Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions
Holly Cheng (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 514: | Line 514: | ||
::No release of the images to Wikipedia is necessary. At this point, there's no reason to believe that you don't have the authority to release the image to the public under a CC-BY license, for which we thank you for your generosity. However, I just want to confirm that you are aware that this allows anybody anywhere in the world to use the photos now for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and derivative works. If this is unacceptable to you, please let us know and we will have the images deleted. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) |
::No release of the images to Wikipedia is necessary. At this point, there's no reason to believe that you don't have the authority to release the image to the public under a CC-BY license, for which we thank you for your generosity. However, I just want to confirm that you are aware that this allows anybody anywhere in the world to use the photos now for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and derivative works. If this is unacceptable to you, please let us know and we will have the images deleted. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
We are well aware of the stipulations. Most of our business is suplying high resolution versions of our images 400 dpi and above, a far higher quality that is rrequired by commercial users of our images, than what we are contributing to Wikipedia. There is a growing market in low res images for internet use, but we feel contributing a couple of hundred images to Wikipedia is not going to effect our bottom line. Bottom line, we aren't worried about it. As to the issue of commercial distribution, that falls into an entire other area outside of copyright law. The images may of course be used in an editorial context if attibution to source is made as per our condition. Commercial use is beyond our scope since images of well known personalitities for commercial products require in addtion to copyright permission a license which can only be issued by the heirs of the estates of such persons or their authorized representatives. In other words, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. That is beyond our ability or authority to do. As for derivative works, basically the same rules apply. They can use the images any way they see fit as long as they cite the source. At such low resolution as we are supplying, to be quite frank, their use is generally limited to the internet in editorial contexts such as this. One thing that does come to mind is, will we have to go through this every time we upload additional images? Or is there a way to avoid this in the future. There are a lot of articles in which we feel we could enahnce the article by contributing images to them. --[[User:PersonalityPhotos|PersonalityPhotos]] 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:52, 3 July 2007
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image's source or copyright status is disputed or if it is only available under a non-free license.
Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.
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.
June 7
- Image:Graduable brake valve.jpg - The uploader asserted that this image is in the public domain because its Flickr page says "this image is public"; unfortunately that phrase doesn't mean the image is in the public domain, only that it is publicly viewable. Slambo (Speak) 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- As User:Slambo says, I have mistaken a flickr category for an image release. However, I did receive email permission from the creator at the time and I will now ask if he will change the licence. --Old Moonraker 11:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've sent a Flickr mail requesting the photographer change the license. Give me a few days to get this sorted. howcheng {chat} 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, howcheng—I don't want to keep on at the creator! --Old Moonraker 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've sent a Flickr mail requesting the photographer change the license. Give me a few days to get this sorted. howcheng {chat} 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- As User:Slambo says, I have mistaken a flickr category for an image release. However, I did receive email permission from the creator at the time and I will now ask if he will change the licence. --Old Moonraker 11:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
June 8
- Image:Zviadauri.jpg - Tagged with CC license but uploader is apparently not owner and includes statement: I would have no objection with my pictures being used on Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 05:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have instructed the uploader to forward the CC-BY-SA licensing agreement email to OTRS. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
June 14
- Image:BSRB1.jpg - No indication at the source that this is a GFDL-licensed work. Iamunknown 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BSRB1.jpg appears to be a popular photo listed by university public relations in an image achive established on its website as available for download, see: http://www.med.umich.edu/prmc/services/favorites/photos.html. why is it being questioned?Thomas Paine1776 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that is listed in a PR image archive does not necessarily mean that it has been released under a wiki-compatible license. In fact the site does not state anything regarding copyright of the images but there is a general site copyright disclaimer. The only way around this is to email the image owner which I will do... watch this space.Madmedea 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
June 15
- Image:Sansae200large.jpg - Tagged as {{No rights reserved}} with no indication of any release. Butseriouslyfolks 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Permission was initially granted by Fahad Al Mahmood, the creator of the image. Due to my inexperience then, I placed the wrong tag. Email from him is coming up as proof.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please forward your email to OTRS. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Permission was initially granted by Fahad Al Mahmood, the creator of the image. Due to my inexperience then, I placed the wrong tag. Email from him is coming up as proof.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
June 18
- Image:Guile-title.jpg - the software may be free, but it doesn't mean the logo is free, no permission stated to license the logo MECU≈talk 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Randy Orton .jpg - As noted at Image talk:Randy Orton .jpg, this image is probably from Myspace or Flickr and we do not know who the original author was. Thus, we cannot verify the licensing status. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Brazilian wandering spider front.jpg - Current license is for non-commercial use only. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bowman_ufo_welcomecenter.jpg - Tagged as free use but no evidence supporting release. Butseriouslyfolks 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:GuruGranthSahib-HarimandirSahib.jpg claims GFDL, but source says nothing. // Liftarn
- Image:42-15326958.jpg - comes from user's "personal collection", but attributes it to another source. Unlikely that uploader (who is banned BTW) is the copyright holder. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Adjarafolklore5.jpg - Works of Georgian governmental agencies are not public domain by default. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Estonians.jpg - compilation released as PD but clearly containing at least one copyrighted image Image:Veljo Tormis.jpg and possibly others due to unclear sourcing -SCEhardT 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- *Copyright Laws of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, wich states in Code 107:
- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
- Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
- (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The photographs of Lydia Koidula, Carl Robert Jakobson, Konrad Mägi, Georg Hackenschmidt are all taken prior to 1923 and released in the United States prior to 1923. The photographs the remaining individuals are being used in accordance with the Copyright Laws of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code and are being used solely for nonprofit, educational, research purposes to illustrate biographies of said individuals. ExRat 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but Wikipedia's non-free content policy, although based in U.S. law, is intentionally stricter than the law allows. Additionally, your own words contradict the usage of the non-free images, because as compiled into a collage of images, it's not illustrating the individual biographies. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:HMS Benbow.jpg - No real source information to verify public domain status. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that very few people are going to be on a warship in the middle of a world war except the actual sailors on the ship. I've re-tagged this {{PD-BritishGov}} as it appears to be Crown Copyright. Correct me if I'm wrong. -N 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. Joe Rosenthal (an Associated Press photographer) was with the Marines during the Battle of Iwo Jima when he took his famous photo. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that very few people are going to be on a warship in the middle of a world war except the actual sailors on the ship. I've re-tagged this {{PD-BritishGov}} as it appears to be Crown Copyright. Correct me if I'm wrong. -N 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jppatchesdoh.jpg - Used only by permission and I think it's replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jpgertrude.jpg - Used only by permission and I think it's replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
June 19
- Image:Atwood.jpg – I can't find the copyright notice in the source confirming all the rights have been released. – Ilse@ 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Racer110.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bd10-3.jpg - Upon examing the user's other uploads (see Flybd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), it is doubtful that this particular photograph is his/her work to donate into the public domain. The name in the watermark at the bottom right of this image, "George Patterson" (used in the context to denote copyright holder), is not the same as "Juan Jiminez", who is indicated to be both the uploader and photographer of the other images. Recommend deletion unless the uploader offers clarification that this is a mistake. Iamunknown 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Churchill on HMS Kelvin June 1944.JPG, Image:HMS Kelvin.JPG - Unless Wiki-Ed inherited the copyright rights to these images, (s)he has no right to release them under a free license. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if I inherited the originals? Wiki-Ed 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did your great-uncle take the pictures? Do you have the negatives in your possession? If the answer is yes to both of these, then you own (or your family owns) the copyright. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The photos were taken by him (or presumably by his crew mates when he is in the picture). I don't have the negatives (were negatives returned after development 65 years ago?). Could you point me to the stipulation that copyright is only inherited with negatives? If they don’t exist then who holds the copyright? Wiki-Ed 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps take this in a bit of a different direction? We could argue they are Crown Copyright (since they were taken by sailors on duty) and are expired (crown copyright is 50 years). Wiki-Ed then released his digitalizations under the GFDL (discussions at Commons indicate that Bridgeman definitely do not apply to UK copyright photos). Thoughts? -N 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- If that would work then that would be good (the aim here, obviously, is to ensure these historical images can be seen). It would also get around the technical argument that he did not literally take all the photos himself (since, as I said, he is in some of them[1]). Wiki-Ed 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps take this in a bit of a different direction? We could argue they are Crown Copyright (since they were taken by sailors on duty) and are expired (crown copyright is 50 years). Wiki-Ed then released his digitalizations under the GFDL (discussions at Commons indicate that Bridgeman definitely do not apply to UK copyright photos). Thoughts? -N 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The photos were taken by him (or presumably by his crew mates when he is in the picture). I don't have the negatives (were negatives returned after development 65 years ago?). Could you point me to the stipulation that copyright is only inherited with negatives? If they don’t exist then who holds the copyright? Wiki-Ed 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did your great-uncle take the pictures? Do you have the negatives in your possession? If the answer is yes to both of these, then you own (or your family owns) the copyright. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Per N, this looks like a GFDL scan of a PD image, unless the scan doesn't qualify for copyright, in which case it's a PD scan of a PD image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should ask Wiki-Ed to explicitly release any rights he may have into the public domain. -N 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah sure. Since you guys seems to be the experts on this, what do I need to change the tag to? Wiki-Ed 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend changing the tags to {{PD-BritishGov}} with a note on the page saying the approximate date they were taken and by Her Majesty's sailors in the course of their duties, that you inherited them, and you are releasing them, perhaps accompanying this another tag such as GFDL or {{attribution}} if you'd like to retain the right of attribution as the source. I think you'll find the parameters on {{attribution}} quite flexible for this purpose. -N 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you inherited the originals, then we should meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia unless someone else is claiming copyright over them. See #May 18 above. GFDL is fine. I'll remove the "disputed" tags. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend changing the tags to {{PD-BritishGov}} with a note on the page saying the approximate date they were taken and by Her Majesty's sailors in the course of their duties, that you inherited them, and you are releasing them, perhaps accompanying this another tag such as GFDL or {{attribution}} if you'd like to retain the right of attribution as the source. I think you'll find the parameters on {{attribution}} quite flexible for this purpose. -N 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah sure. Since you guys seems to be the experts on this, what do I need to change the tag to? Wiki-Ed 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should ask Wiki-Ed to explicitly release any rights he may have into the public domain. -N 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if I inherited the originals? Wiki-Ed 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mattsorum1.jpg - Seems to have an incorrect license tag. I don't think this is public domain stuff.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Australian War Memorial images Many images that came from the Australian War Memorial (AWM) are considered to be in the public domain in Australia. Yet an e-mail from the AWM says that the watermark must not be removed and that the images may not be used commercially. Ordinarily I would way that the AWM has no right to impose restrictions on a public domain work, but then I realized that the AWM is part of the Australian government.
