responsible for defacing advertising hoardings - which is obviously an illegal activity - and the image in question is an example of this. When I uploaded the image I sent this email to "Peter" at the organisation on 20 January 2005:
Peter,
I have just written a stub about BUGA UP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Utilising_Graffitists_Against_Unhealthy_Promotions
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can add to or modify, and works under a copyright license that ensures that the intellectual property is considered "Public Domain" in perpetuity.
I inserted a picture I found at your website into the article. If this picture is copyrighted in any way and the holder does not wish it to be published on Wikipedia, then please email me and I will remove it.
Also feel free to modify the article yourself!
Neil Cameron
There has been no reply to this email. --One Salient Oversight 03:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a strong fair use claim for this image, at least the billboard image. The photo itself is copyrighted to its taker, but if it was posted on their site, I think that supports the fair use claim. kmccoy (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how exactly?Geni 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's being used in an article as criticism or an example of the subject's works. It's also a parody of the original billboard, and it's unlikely to cause monetary harm to the interests of the copyright holders. I'm certainly not an expert, though. kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very likely that this image was produced by the US military, but I can't find positive confirmation. kmccoy (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This image is very likely PD because of age, but I can't be sure. kmccoy (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Image] from User:DigiBullet, contacted Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is King Talal of Jordan (1909-1972). According to Photo bank/Hashemite monarchs this is a 1951 photo. According to [2] (§32), Jordan has a copyright term of 25 years, hence image is very very likely PD. Thuresson 14:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RedWolf is working with uploader. Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 15:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
seems to be modified version of [3] Possibly fair use as a promotional image? No indication of permission from creator.
Has a decent fair use claim. kmccoy (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Lung fingered.jpg uploader provided source (actually I think this may be a still photo, rather than an image from the film). Asked uploader for copyright info on July 7; no response. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is clearly a screenshot, so where's the problem? <KF> 21:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I don't think this is a screen shot (i.e. I don't think it's an image from the film itself), based on how that particular scene is set up (the POV is supposed to be from the side window of a car). I think it is a still photo taken during production, in which case I don't know how free use etc. applies (or not). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

) -- JesseW 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Phase II

These images have been listed in the #Phase I section for at least 15 days, and have been marked in any articles that contain them with boilerplate text: "{{unverifiedimage}}" Remember to use today's date when moving images into Phase II, not the previous date used in Phase I.

Phase II - August 17

Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg Image:Dimaggioclapic.jpg Image:4292 rocco siffredi.jpg--Nikai 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg is nudity, not porn. It appeared in the pages of the defunct Spy magazine. It shows that Spy cheerfully published embarrassing pictures of powerful celebrities at a time when no other U.S. magazine would do so (which contributed to its going bankrupt). Probably fair use. ProhibitOnions 23:49:35, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg is not porn either. It is an early physique modeling portrait, which was common in that era (the 1930-50s) for body builders. This picture is so old that the copyright is believed to be expired. More information about this picture can be found at: http://www.v-m-p.org/lalanne01.html

Phase II - August 18

  • Keep. This is a detail of an illustration by famous pirate illustrator Howard Pyle. It was first published in Harper's Magazine in 1894. It's been reprinted frequently since. It's out of copyright. -- Sorry, forgot to sign first time. NoahB 19:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, it is a photograph
2) Yes, the copyright holder is known
5) Unable to Obtain (Language Barrier)
6) Yes, it regards current events
7) Yes, it is a photograph for a news story
    • In this case, it qualifies for tagging and/or resizing. The alternative is if 7) is answered no, it was intended for use only with that one news article. If this is the case, we come to question 9), and the answer is no; it cannot be recreated from free sources, which would require an IfD. Therefore, the decision on whether this is fair use or not truly hinges on whether it was intended for wide distribution or not. Having seen it on several other news sources, I am inclined to declare that it was meant to be distributed, and so vote for keep. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source of this photo is called a "press release". Doesn't that make the answer to #7. "Does the nature of the image and source (if known) suggest it is intended for wide distribution (such as promotional images, devotional images)?" a clear YES? Perhaps the site where it was found did not obtain permission to distribute the photo as part of their press release, but is it our responsibility to determine that? Every time someone takes a picture from a web-site that says it is a press release or can be used without restriction, we take it on face value that it is true. Also, I suspect the Iranian Student group is one of the more "liberal" organizations in Iran. I doubt that they publicized the execution and then didn't want anyone to re-publish the picture. -- Samuel Wantman 06:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Outrage is not the source of the image. Rather, the ISNA is. Outrage simply translated the page. That said, I do believe it was meant for distribution, hence saying it should be kept. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase II - August 26