- So, what should we do? I think an acceptable course of action would be to take the images which are confirmed to be public domain in the United States (by either year of publication or year of the author's death) and losslessly crop the AWM watermark off of them using Jpegcrop. AWM images not confirmed to be in the public domain in the United States should be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that they're OK as is - all the AWM images I've uploaded have their copyright status listed as 'clear' on the AWM's online database (which isn't an automatic thing, as more recent photos have a label stating that either the AWM or the photographer holds copyright), and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they'd be covered by copyright if they were taken before 1955. To the best of my knowledge, no complaints have been recieved from the AWM and the last times this was discussed (see: [2], [3] and [4]) it was decided that the images were out of copyright and the AWM can't enforce its request for pre-1955 photos. --Nick Dowling 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick for alerting me to this. I am not a lawyer, but I have had professional experience with Australian copyright law. To the best of my knowledge, the AWM is wrong to insist on the retention of watermarks, serial numbers or even that they be attributed. I think attribution of the AWM and the photographer (if known) in captions is a reasonable policy (although I have been remiss in this regard myself occasionally). I believe that copyright-free status in Australia is indivisible.
- I think that they're OK as is - all the AWM images I've uploaded have their copyright status listed as 'clear' on the AWM's online database (which isn't an automatic thing, as more recent photos have a label stating that either the AWM or the photographer holds copyright), and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they'd be covered by copyright if they were taken before 1955. To the best of my knowledge, no complaints have been recieved from the AWM and the last times this was discussed (see: [2], [3] and [4]) it was decided that the images were out of copyright and the AWM can't enforce its request for pre-1955 photos. --Nick Dowling 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also have some experience of the inner workings of government agencies, as the AWM undoubtedly is, which tells me that they will attempt to do things which are not within their power, if they think they can get away with it. Grant | Talk 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Australian copyright council's factsheet on this issue (http://www.copyright.org.au/G023.pdf) states that photographs taken by Australian government agencies are out of copyright if the are both over 50 years of age and taken before 1969 (see Table 2, page 5). The National Library of Australia's website states that this rule applies to the photos in its huge online collections, which I believe includes all the photos on the AWM's database (see: http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/pic_copyright.html ). As such, I think that it's pretty clear that the photos on the AWM's database which were taken prior to 1969 and are over 50 years of age are out of copyright. I don't see any benefit from removing the AWM's watermark, however, as this is useful in verifying the photo's copyright details on the AWM database and its caption, where it was taken, etc. --Nick Dowling 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also have some experience of the inner workings of government agencies, as the AWM undoubtedly is, which tells me that they will attempt to do things which are not within their power, if they think they can get away with it. Grant | Talk 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- 3 dubious images from User:Therevenger, who has a history of mis-licensing images (someone retagged several of them):
- Image:Eyelash transplant bauman 500.jpg and Image:Eyelashsurgnocred.jpg Actual license is "I release the photo to the public domain for free use, provide the image remains unchanged and unaltered in its original form." Image release disallows derivative works. Image also appears to be original research (with no disrespect to Dr. Brauman). -N 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The license on the original states "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law" Alvis 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)::
- The license tag says that but the summary handwritten by the author says differently. I'm afraid the boilerplate tag doesn't cut it if they manually write something different. -N 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I assumed the tag that the user posted which granted more rights to the image took precedence since you can't retract rights from a license once granted. In this case, we need to delete BOTH images then, because the original violates wiki watermark policy. Alvis 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm content to just leave them listed here, eventually they'll be deleted. -N 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I assumed the tag that the user posted which granted more rights to the image took precedence since you can't retract rights from a license once granted. In this case, we need to delete BOTH images then, because the original violates wiki watermark policy. Alvis 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The license tag says that but the summary handwritten by the author says differently. I'm afraid the boilerplate tag doesn't cut it if they manually write something different. -N 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like the creator doesn't really understand public domain; what he wrote is most like {{cc-nd}}. As it stands, I agree there is no choice but deleting the images. It's possible that the "nd" is only to preserve the credit at the bottom of the image; if this is the case, it may be possible to convince the creator to relicense it as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}} with the attribution satisfied by text on the image description page rather than in the image itself. Anomie 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lyricsborn_live.jpg - "photo can be used for any and all non-commercial uses", may also be a copyright violation, see previous revision ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
June 20
- Image:MM1.jpg - Listed as from personal collection, but image appears to have been scanned from a newspaper. Videmus Omnia 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kristine_Hermosa.jpg - Stated source is a scan from a magazine. http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/386/starstudio2002no29fd.jpg bluemask (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jillyuloalwynuytingco.JPG - scanned from a magazine bluemask (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The image can be found on Alwyn Uytingco's MySpace page
- Image:Solo_cup_copy.JPG Derivative of copyrighted sculpture. Before I saw this I would have thought it impossible to transform a free work into an unfree one merely by cropping, but the original is obviously de minimis, ie the main focus is the person, rather than the sculpture. By changing the focus, the cropped version is no longer de minimis use of a copyrighted work. -N 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've saved you the trouble, since it wasn't considered good quality, we don't use it anymore. It's not needed, and I've marked for deletion per WP:CSD#G7 accordingly. Evilclown93(talk) 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nemanjic.jpg confusing licensing terms. After original upload copyright holder apparently came onto Wikipedia and added restrictions. Source url say "All Rights Reserved". -N 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Oscar Wilde frock coat.jpg claims PD-US, but the source is given as Central Office of Information, London, England. // Liftarn
- Image now properly sourced. -N 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:1988 Firefly.JPG gives both an external source and PD-self. What is it? // Liftarn
- The link is a used auto trading site. It is quite possible the user took the picture and uploaded it to the site if he was selling his car, but I think we should err on the side of caution and suspect it's a copyvio since that appears to be a professional used car lot. -N 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The image was originally uploaded as promotional, but when someone tagged it as replaceable, the uploader switched it to public domain. The uploader is a regular auto photographer, so even if that was his car and his image (it isn't) he wouldn't have used a low-res image like that. --Sable232 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rezagolzar-23.jpg - tagged as GFDL but marked as copyright. Source website http://rezagolzar.com/ is not live so copyright status is unverifiable. No indication from uploader that copyright holder has released this image under GFDL. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rezagolzar-16.jpg - tagged as GFDL but marked as copyright. Source website http://rezagolzar.com/ is not live so copyright status is unverifiable. No indication from uploader that copyright holder has released this image under GFDL. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rezagolzar-32.jpg - tagged as GFDL but marked as copyright. Source website http://rezagolzar.com/ is not live so copyright status is unverifiable. No indication from uploader that copyright holder has released this image under GFDL. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Shaghayegh.jpg - tagged as GFDL but source website is down; unable to verify copyright status. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Behzad Farahani.jpg - tagged as GFDL but source website is a foreign-language fansite; unable to verify licensing status. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Hossein Yari.jpg - tagged as GFDL but source website asserts copyright over content. No indication from uploader that source website has released this image under GFDL. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:GolShifteh2.jpg - tagged as GFDL but source website asserts copyright over content. No indication from uploader that source website has released this image under GFDL. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:GolShifteh.jpg - tagged as GFDL but sourced to a non-English fan blog; unable to verify licensing status. --Muchness 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jack Adkisson.jpg - tagged as GFDL-self but claimed to be from a DVD (although the kid was born before 1957 and died at age 7, so it's probably originally from a home movie). —Angr 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:16267333.jpg - Photo is credited to one of the people in the photograph, but there is no evidence that she released it under the CC-BY-SA license. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Chris von erich.jpg - tagged as PD, but the source gives no reason to believe that. —Angr 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sinornithosaurus.gif - Used only by permission, does not qualify as fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
June 21