Image:Bloch mb-131.jpg
Image:Bloch MB 200 front.jpg
Image:Bloch MB210.jpg
Image:Bloch MB152 front.jpg
Image:Bloch MB152 flying.jpg
Image:Brecht.jpg - this image has been removed from German wikipedia as not public domain.
Image:Alois Brunner.jpg
Image:Erwinvonwitzleben.JPG
Image:Interrogationofabritishpilot.JPG

All but the last image could easily be considered for fair use. Physchim62 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photo does not appear to be taken professionally, and the copyright information is in the original edit summary listing it as public domain (made and Used with Premisson by friend {{pd}}). I'm going to remove the tag. --Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase II - August 27

Phase II - August 30

Phase II - August 31

Phase II - September 2

Images uploaded by User:Zereshk
  • Image:Yar alone.gif: the uploader originally claimd PD [12] and later claimed GFDL [13]. He claims that the photo has come from the photographed person's website and "It doesnt have any copyright tags, claims, or notices about the images." He then assumes the image is free because there are no copyright notices on the website. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Alamoot.jpg: the uploader originally claimed PD [14], providing no source. He later claimed that the provision of the photograph has been "with permission of Iran's Heritage Organization" [15] (if it was already in public domain, it wouldn't have needed the organization's permission). He later claimed that "The picture is actually PD because there are several independent organizations using the same picture, all claiming it is their picture" [16]. But that doesn't make the picture PD either. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:28mordad1332.jpg: the uploader originally claimed PD [17], later claimed that "The photo is Public Domain for educational and informational use", but finally removed the previous claim and tagged the image as GFDL [18]. He mentions that the image "is from CHN Archives of Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization", but does not provide the organization's license. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Nima.JPG: the uploader claims the image "is released to PD by Iran's Cultural Organization", but doesn't provide any proof. Uploader notified. roozbeh 14:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Vandy.jpg and Image:Olin.jpg: the uploader claimed "GFDL only if for informational and educational purposes" which is contradictory. Apparently, the photos are copyrighted, as the uploader claims they are from Vanderbilt University's "own website". Uploader notified. roozbeh 14:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Penrose.gif: uploader claims PD becuase the image "appears on several other unrelated websites". Uploader notified. roozbeh 14:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Amir85 (uploader notified)
  • Image:WingedBullPersepolis Amiet.jpg: a user other than the uploader claims "Photo was taken at Iran's National Museum" [19] and that it is GFDL, but does not mention the copyright holder or the photographer. roozbeh 14:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Ir2001 309.jpg: uploader claims contradictory things about the license. He uses the tag that says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright holder is attributed." But then mentions that it's only for non-commercial purposes. The page he refers to, http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php, doesn't have any mention any such licensing. Possibly a copyvio, specially since there is another copyright tag on the photo itself. roozbeh 14:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Persepolis 100.jpg, Image:Parthian art 1.jpg: uploader claims contradictory things about the license. He uses the tag that says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright holder is attributed." But then mentions that it's only for non-commercial purposes. He doesn't mention the source either. Possibly a copyvio. roozbeh 15:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Source for Image:Parthian art 1.jpg (http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_5_11.html) Usage allowed with mention of the refernce site --Amir85 (original uploader)
      • Unfortunately that ("usage allowed with mention of the refernce site") is not true. That website explicitly mentions that "The contents of this site may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without the written permission of the State Hermitage Museum." [21]. That means that we don't have any permission to use this image. roozbeh 21:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:07b.jpg: uploader claims fairuse, but does not give the source or any information about the copyright holder. roozbeh 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Source for Image:07b.jpg (http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/aany2002/mainpages/07b.html) Usage allowed with mention of the refernce site --Amir85 (original uploader)
      • Unfortunately I cannot confirm that ("usage allowed with mention of the refernce site"). The website does not mention anything like that. They only mention "all text and images © John Eskenazi Ltd." [23]. roozbeh 21:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The uploader has now provided the following comments, and the text of his communication with Iran Chamber, which I moved to User:Amir85/Permission from Iran Chamber. It seems that the images from Iran Chamber should really be "{{NoncommercialProvided}} the source is mentioned." I have removed the parts acted upon and also removed the original PUI disputed for them from above, to reduce the page size. I have also moved some of his comments to the appropriate section.

Source for Image:Map sassanid empire.jpg (members.aol.com/ahreemanx/page77.html) friend of mine in US.

Phase II - September 3

Phase I

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.