- Image:Bapferre.jpg - Absent uploader, no proof of public domain status, OTRS or otherwise. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Broadway_Resized.jpg - uploader is absent, photo is of a record sleve/record which is probably copyrighted, the uploader meant well, but I believe we must use this under fair use MECU≈talk 13:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:FreeNASlogo.png - Uploader's username implies they have permission, but no statement of permission or OTRS and source website states copyright MECU≈talk 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Atlas_Rockefeller_Center.jpg - No Freedom of panorama in the USA MECU≈talk 13:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:IcarusStatue.jpg - No Freedom of panorama in the USA MECU≈talk 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is my source giving the unveiling date as 1919. I'll add info to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Homer_at_UVa.jpg - No Freedom of panorama in the USA MECU≈talk 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is a photo taken in 1914. Uris 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Man has a point. Madmedea 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute his statement, but I must be blind. I don't see the statue in that b&w picture. And I would still like to see as much information on artist/year of manufacture as he could gather. -N 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The statue was unveiled in 1907 and was sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel. Here is my source. I'll add the information to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. How weird perspective is. The statue looks huge in your picture. The other pictures make it look tiny. That's why I was so confused. -N 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The statue was unveiled in 1907 and was sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel. Here is my source. I'll add the information to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute his statement, but I must be blind. I don't see the statue in that b&w picture. And I would still like to see as much information on artist/year of manufacture as he could gather. -N 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Man has a point. Madmedea 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is a photo taken in 1914. Uris 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rockefeller_Center_Prometheus.jpg - No Freedom of panorama in the USA MECU≈talk 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:UVa-selfmade-by-Uris.png - Derivitive work of logo from University, font matches and columned building, see http://www.virginia.edu/ top left MECU≈talk 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The columned building is none other than The Rotunda, constructed in 1826. It is ineligible for copyright. This image is a derivative work of my own photograph of this public domain building. (Fonts cannot be copyrighted.) I'll add this info to the image's own page as well. Uris 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:UnderTheUmbrella.jpg - No Freedom of panorama in the USA MECU≈talk 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Filipo_Turati.jpg - The uploader seems to have used the death of the subject and not the author. If they own this picture they can just release it outright, but perhaps the author/publisher of the image needs to release ownership and their death date should be considered. MECU≈talk 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Stagnesplace2.jpg claims cc-by-sa-2.5, but source says (c). // Liftarn
- Image:59765869 2ad802d221.jpg claims NoRightsReserved, but source says (c). // Liftarn
- Image:59765870 5559b478aa.jpg, Image:59767879 b0f06fcb40.jpg same thing. // Liftarn
- Image:60001182 c7de75a047.jpg doesn't exist at source URL. // Liftarn
- Image:328698.jpg claims cc-by-2.5, but I find nothing at source. // Liftarn
- Image:Lambeth 2.jpg claims cc-by-2.5, but source says "© All rights reserved." // Liftarn
- Image:414f-1-.jpg - no indication that uploader is the author of this image. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Beau Berns.jpg and Image:BeauBerns-110-x.jpg, both appear professional, and are simply stated as pd-self. However, this is doubtful, unless the author can give some verification he owns the copyrights and releases them. The Evil Spartan 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tewdros.jpg - Tagged {{PD}}, but source provides no reason to think that's the case. —Angr 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
June 22
- Image:SamGoodySigning_002.jpg - I was uploaded with the now deleted tag of "copyrighted free use" which was changed to a PD license. The text added with the upload states "This picutre is owned by Tim Andrews, who uploaded it to the article. All rights reserved." I think it should be tagged with a non-free license, I am not sure and if so, which one. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's obviously a self-made photo, perhaps uploader was looking for some kind of {{permission}} licensing when he did that. On the other hand he may have just wanted {{attribution}}. Weak oppose deletion. -N 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kenny-sia.png tagged with {{attribution}} but source says nothing about copyright or attribution. Resurgent insurgent 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am the copyright holder of the image and I authorise the use of this image for Wikipedia. Kennysia 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Multiple images:
- These images are all from Flickr but do not have an allowed license, not cc-by or cc-by-sa --Joowwww 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've nominated Image:Trurofromtrain.jpg for speedy deletion as the flickr image is not released at all; I've also added some of the flickr weblinks to the pictures above which are released but under too restrictive a license. The others are probably on there but I haven't found them yet. Madmedea 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the rest of the flickr links. Many thanks, --Joowwww 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've nominated Image:Trurofromtrain.jpg for speedy deletion as the flickr image is not released at all; I've also added some of the flickr weblinks to the pictures above which are released but under too restrictive a license. The others are probably on there but I haven't found them yet. Madmedea 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Beatleslastconcert1966.jpg - Listing here as suggested at June 18th IfD - "orphaned image, absent uploader, image tagged as PD-self, text included by uploader "This image was taken by photographer Jim Marshall whose photographs appear in Eric Lefcowitz book" The uploader is presumed to be Eric Lefcowitz based on user name. Unsure if this image is tagged correctly." User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is highly doubtful that the uploader - whether he is Eric Lefcowitz or not - has either had the copyright of the image ceded to him by the photographer, Jim Marshall, or that Marshall has released the image into the public domain. In fact the website cited - http://www.beatleslast.com/ - states that "please note: unless otherwise noted all images are copyright Jim Marshall. To purchase signed prints of Marshall's photography go to http://www.jimmarshallvault.com/". The image uploaded from the sample chapter at [15] has no such declaration of release. Madmedea 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:EmanLam.jpg - Tagged as public domain but nothing to back up that claim. Butseriouslyfolks 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Prem-King-Queen.jpg, Image:SuchindaBhumibol.JPG, Image:SaritandBhumibol2.jpg - I can find no evidence to suggest that "The Bureau of the Royal Household grants CC Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 licenses all photographs of the King and royal family." Iamunknown 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:CharlesCatNo.jpg - From Flickr under a CC noncommercial license. Listing it here instead of speedying to give uploader time to relicense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:ElishaCuthbert007.jpg from [16], "Photo: Copyright DailyCeleb.com & David Edwards - All rights reserved.". Thuresson 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Henry2007.jpg - Tagged as {{PD-self}}, but appears to be a professional image from a news agency. Uploader offers no identification or other evidence that he took the photo, and has a substantial history of uploading unsourced and copyvio images.[17] --Muchness 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rhodesia_dak3.jpg - The permission indicated on the image description page does not appear to be free. Iamunknown 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely hate dealing with you photonazis, but I don't need my FAC ruined, so I have to put up with this nonsense. What exactly is the problem? The website stated "permission will be freely given on condition that the pictures are credited to me". I requested if the pic could be freely used (i.e. copyleft) on Wikipedia and got a "please go ahead, credits will be great to the website and me", uploaded it under a licence that required attribution, and gave credit to the author in the image caption. What else am I supposed to do?! Michael talk 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- E-mail the photographer, ask him or her to reply with the standard declaration of consent filled out with a URL link to the photograph, a license (preferably the GNU Free Documentation License and one or more Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licenses), the date and his or her name. --Iamunknown 06:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is this compulsory? Does this have to be done? Why is there a lack of trust in the words already written there? Is Wikipedia really this anal? Michael talk 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- The wording provided on the image description page in nowise indicates that the copyright holder agreed to license his or her photograph under a free Creative Commons license. Free content—including, but not limited to, the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5—can legally be used, reused, modified, published, used commercially, sold or used for any other purposes by anyone as long as the copyright holder is attributed; that is very different from the statement "permission will be freely given on condition that the pictures are credited to me". Where there is uncertainty in the copyright status of an image, we seek to clarify the status. The standard declaration of consent is a solid method of clarification and, unless the copyright status of this image is clarified, it will possibly be deleted. --Iamunknown 06:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is this compulsory? Does this have to be done? Why is there a lack of trust in the words already written there? Is Wikipedia really this anal? Michael talk 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- E-mail the photographer, ask him or her to reply with the standard declaration of consent filled out with a URL link to the photograph, a license (preferably the GNU Free Documentation License and one or more Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licenses), the date and his or her name. --Iamunknown 06:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely hate dealing with you photonazis, but I don't need my FAC ruined, so I have to put up with this nonsense. What exactly is the problem? The website stated "permission will be freely given on condition that the pictures are credited to me". I requested if the pic could be freely used (i.e. copyleft) on Wikipedia and got a "please go ahead, credits will be great to the website and me", uploaded it under a licence that required attribution, and gave credit to the author in the image caption. What else am I supposed to do?! Michael talk 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Demis AM.jpg. From a fan-run Wiki with no image source or licensing info[18]. Unverifiable copyright status. --Muchness 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Demis-AEK.jpg. From a fansite with no image source or licensing info[19][20]. Unverifiable copyright status. --Muchness 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
June 23
- Image:YMS-08A_High_Mobility_Prototype.gif - Non commerical only ShakespeareFan00 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- But fair use is claimed. That doesn't depend (usually) on the actual license given. A fair use image is automatically unfree, not "possibly unfree". -N 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely un-free image, but also a valid use of fair use as no free alternative could be created. Are we happy to strike this one out and remove the tag as incorrectly posted? Madmedea 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- But fair use is claimed. That doesn't depend (usually) on the actual license given. A fair use image is automatically unfree, not "possibly unfree". -N 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:YMS-09_Prototype_Dom.gif - Non Commercial only ShakespeareFan00 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- But fair use is claimed. That doesn't depend (usually) on the actual license given. A fair use image is automatically unfree, not "possibly unfree". -N 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely un-free image, but also a valid use of fair use as no free alternative could be created. Are we happy to strike this one out and remove the tag as incorrectly posted? Madmedea 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- But fair use is claimed. That doesn't depend (usually) on the actual license given. A fair use image is automatically unfree, not "possibly unfree". -N 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Escenafinal220.jpg - image has been uploaded several times under different licenses. This time, the uploader has added {{pd-self}}, which is wrong, because she is not the author. Additionally, she gives no indication that the author has licensed it under the description she gave, which is inadequate anyway because it says something along the lines of "non-commercial use only". The Evil Spartan 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Allieshoot1.jpg - No documentation or verification that image copyright is not being violated. Videmus Omnia 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gwen 4 in the morning .jpg - clearly a screen capture of a video, as author admits in summary. The Evil Spartan 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LaiMan-Wai.jpg - Image sourcing gives a 1913 film, not matching the licensing of "author dies more than 100 years ago public domain images". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Resolved, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LaiMan-Wai.jpg&curid=9794273&diff=140126434&oldid=140125714, and User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#Possibly unfree Image:LaiMan-Wai.jpg. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added a PD in the US tag as well. -N 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Resolved, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LaiMan-Wai.jpg&curid=9794273&diff=140126434&oldid=140125714, and User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#Possibly unfree Image:LaiMan-Wai.jpg. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:M_Keiser.jpg - Uploader claims creation/copyright ownership, but this is obviously a posed professional-quality portait of a notable person (Max Keiser). Videmus Omnia 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Speedygonzalez3.svg – even though the .svg file might be created by User:Shentok, this seems like a copyrighted / trademarked character to me – Ilse@ 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obiously unfree, this becomes more clear when the summary of it reads "Don't Delete", it lacks Fair Use Rationable and source also perhaps a speedy deletion would be more adecuate. -凶 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the image would qualify as fair use when a fair use tag and rationale are added. – Ilse@ 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It might be tough to meet WP:FUC 3b, at least without converting it to a PNG at the minimal size required. Anomie 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously the user didn't know any better and should have tagged it as fair use. Let's not delete over something a newbie didn't know. — Brian (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and fix it for them then. Anomie 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously the user didn't know any better and should have tagged it as fair use. Let's not delete over something a newbie didn't know. — Brian (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- It might be tough to meet WP:FUC 3b, at least without converting it to a PNG at the minimal size required. Anomie 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the image would qualify as fair use when a fair use tag and rationale are added. – Ilse@ 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obiously unfree, this becomes more clear when the summary of it reads "Don't Delete", it lacks Fair Use Rationable and source also perhaps a speedy deletion would be more adecuate. -凶 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Davidpic1.gif - Ownership (as stated on the image description page) does not indicate that the uploader is the copyright holder. Additionally, the image is from this website, which is not licensed under the GFDL. Iamunknown 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:16mm_Brass_Dice.jpg - No indication at the source that this image is either PD or GFDL. Iamunknown 20:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rev_Mannaraprayil_Cor_Episcopa.jpg - If this image were self-made, I assume an image of better quality (in terms of resolution or DPI) would be available. As it is, the image looks as if it were copied off of the Internet. Iamunknown 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
June 24
- Image:Rebecca_Romero_Zip.jpg - watermaked with subject's webpage address User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Colbert Shield.jpg - Stephen Colbert is still alive, thus this image has no valid fair use rationale. Corvus cornix 04:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Steve_Allott_small.JPG - It appears to be a promo shot, no information provided that copyright holder, the subject, has released it as GFDL -- Also Image:SteveAllott.JPG which has less information regarding source. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cloudwiki.jpg - Uploader does not seem to be author or copyright holder per notice on page User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Christmas tree-7534301.jpg It was originally uploaded as a fair-use screenshot. The same user uploaded (with a public domain tag) an image that appears to be a derivative of that copyrighted image. WODUP 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- When notified of this nomination, Hotspot said "I changed it on a image program, i usd the same picture but i made the program make it crosshatch, so its not the same picture.-hotspot" WODUP 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the simplicity of the image and the significant changes made I think the {{PD-self}} one is probably fair. Ultimately it would be very, very easy to create such an image from scratch and so it is almost verging on {{PD-ineligible}} Madmedea 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is still a derivative work from the original. PD-ineligible should be for images that require little or no human creativity. Here we have some creative choices, so it doesn't apply. This should be replaced by a totally free image like Image:Christmas tree 02.svg. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the simplicity of the image and the significant changes made I think the {{PD-self}} one is probably fair. Ultimately it would be very, very easy to create such an image from scratch and so it is almost verging on {{PD-ineligible}} Madmedea 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- When notified of this nomination, Hotspot said "I changed it on a image program, i usd the same picture but i made the program make it crosshatch, so its not the same picture.-hotspot" WODUP 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nalcampus.gif: Claimed PD, but description says "Taken from the NAL website." I'm not sure where this particular image is found on [21], but the bottom of the main page says "© NAL 2006 All rights reserved". No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released this image into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image was requested from NAL when there wasn't a copyright notice / page. They said - "You are free to use any content that you wish from www.nal.res.in Srinivas Bhogle, NAL". Subsequently - "It would be gracious to acknowledge the NAL source; but we can't (and don't) really want to stop you. Srinivas Bhogle, NAL". Jaidev 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if a copyright notice was on the page or not, because all creative works are copyrighted unless otherwise specified. You may want to contact them and find out if they are willing to release the image under a free license that allows for commercial redistribution and derivative works (see WP:COPYREQ for help). If not, then it's an unfree image and can only be used under limited circumstances (which would not apply to this image). howcheng {chat} 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image was requested from NAL when there wasn't a copyright notice / page. They said - "You are free to use any content that you wish from www.nal.res.in Srinivas Bhogle, NAL". Subsequently - "It would be gracious to acknowledge the NAL source; but we can't (and don't) really want to stop you. Srinivas Bhogle, NAL". Jaidev 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Hayedavid.jpg: Claimed GFDL, but description is "This is a promotional image of David Haye released by his promoters to the media". No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. Also, this image, if not free, almost certainly fails the first non-free content criterion, in that a free replacement could reasonably be created (and possibly fails criterion 3b as well, as it is a rather high-resolution image). See also the eighth example of unacceptable use. —Bkell (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jackiepusheslexi.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pauladrivescar1.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Hostagesreleased.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Steven001.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lexishootsdave1.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kerryinberlin1.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Richardandlauren1.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Marieisshot.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Deliaisshotbycarl.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lauren101.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Phillisconfrontskerry.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pauladrivescar1.jpg - Per Sim Street: a screenshot of The Sims, not applicable for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- All the Sims images above are derivative images, which can only be used if they adhere to our non-free content criteria. They are certainly mistagged, and should be listed at WP:IFD instead. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- All the images are directly lifted from http://simstreet.simtv.co.uk/ which has a copyright notice. They are derivatives, but wouldn't they also be copyright http://simstreet.simtv.co.uk/ as well? They should be deleted as copyvios. --Dual Freq 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- All the Sims images above are derivative images, which can only be used if they adhere to our non-free content criteria. They are certainly mistagged, and should be listed at WP:IFD instead. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- User:Danko Georgiev MD uploaded several animated gifs illustrating the Sine-Gordon equation: Image:Sine gordon 1.gif, Image:Sine gordon 2.gif, Image:Sine gordon 3.gif, Image:Sine gordon 4.gif, Image:Sine gordon 5.gif, Image:Sine gordon 6.gif, Image:Sine gordon 7.gif, Image:Sine gordon 8.gif, and Image:Sine gordon 9.gif. These images were tagged PD-self. User:Mathsci alleges that these images are derivative images of the images at this website. I have no idea whether these images were created from scratch by Danko Georgiev MD, or whether he modified those original images to produce the images as Mathsci alleges. (I don't understand the mathematical material, and I'm not familiar with the abilities of editors which can alter animated gifs.) Mathsci has removed the images from the Sine-Gordon equation page, and I have asked Danko Georgiev MD to comment here. If anyone has more experience than I do, perhaps you can shed some light? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Update: User:Danko Georgiev MD has replied on my talk page, stating that he made the images himself. This seems perfectly plausible to me, and Mathsci has not provided any evidence of violation (other than the fact that they look sorta similar). Unless there's further evidence of a copyright violation, I'm going to treat these as free images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LawrenceEricTaylor.jpg - TV-screenshot Rettetast 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cdn_firefight_taliban3.JPG - Unlike US government works, Canadian works are not PD. There is no indication that uploader is truly the photogropher and able to release as GFDL-self User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_101_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_101.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_102.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_102_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_103_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_103.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_104.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_104_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_105.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_105_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.06.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.06_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.07.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.07_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.08.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.08_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.09.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.09_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.10.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.10_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.11.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.11_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.12.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Downtownies_1.12_2.jpg - Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Usr_wikifairy.png - I see no statement on the source page that this image is free for use. Iamunknown 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Crystaltownseries2cast.jpg - Screenshot of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{GFDL-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
June 25
- Image:D4fa.jpg claims own work, but when and where? It looks suspicious. // Liftarn
- Image:039 15840~Nicole-Kidman-Posters.jpg is described as self created, however the same image, with the same file name is at All Posters.com Rossrs 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aubrey_sandel.jpg - as of June 25, 2007, the flickr image page displays "All right reserved" bluemask (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tunnel.jpg - permission claimed but no OTRS information or other statemtents of what permission MECU≈talk 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:PreseasonDrills.jpg - permission claimed but no OTRS ticket or statement of what permission was given MECU≈talk 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:SMB_Disney_Dec_31_99.jpg - permission claimed but no OTRS ticket or statement of what permission was given MECU≈talk 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jean-Claude.jpg - clearly a screenshot. The Evil Spartan 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Maia Lee Most Beautiful Girl.jpg - doubtfully created by self- looks professional. Also, due to author doubtfully claiming "this is my own image", I've also included Image:Maia Lee Is The Most Beautiful And Sexy Girl.jpg. The Evil Spartan 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:CardifGiant2005.jpg - promotional, professional: no indication that uploader is the author, or, if s/he is, that any right to copy the image is now revoked. The Evil Spartan 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Westgatelakes2.jpg - Image is listed as both copyrighted and GFDL. Videmus Omnia 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:WhichShouldBeTheInspirationForTheGenocideLogo6to8.PNG - Uploader claims own work licensed under the GFDL. However, on Portal:Genocide/Things you can do/Logo he claims that the images in the collage were simply "found on [his] computer". Another image in this series, Image:WhichShouldBeTheInspirationForTheGenocideLogo1to5.PNG, is unquestionably a copyvio as it reproduces newswire photos, and has been marked for speedy deletion. —Psychonaut 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ray_noorda.jpg - Source of the image is listed as a blog, with no attribution to original source. The image description is contradictory, claiming both fair use and the fact that that the photo is in the public domain. Videmus Omnia 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Shapur i.jpg - the coin's design is obviously PD, but the photograph is of unknown source. The question is, does the photo contain new "creative content" that could be eligible for copyright? Or is it a mere copy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's set in a weird border and there's shadowing and reflection of the light. Definitely enough to make it unfree. I also note it was originally uploaded as fair use but later changed to PD. It can't be fair use either, since the image has a creative copyright and we have no fair use claim to it. Also, Commons has *three* free images of this coin or similar coins depicting the same monarch [22] [23] [24]. -N 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aadead.jpg - the claimed source tropeamagazine.it is not a website run by the US federal government. Thuresson 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
*Image:Lydia white.JPG Released into public domain, but no assertion that user took the photo. Looks like a promo shot. tiZom(2¢) 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC) User uploaded second copy, explained that he took the pic, that subject is his wife. Available at Image:LydiaCornell white 2007.JPG. CSD I1. tiZom(2¢) 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- A smaller version of the same photo is available at the Lydia Cornell official website. Thuresson 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sdtowers3ed.jpg - Uploader claims GFDL but the only source is an image hosting service. Thuresson 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
June 26
- Image:Cherinsuperbowl.jpg - The link for the original source is dead - am unable to verify whether the copyright on this image has been released or not. Videmus Omnia 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MarkRylance.jpg: Claimed PD-USGov. Source is given as NPR, which is not an agency of the United States federal government. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Joshplayingguitar.jpg - from press kit. Not PD Rettetast 06:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed; added {{Non-free promotional}} —Michael 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AngelRamosTelemundo.jpg Really bad reasons listed for it to be Public Domain. Garion96 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- You really weren't kidding when you said those were bad reasons... they are really bad reasons. From a time point of view would still be under copyright, no evidence that photographer has released into the public domain. Madmedea 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe they are bad reasons, but that's your personal opinion. That fact is that the image is a publicity photo taken prior 1960 (c. 1950's) and that the same photo is used publicly in various sites. It is the only known image of the person who is no longer alive and thereby it is not replaceable. Tony the Marine 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hum, it does seem to me that the image meets the creteria established Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Tony the Marine 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, not my personal opinion, they just are really bad reasons. You might have a case to have the image fall under fair use (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). But that an image is used publicly is no indication of Public domain. The fact that an image is not replaceable is really a bad reason to think it is the public domain. Image:TrangBang.jpg is totally irreplaceable but eh.... Garion96 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Garion96 is right - those might be arguments if the image was claimed as fair use but not for public domain. Where PD is concerned its normally a question of fact not argument where as fair use depends on argument. Madmedea 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm begining to understand the situation. It doesn't meet the criteria for a PD, but just might meet the criteria for Free-use. So, how about if I change the "tag" before a final determination is taken? Tony the Marine 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, you could certainly add the correct fair use tag and rationale (N.B. NOT FREE USE!). Madmedea 10:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I changed the "PD" which was wrong and added a "fair use" tag with rationale. So, Garion96 would you consider "un-nominating", that way we can see how it will go as far as the "fair use" criteria is concerned?Tony the Marine 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the tag. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Brangelina.jpg - rationale given for all rights released by copyright holder: "This photograph belongs to a series that was freely distributed thorugh emails in mid January 2006 from an unspecified source within the Dominican P.R. and Arts community, whereby the photographs can be considered as obtained for personal enjoyment, and not by an agency or a freelancing papparazo. It is obvious that the pictures were taken with consent of the celebrities from someone sitting on their table or within their entourage." In short, it was distributed via email by an unspecified source- there's no way that constitutes irrevocably releasing all one's rights to an image. Calliopejen1 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tonytammaro.jpg - no indication that copyrighter has released the image. User has previously engaged in likely deceptive image tagging (see [[:Image:Robbie Williams Photo
June 27