Phase I - August 17

Huh? The Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines say that if permission is granted to use the image, the tag {{gfdl}} should be used. I did that. If you're saying the images were tagged incorrectly, you should change the tag, so it most certainly does not belong on PUI. --Matjlav(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I see what you're saying. Would {{PermissionAndFairUse}} be more appropriate? --Matjlav(talk) 00:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - August 18

Phase I - August 19

Images uploaded by User:Scottfisher (has been notified)
  • Scottfisher to Boothy443
  • --Boothy443 has had problems in the past, Hate to get personal here and take up your space and your time. (Just delete it afterwards)
  • (Verbatim from his discussion page and there is much more)
  • Example message from another user on his discussion page:

Please stop reverting my user page. You are simply reverting my page on a whim without consulting me, or anyone else, or following any sort of procedure. You claim to opposed in principle to vandals, but you have no problem engaging in revert wars when it suits you. What you are doing to me is a form of vandalism too.

Humm no sig, thinks he owns an ip, intresting concept. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) I used to have a username until persistent false accusations from an administrator named Apollomelos forced me to stay anonymous.

ahh so he is a anon vandal. sure buddy. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Learn how to speak English please: "an anon vandal." Your last response was incoherent. I am not an anon vandal; I simply do not want to be attacked.

right buddy, what ever, if you dont want to be attacked, then dont edit, welcome to the real world where things arnt always roses. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have been called a homophobe, bigot, Ku Klux Klan member, been charged with concerted vandalism, and do not enjoy it. I have had my username deleted in utter embarrasment. That is not fair.

As if on one else has ever been called that, true or not. Life isnt fair, deal with it. Their must have been some reason for repatiable users to say such things, and user names can not be deleted, and if your sooo offended by what has happend to you why dont you take it to a higher autority then attempting your dumb campaing of i dont think i should bee called this so i wipe my page clean thinbg, so that you raise the ire of others. But i dout that you will do that so in the mean time bugg off my talk page on your watch list. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Oh btw i sig your post, or i will consider them vandalism You are seriously illiterate. Just about everything you write is mispelled. Thanks for telling me to "bugg" off, nice day to you too. 128.143.167.170 22:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Didnt know that i was taken a spelling test, i thought that these pages are used for informal chat, huh. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • As for copyrights, Etc, It's happening all over, and I'm really not sure one can justify a picture taken of a picture or the picture of a picture of a picture has copyrights. Look at EBAY or Yahoo, there are always pictures of pictures. They don't show copyrights. I have not seen any burden of proof, some may be logical of course.

Is there an external link or place the government keeps copyright documents like the patent I have and had to legally apply for, all rights reserved?

The following images have been uploaded by the above listed user under PD-"creator". All images have no source information. User has been notified.

  • Image:NECHO ALLEN PIC.jpg, i seriously doubt that User:Scottfisher is the painter or holds the copyright to the painting, the exact image could be found at http://www.hbg.psu.edu/library/ciletti/Paint.jpg a website at Penn State-Harrisburgh's libary, but the site does not come up at posting, a Google Image search will bring up a thumb, second from the right, top row.
    • Please show proof of burden or witten documentation for any copyright infringements before deletion -- Scotty (who still has not learnt how to sign properly)
      • does not come up at posting - a strange phrase - I think it simply means is no longer live. The Google search quoted above indicates that Paint.jpg was 540 x 381 pixels - 62k - exactly the same as the version uploaded to Wikipedia. The PSU page has been moved to http://www.libraries.psu.edu/schuylkill/luks.htm and has a clear © notice at the bottom. The image has been renamed http://www.libraries.psu.edu/schuylkill/images/luks_painting.jpg and has been reduced to 360 x 254 pixels - 33k but it is undoubtedly derived from the older version - note how both images have a white border of unequal width on different sides. A blatant copyvio if ever there was one. What more proof of burden (whatever that means!) do you need? -- RHaworth 14:08:40, 2005-08-21 (UTC)

--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: 20 Aug (user has been notified)

  • About what; you conintuing to staulk and delete peoples contributions/ work on Wikiprdia?
  • User uploaded Image:Yuengling sign2.jpg claims PD-user that he took the picture, which i contend is invald, and logo, which while it contains the logo it's a promo piece. The picture orginiates from [25], a site run by a beer tray seller and collector named Mark, i am fairly certain that Mark is not User:Scottfisher. I think this might bee a keeper but based that the photo was not released by the company and the wording on Promotional, i am not sure how it could be tagged.