- Image:John-engler.jpg - No reason to think this is a federal government (as opposed to State of Michigan) portrait.—Chowbok ☠ 00:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jade_tanned.jpg - no assertion that the user is the photographer bluemask (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Johnprats.jpg - no assertion that the uploader is the photographer. bluemask (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Blair_school.JPG - Whataboutbob (talk · contribs) claims {{PD-self}} on a supposed childhood picture of Tony Blair. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete. This is a photograph taken by myself in a public place, of which I own the copyright.Whataboutbob 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whataboutbob (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to remove the {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Further for a closer's edification, the most recent this picture may have been taken is 1966. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete. This is a photograph taken by myself in a public place, of which I own the copyright.Whataboutbob 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Dixiatie0-ZJTV.jpg - Item is listed as both copyrighted and GFDL. Videmus Omnia 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nenetamayo.jpg - Pinoy Big Brother haven't released any images on public domain yet bluemask (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kristine_Hermosa.jpg - no indication if the photographer is the same as the uploader bluemask (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aubrey_sandel.jpg - as of 2007 June 26, the source flickr page states "All rights reserved". bluemask (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Harald schmidt 2005.jpg. Copyright status contested; see User_talk:Imladros#Image:Harald_schmidt_2005.jpg and image page. Chick Bowen 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Edi amin.jpg - no indication this is PD. The fact that this is uploaded by an administrator, who has elsewhere shown a lack of understanding of our image policies, is quite disturbing. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Petr cech drinking.jpg - tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}, but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ewood park.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:White hart lane.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kc stadium inside.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Riverside stadium.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Didier drogba.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Neil warnock.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Paddy kenny.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Phil jagielka.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Yorke latapy.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cristiano ronaldo fulham.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gennaro gattuso.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Thierry henry free kick.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Damien duff.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Justin hoyte.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Southend celebrating.jpg tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} but source specifies non-commercial use only. --Muchness 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
June 28
- Image:Liddell2007.jpg tagged as GFDL, but http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.Detail&pid=148 does not release it as such. Sancho 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Josipa3.jpg - Tagged as PD-release (no source or verification for this) but appears to be a posed publicity still. Videmus Omnia 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kyle Massey.jpg promo pic, not self-made tiZom(2¢) 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ai50.jpg - Tagged GFDL but permission statement on page only says, "Permission granted." Uploader has been informed about sending the permission email to OTRS. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Thelonious Monk and Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter.jpg - Obtained from Flickr ([25]), where it was tagged CC-By. However the Flickr source says "photo taken on April 30, 2005", which is impossible considering the subjects died in the 1980s. The photo looks much older than that and I doubt the ostensible owner of the image is that old. I left a note at the Flickr account asking for clarification. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- This page would seem to indicate it was published in Time Magazine in 1964. Almost certainly under copyright and a blatant copyvio, not by the uploader who was acting in good faith, but by the Flickr user. Chick Bowen 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information, Chick Bowen. If the image was first published in the United States in 1964, then the copyright will not expire until 1 January 2060 at the latest (see Hirtle's chart, including footnote no. 2) (note that it may have been published earlier, and the copyright status might then be different). --Iamunknown 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, they met in '54, so it can't have been before that. I'm pretty sure it was taken for Time's February '64 cover story on Monk. Chick Bowen 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if there is another Mickey Mouse Protection Act before 1 January 2060. So IMO "at the latest" is probably wrong. Anomie 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information, Chick Bowen. If the image was first published in the United States in 1964, then the copyright will not expire until 1 January 2060 at the latest (see Hirtle's chart, including footnote no. 2) (note that it may have been published earlier, and the copyright status might then be different). --Iamunknown 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- This page would seem to indicate it was published in Time Magazine in 1964. Almost certainly under copyright and a blatant copyvio, not by the uploader who was acting in good faith, but by the Flickr user. Chick Bowen 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
June 29
- Image:Vivian 3 copy.jpg. This image is taken from the IMDb gallery and most likely, the uploader is not, as claimed, the author. Pascal.Tesson 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it as a blatant copyvio. Chick Bowen 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Estelle_Asmodelle2.jpg - No evidence the copyright holder has released all rights or released under GFDL Nv8200p talk 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Estelle_Asmodelle.jpg - No evidence copyright holder released to public domain or released under GFDL Nv8200p talk 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Michael photo.jpg - A copyright photo, mucked around with in photoshop does not make it free. Megapixie 09:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sophie photo.jpg - Another copyright photo, mucked around with in photoshop. Megapixie 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nenetamayowinner.jpg Unlikely public domain image. Also not according to source site. Garion96 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gopeng.jpg - Google Earth and clear (C) message ShakespeareFan00 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Leuenberger 01.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 04.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 05.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 03.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 02.jpg tagged as PD-Art, but the painter is alive and it's reported to have authorized the publication of those pictures, taken from an unaffiliated web site, under an unknown licensing;
- Image:Leuenberger 02.jpg tagged both PD-Art and PD-Self, same as above;
- Image:Leuenberger 08.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 06.jpg, Image:Leuenberger 07.jpg, tagged as PD-Self as above. --Brownout (msg) 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Eaglemani.jpg - Tagged PD-old, but the photograph is not that old, although the 3D work of art depicted in the photo is. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Stagmani.jpg - No indication from source that this is a free image. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:CemalGursel.jpg - So many conflicting copyright tags, no source info, what is the copyright status? I have absolutely no idea... Ideas? Iamunknown 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BruceWillisPoster01b.jpg - Creator claims PD-self, but this is a photograph of another copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nuremberg stadtplan.jpg - "publicly available" and "free" do not mean no copyright; appears to be copyrighted by "map&guide" -SCEhardT 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BellaHeadShot.jpg - Uploader claims PD-self, but appears to be a posed publicity still. Source/licensing requires verification. Videmus Omnia 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader does not have e-mail enabled, but I sent an e-mail to the firm representing this performer, requesting the contact the Foundation with permission if they would like to donate the image. Videmus Omnia 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jamie_Brooks_1444.jpg - Tagged as GFDL, but source URL claims copyright with no indication of GFDL. Videmus Omnia 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
June 30
- Image:AIB-TroyWilliams(2006).jpg - Tagged as public domain / no rights reserved, but this seems unlikely as the description only says "used with permission". Sherool (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:03SSEi.jpg - No documentation of permission to use image Nv8200p talk 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cognio_wificard.jpg - No evidence to suggest that, "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." Iamunknown 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:2006_MML_Winners.jpg - No documentation from copyright holder to release image under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Can someone explain exactly what I need to do to prove that this is OK? Tim Fellows 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Abdullahi isse1 (2).jpg - uploader tagged with {{PD-self}}. I strongly suspect that the uploader simply added some digits to the file name so as not to conflict with Image:Abdullahi_isse.jpg (CSD I4, deleted revisions). Same image, but with caption, and from a different uploader; deleted one day before this was uploaded. As the subject of the photo is deceased, one could argue that it falls under fair use if we could properly credit the source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:3forLife.jpg - No documentation to support release under GFDL Nv8200p talk 02:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:3rd_force.jpg - No evidence to support release under GFDL Nv8200p talk 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:808statemembers.jpg - Summary says "press photo" and "fair use' but tagged as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Amitabh.JPG - Sherwin Castro / DNA India means this was a professional press photo unlikely to be public domain, DNA India is a newspaper still in existance Bleh999 07:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gulzarilal_Nanda.jpg - Gulzarilal Nanda only died in 1998, and was Prime minister of India in the mid 1960s, there is no evidence for public domain status Bleh999 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jyotisar.gif - Indian government photos are not PD by default, the source does not say this image is PD Bleh999 07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Graveofibrahimlodhi.jpg - source url indicates no public domain release Bleh999 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BrahamSarovar.gif - source url does not indicate any public domain release Bleh999 07:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Hh01.jpg - source url www.swaminarayan.info does not mention GNU anywhere, no evidence of permission Bleh999 08:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jan_de_Quay.jpg - the licensing restrictions are incompatible with the template used, derivative works not allowed Bleh999 09:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Dirk_Jan_de_Geer.jpg - Licensing restrictions are not compatible with license used, derivative works not allowed. Bleh999 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LutherPlayedTheBoogie2.jpg - not user-created ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whole lot of images from User:LukaP. No indication on sources sites of being public domain.
Image:M0NTENEGRO AIRLINES.jpg Image:Otvaranje aerodroma v.jpg Image:Philharmoniker.jpg Image:Yjht.jpg Image:Adzrenjanin2.jpg Image:Uzice3.jpg Image:54742977344674d57d4adb822835099.jpg Image:Ertr.jpg Image:Crkva389.jpg Image:Swfhs.jpg Image:Rts2.jpg Image:Rts14.jpg Image:Rts12.jpg Image:Veliki5.jpg Image:Wagawg.jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade (old).jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade - exibition.jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade - exibition 2.jpg Image:Aerodrom Nis.jpg Image:Hgdk.jpg Image:Lufthansa at Terminal 2.jpg Image:Agx b727 yu akd.jpg Image:278-JAT-YU-AMB-9.jpg Image:01yu-amj.jpg Image:BDvor6.jpg Image:BDvor2.jpg Image:Serbia-p1.jpg Image:Dhjsjhtg.jpg Image:6765676.jpg Image:Wgq.jpg Image:Hethws.jpg Image:Fdhdh.jpg Image:Utk.jpg Image:Xdfgjsfjg.jpg Image:01YUAOR.jpg Image:JatAirways-noveboje.jpg Image:Yu-anv.jpg Image:01yuagl.jpg. Sick of tagging now, will find another way for the rest. Garion96 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MyolieWu.jpg - Resembles a publicty shot ShakespeareFan00 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Homer-WoS.jpg - Derivative work of a copyrighted cartoon character. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Malta anti-EU.JPG - Derivative work of a copyrighted cartoon character. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader removed the {{PUIdisputed}} tag in spite of the instructions in the template and now appears to claim some strange amalgamation of authorship and fair use arising from the allegedly parodic nature of the work depicted. (Note that the uploader is neither the author of the copyrighted cartoon character nor the parodic work including the character but of the secondary derivative depicting the so-called parody.) Despite the assertion of fair use, the image does not have a fair use template or a fair use rationale. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:McF-Series1-Packaging.jpg - Derivative work of copyrighted cartoon characters. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AS_elms.JPG - Promotion shot - No information that uploader is photgrapher ShakespeareFan00 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC) - Yes I am the photographer of this image, and as both the lisence and "summary" say: it is my "own work". Do not delete.Whataboutbob 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bhumibol Adulyadej 1.JPG Focus of the image is a poster that will be protected by copyright.Genisock2 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Stbeesschool.jpg, licence says public domain "Donated from web site", no evidence of free licence. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Agriculture-moves.jpg - The work of Alabama state employees is probably not public domain. Nv8200p talk 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Audrey_Landers.jpg - The link to the source is dead, but this appears to be a screenshot of a TV episode, and I doubt the listed source is the actual copyright holder. Videmus Omnia 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The link just moved on the same site, now to http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/CZ_AUDREY_LANDERS.HTM I haven't investigated the owner down to credit rating, shoe size, and next of kin, but it does seem to be a commercial encyclopedia of some kind, rather than just a fan site. I'd be inclined to keep it, but wouldn't fight to the death for it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Judy_Landers.jpg - Link to original source is dead, but this appears to be a publicity photo and I doubt the listed source is the copyright holder of the image. Videmus Omnia 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- As for the sister image, above. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aimmail.png - AIM MAil is a copyrighted program and there is no evidence permission was given to uploader to release under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ajcowbook.jpg - Image is from a copyrighted website with no documentation of permission being granted to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Akeboshi.jpg - No evidence of permission granted to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tara_Wiki3.JPG - Tagged PD-self, but appears to be a professional publicity shot. Source and copyright are not verifiable (says "Purchased from original photographer. He gave me permission to use however I wanted." Videmus Omnia 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Akira_jimbo1.jpg - The image is froma copyrighted website with no evidence of permission being granted to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Al_Green_soul_music_hi_records_royalty_studio_memphis_tennessee.jpg - No eveidence permission was granted to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Al-Sabban_0002.jpg - It is a studio photograph with no evidence uploader was the photographer or associated with the studio. Absent uploader. Nv8200p talk 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Al-Taylor.jpg - From a copyrighted website with no evidence the uploader is the copyrighted holder per the licensing. Nv8200p talk 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alabama-extension-producer.jpg - The work of Alabama state employees is probably not public domain. Alabama Cooperative Extension System is a copyrighted website. Nv8200p talk 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Dsc_7114_(2).jpg - not work safe - Uploader claims PD-self, find this unlikely without verification. Videmus Omnia 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alabama-marriage-handbook.jpg - No eveidence publication was released under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:IMG_6858.jpg - Uploader claims PD-self, seems to be a posed publicity still. Uploader has also contributed other images of same actress. Videmus Omnia 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alacson2.jpg - Looks like a scan not an original photo as claimed. Nv8200p talk 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:DSC_5439s.jpg - Uploader claims PD-self, but seems to be a posed publicity still. Videmus Omnia 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- My reply applies to all of TommyNoe's pictures: Google him. The fifth hit is his myspace page where he describes himself as "Model Management and Music, Tommy Noe". I have every reason to believe he took all of the photos himself or otherwise has the rights to the photos. Chris Croy 08:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:DSC_1419.jpg - Uploader claims PD-self, but appears to be posed publicity still for a professonal model. Videmus Omnia 17:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alamgirt.jpeg - No evidence uploader received permission from copyright holder to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:SUM_0007.jpg - Not work safe - uploader claims PD-self, find this unlikely without verification. Videmus Omnia 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Robert_Trout.jpg - License is given as "PD-USGov-State", but this person was not a State Dept employee.
In addition, this image is not located at the given source.Videmus Omnia 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I say delete it (incidentally, click on Photo gallery on that page for the image), unless it would qualify under fair use given the guy is dead. I uploaded as an early wikipedian, I will dig through my watchlist and see if there is anything else on it but I doubt I watched those pages at that time. IvoShandor 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it's an AP photo. You should be able to use it under fair use if you write a rationale. Videmus Omnia 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If it's an AP photo, then fair use will almost certainly be out of the question because of NFCC #2. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it's an AP photo. You should be able to use it under fair use if you write a rationale. Videmus Omnia 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I say delete it (incidentally, click on Photo gallery on that page for the image), unless it would qualify under fair use given the guy is dead. I uploaded as an early wikipedian, I will dig through my watchlist and see if there is anything else on it but I doubt I watched those pages at that time. IvoShandor 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ciidan.jpg - Looks to be a clipping of a newspaper or some other work not created by the author. Iamunknown 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:PB dad.JPG and Image:PB wof.JPG—Both images are just photographs of screenshots and/or publicity material, obviously not owned by the uploader.—My Name Is URL 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alec_powers_hisxpress_cropped.jpg - No evidence for release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alexobrien.jpg - From copyrighted website. No permisssion given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 20:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AlistairKelman.gif - No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mary brunner.jpg - Uploader has released the image as public domain, but does not own the copyright as it is a screenshot. Royalbroil 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Amft_Torsten.jpg - No evidence of permissin granted for GFDL Nv8200p talk 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
July 1
- Image:Ana_Milena_Lamus_Rodríguez.jpg - No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AnatolyEmelin.jpg - No evidence permissin was grante to rlease under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Seems that now the original website has copyright statement for all of its media. So, deleting it would be fair. xyzman 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AnneliesTanghe.jpg - No evidence permission was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Anngora.png - No evidence permision was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Annieclark1.jpg - Victoria Potter's photos are marked All Rights Reserved. Nv8200p talk 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:GABLE01.jpg, Image:NATCOLE01.jpg Image:ARMST01.jpg, Image:JDEAN1.jpg, Image:MMONROE1.jpg, Image:BOGART01.jpg, Image:TAYLORF2.jpg, Image:CAGNEY01.jpg, Image:JCAGNEY2.jpg, Image:Lucy10.jpg, Image:Lucy7.jpg, Image:FSINATRA1.jpg, Image:FSINATR2.jpg, Image:FSINATR4.jpg, Image:JLENN01.jpg, Image:PMCCTY1.jpg, Image:MRSIL01.jpg, Image:MRSIL02.jpg, Image:OZ-07.jpg, Image:BONZACAST.jpg, Image:Image-103B.jpg, Image:MMONROE2.jpg, Image:UNCLE.jpg, Image:CANGELS.jpg, Image:BARRYM.jpg, and Image:MCNVY.jpg— All these images were uploaded with the licensing given as under Creative Commons. Most seem to be publicity photos that would likely still be the property of the photographers and/or studios they were made for, there are a couple of baby pictures that may be in the public domain. While Fair Use may apply to some of these images, the uploader's assertion of ownership by licensing under the Creative Commons seems unlikely even though they come from a gallery website he runs. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Howard Frank Archives has been in business for over thirty years as an image archive and supplier of images to major publications and other media outlets. We have aproximately 1 million images in our inventory. Mostly in the entretainment industry. The bulk of the collection was at one time the property of Louis "doc" Shurr, Mr. Howard Frank's cousin and a respected Hollywood agent whose clients included, Bob Hope, Kim Novak, Ginger Rogers, Burt Lahr, Betty Grable, Debbie Reynolds, George Murphy, Andy Devine, Broderick Crawford, Larry Hagman, Barbara Eden among many others.
- We have been major contributors of images to major books on Hollywood personalities. Including:
- Lucy : A Life in Pictures by Tim Frew and Howard Frank Archives/Personality Photos Staff
- Dreaming of Jeannie: TV's Prime Time in a Bottle by Stephen Cox and Howard Frank
- Ball of Fire, Lucille Ball By Stefan Kanfer
- Loving Lucy By Bart Andrews and Thomas Watson
- Lucy & Desi By Warren G. Harris
- The "I LOve Lucy" Book By Bart Andrews
- Elvis, A life in pictures By Tim Frew
- Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball By Kathleen Brady
- The Century By Peter Jennings and Tom Brewster
- You can do a search on Google, Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble to confirm our claims.
- And many many other publications and magazines. Our clients include all major television networks such as CBS, ABC, NBC, E Entretainment, E!, PBS and others. Major publications such as TV Guide, People, US, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Globe, The enquirer, Reader's Digest, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Medical Journal, Scientific American, Ladies Home Journal and many others too numerous to mention here. We have never had our right to rent or use these images disputed. As with any large inventory such as ours, it is possible that we may inadvertently by accident have posted an image to which someone may claim intellectual property rights. In such cases we will be more than willing to comply in removing such an image provided the standard provisions are met as stated below by contacting our intellectual property rights department
- Anyone who believes that their intellectual property rights have been infringed, must provide our Intellectual Property Rights Agent with a notification that contains the following information:
- 1. A physical signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other rights that have been allegedly infringed.
- 2. Identification of the copyright, trademark or other rights that have been allegedly infringed.
- 3. The URL or product number(s).
- 4. Your name, address, telephone number and email address.
- 5. A statement that you have a good-faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the rights owner, its agent or the law.
- 6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other right that is allegedly infringed.
- You may reach our Intellectual Property Rights Agent, via email at sales@personalityphotos.com --PersonalityPhotos 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your detailed reply and also thank you for helping us to improve Wikipedia. This case will likely need people better versed in these things than I, but as I understand it the issue is not that of disputing your renting or using the images, but rather that you've uploaded the images onto Wikipedia's servers and have released them under Creative Commons licenses. Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain. Wikipedia has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Wikipedia's servers, Wikipedia has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license. Wikipedia needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images. There is a method using the Wikipedia:OTRS by which you can forward your documentation to the foundation, but as I am not familiar with it, I will leave it to one of the others who regularly edit this page to help you with that. Thank you again for helping out and for your note. —Elipongo (Talk
contribs) 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply to the above by Elipongo
- Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain.