Also 3 addation images have been listed as image vios, Image:Former yuengling mansion.jpg, Image:The old Yorkville Hose Bldg.jpg, Image:Center street School.jpg. I expect the imagevios and this section to increase in size in the coming days. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - August 20

Images uploaded by User:Zereshk (uploader notified)
  • Image:Holman-hula.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL while not providing any proof that it has been released by the author of the picture under a GFDL-compatible license. It seems that author of the image, Linda Carter-Holman, is still alive (bio). roozbeh 09:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:4mahal.jpg: No source. Uploader claims "fairuse" without providing any source or information about the copyright holder. roozbeh 09:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Ardabil.jpg: Author claims GFDL without providing any proof that the claimed source, IRNA, has released this under a GFDL-compatible license. The source cannot be verified either. roozbeh 09:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Kermanshah.jpg: Author claims GFDL without providing any source, or any proof that this has been released this under a GFDL-compatible license. roozbeh 10:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Mazandaran.jpg and Image:Yazd.jpg: the uploader has not mentioned the source, but only that "Photo provided by Zereshk". Please note that by "provided" he doesn't necessarily mean that he has taken the photo himself, but that he has uploaded the image. He has used the same term here where the man photographed has died in 1921. Possibly copyvio. roozbeh 09:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Other

Phase I - August 21

Acronyms BStU and Mfs in the photos refer to the East German secret police. My understanding of German copyright law is that even if the photographer is employed by the government, that doesn't mean the photos are PD. Delete unless somebody can find a source for claiming PD. Thuresson 16:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is idiot simple to see that these are public domain. http://www.bstu.de contains all photos from the defunct stasi and these are old east german government made photos. Go to the website and see for yourself. --Fahrenheit451 19:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, did that, bought the t-shirt, didn't see any evidence that this is PD. Thuresson
Shouldn't {{GermanGov}} apply then? —Ilmari Karonen 22:19:43, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Phase I - August 22

Images uploaded by User:Otebig

Unsourced images of Muslim architecture for the page I created back in July:

Other
Huh?? these don't look professional at all. There is no reason to doubt the poster's GDFL claim.--Rogerd 03:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The uploader has had several of his images questioned: see User talk:Alexk001 Alr 03:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Images uploaded by User:Lemonade51

Unsourced, no tags. History of imagevios.

Images uploaded by User:Boothy443

Copyright image as copyvio

Image uploaded by User:User458
Image uploaded by User:Sinjanin
  • Image:Arambas.jpg — They'd like to use this image in the Wikibooks Cookbook, which means that they'd like it to be on Commons. Unfortunately, this user hasn't tagged any of the images that xe uploaded. So we don't even know whether it can be on Commons. Uncle G 11:05:59, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Phase I - August 23

Phase I - August 24

Sports photos

Image:Wilander.jpg Image:McEnroe John 1.jpg Image:McEnroe John 2.jpg Image:Nastase.jpg Image:Moya.jpg Image:Ferrero.jpg Image:Safin.jpg Image:Kafelnikov.jpg Image:Lendl.jpg Image:Spadea vince.jpg Image:Seles monica.jpg Image:McEnroe john.jpg Image:Sayers gale.jpg Image:Payton walter.jpg Image:Sanders barry.jpg Image:Jones roy.jpg Image:Felix-trinidad.jpg Image:Hershiser.jpg Image:Gooden dwight.jpg Image:Glavine tom.jpg Image:Dilfer trent.jpg Image:Michael vick.jpg Image:Everett jim.jpg Image:Jim harbaugh.jpg Image:McMahon jim.jpg Image:Esiason boomer.jpg Image:Kosar bernie.jpg Image:Ralph wiley.jpg Image:Jim Lampley.jpg Image:Blake james.jpg Image:Jsmoltz.jpg Image:Aikman troy.jpg Image:Namath Joe.jpg Image:Jeff garcia.jpg Image:Neil odonnell.jpg Image:Rypien mark.jpg Image:Kelly jim.jpg Image:Steve deberg.jpg

User:rktect

And no value in keeping any of these: Image:3ht.jpg Image:Sailors.jpg Image:Ekgdz.jpg -- Egil 07:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add Image:Egyptian circles.jpg - no source given -- Egil 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC) All of these photos were taken by me and I have made them freely available Rktect 20:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded by User:Hitek5000


Phase I - August 25

Phase I - August 26

Phase I - August 27

Comment: the source is http://www.joanandstevesjubilantukjournal.co.uk/images/diana1frml.jpg, you can find it from the page history. But I can find nothing about the copyright status from the source site. -Hapsiainen 13:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - August 28

See also my comment on August 29. -Hapsiainen 06:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - August 29

The uploader remembers that the author wrote in her website that she released the images to public domain. There are now three possibilities: the permission has really changed, the uploader misunderstood it or remembers it incorrectly. -Hapsiainen 06:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - August 30

Phase I - August 31

Phase I - September 1

Phase I - September 2

Phase I - September 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=22443091"