Our images come in several categories. We have the negatives to most of the images in our inventory. In other cases we have the "Master Negatives" or in the case of other images the in-camera chromes from which they are printed. In some cases we have the only known original prints of the images. Until 1990 most studios discarded rather than archived massive amounts of imgaes literaly in the garbage. Thus most images taken during that period are lost to history except in cases where collectors like howard Frank through family contacts and friends acquired many of them. Being that we have the onl;y images in many of these cases we do claim copyright ownership of them. We have selectively uploaded imgaes of which we are sure of the provenance.
- Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain.
- Wikipedia has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Wikipedia's servers, Wikipedia has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license.
Wikipedia has no liabilty since they are neither the owners nor the source of the images, we are. We have a procedure as does Corbis or Getty for settling claims to Intelectual property claims as stipulated in my previous post.
- Wikipedia has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Wikipedia's servers, Wikipedia has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license.
- Wikipedia needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images.
That does not present a problem, we can issue a standard open ended release of our images to Wikipedia as we do to television broadcasters, publications and other entities that use our images. They can keep it on file and forward copies to whoever "claims" to be the copyright holder of the image. All we need is an e-mail address where to send a signed PDF document release. Be aware that claiming to be the copyright holder and actually posessing such rights are two distinct things. Corporate lawyers will often issue threatening letters claiming intelectual property rights. They mainly do this to discourage legitimate use of images in an editorial or fair use context and in order to attempt to control the editorial context in which these images appear.. That is why we require as do the courts extensive documentation to back up such claims. After thirty plus years in this business we have yet to appear in court to dispute any of our images.--PersonalityPhotos 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images.
- No release of the images to Wikipedia is necessary. At this point, there's no reason to believe that you don't have the authority to release the image to the public under a CC-BY license, for which we thank you for your generosity. However, I just want to confirm that you are aware that this allows anybody anywhere in the world to use the photos now for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and derivative works. If this is unacceptable to you, please let us know and we will have the images deleted. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
We are well aware of the stipulations. Most of our business is suplying high resolution versions of our images 400 dpi and above, a far higher quality that is rrequired by commercial users of our images, than what we are contributing to Wikipedia. There is a growing market in low res images for internet use, but we feel contributing a couple of hundred images to Wikipedia is not going to effect our bottom line. Bottom line, we aren't worried about it. As to the issue of commercial distribution, that falls into an entire other area outside of copyright law. The images may of course be used in an editorial context if attibution to source is made as per our condition. Commercial use is beyond our scope since images of well known personalitities for commercial products require in addtion to copyright permission a license which can only be issued by the heirs of the estates of such persons or their authorized representatives. In other words, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. That is beyond our ability or authority to do. As for derivative works, basically the same rules apply. They can use the images any way they see fit as long as they cite the source. At such low resolution as we are supplying, to be quite frank, their use is generally limited to the internet in editorial contexts such as this. One thing that does come to mind is, will we have to go through this every time we upload additional images? Or is there a way to avoid this in the future. There are a lot of articles in which we feel we could enahnce the article by contributing images to them. --PersonalityPhotos 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LJ_cover41.jpg - Claimed GFDL: (C) message given? ShakespeareFan00 09:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aab-header.gif - Logo - No indication uploader is designer ShakespeareFan00 09:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Whitney-Houston-ps002.jpg - GFDL Claim but presuambly a publicty shot ShakespeareFan00 09:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Goldenvillage_logo.jpg - Logo - ShakespeareFan00 09:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lee Remick.jpg - image description page also says as part of the description that this is "fair use". source seems to be a fansite with no copyright info regarding its images. Rossrs 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Carfireterro.jpg It's a screenshot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Relicense - it probably is a screenshot so the existing licence is wrong. However, it satisfies fair-use criteria. It is non-repeatable and informative in that article. I have relicensed ir with a fair-use rationale. TerriersFan 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aofwtemplate3.jpg - Image is from a fansite. No evidence of permission from copyright holder to release under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aokigahara.jpg - From a copyrighted website. No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Apelec.jpg - No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AppleIIe.jpg - No evidence copyright holder granted permission to rlease under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ashton_Court_Main_2006.jpg - No evidence uploader is copyright holder or that copyright holder gave permission to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image replaced with suitable replacement with non ambiguous license. -N 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free photos of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu
These images are used only by permission and probably do not meet the non-free content criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:67p 05.jpg - Used only by permission, probably does not meet the non-free content criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jaenovac death camp.jpg - Used only by permission, probably does not meet the non-free content criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Asokan_Brahmi_inscription.jpg - No evidence the copyright holder granted permission for release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Custombridge.jpg: Claimed {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but summary says "Found at brickshelf.com under author's name." No more specific source is given, and no evidence is presented that the copyright holder has released this image under such a license. —Bkell (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Source might be [26] somewhere? Still no evidence of a CC license. —Bkell (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Customquinn.jpg: Claimed {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but summary says "Found at author's page." No more specific source is given, and no evidence is presented that the copyright holder has released this image under such a license. —Bkell (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Source appears to be [27]. Still no evidence of a CC license. —Bkell (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Associate-O-Matic_screenshots.png - Derivative of copyrighted software. Nv8200p talk 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Athabasca_Glacier.jpg - No evidence uploader is the copyright holder or has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Atienza.jpg - No evidence uploader is the copyright holder or has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Atvance_new.jpg - No eveidence uploader is the copyright holder or has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Au-satellite-uplink.jpg - No evidence uploader is the copyright holder or has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Auckland_refuelling_747-200GFDL.jpg - No evidence uploader is the copyright holder or has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aultman.jpg - No evidence of permission from copyright holder to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aurora_Tigers_RBC_2007_Champions.JPG - No evidence copyright holder gave uploader permission to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aurora_Tigers_RBC_2007.JPG - No evidence copyright holder gave uploader permission to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2
- Image:Ausztria_drágakövek.jpg - No evidence that copyright holder granted permssion to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Autopsia_cd_rom_s.jpg - No evidence uploader had rights to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ohio Hub Preliminary Study Map.png – Image is tagged with {{PD-USGov}}, but was created by the Ohio state government, not the federal government. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Awaji-shuzo.jpg - Images from the source listed are not distributed under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AylaMexicoShoot.jpg - No evidence uploader has rights to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Aztecruinsnm.jpg - No evidence uploader has permission to release image under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Brian_Leonard_Leaps.jpg - The text uploaded with the image indicates it is from a magazine, unable to get to webpage information from source to verify GFDL license information User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gravelcouple.JPG, Image:Graveldnc07.jpg, Image:Graveld.JPG - All three say that the copyright was released by the owner at www.gravel2008.us, but I can't find any such release at the website. The claim is at least plausible, since he is a presidential candidate, but the uploader (User:DavidYork71) has uploaded problematic images in the past so I am skeptical. Did not notify user because he is now banned (for other reasons, I think) and his talk page protected. Calliopejen1 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:OSS seal.jpg: Tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but an anonymous editor (67.153.107.110) writes, "This logo is not the official federal government logo for the Office of Strategic Services. It is copyrighted by The OSS Society, Inc. of McLean, VA." —Bkell (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jounta-Cristodoulos2.jpg: Claimed GFDL. Uploader states that the image is ineligible for copyright as there was no copyright law in Greece in 1967. Is this true? Even if it is true, this image should probably be tagged with an appropriate PD tag, not GFDL, right? —Bkell (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Angellocsin12.jpg - does not specify that the uploader is the photographer. uploader has warnings of uploading copvio images. bluemask (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sam345.jpg - No indication that the uploader can release the image on public domain. bluemask (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Adriana_lim_a.jpg - Uploader claims authorship and re-release under the GPU and Sharealike. I don't think so.
- Image:JoséMaríaRobles.jpg - Uploader claims authorship and release of an image showing a person who died over 80 years ago while also claiming through his userpage to be a college student with interests common to a person in their late teens or early twenties. As the photographer would need to currently be near 100 years of age these competing claims appear to be highly improbable. --Allen3 talk 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:DavidGalvanBermudez3.jpg - Uploader claims authorship and release of an image showing a person who died over 90 years ago while also claiming through his userpage to be a college student with interests common to a person in their late teens or early twenties. As the photographer would need to currently be over 100 years of age these competing claims appear to be highly improbable. --Allen3 talk 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Appalachiosaurus.jpg - No link to the permission where the author has released the image for free use Lokal_Profil 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gaffeney01.jpg - The watermark and low quality (in terms of resolution expected of a photograph) indicate that this image is probably not the work of the uploader and thus probably not GFDL-licensed. Iamunknown 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Alexander_ustinov.jpg - No evidence that this photo has been released by its copyright holder BigΔT 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Andrew_Thomson.jpg - No reason to believe that the copyrigh holder has actually released rights to this image BigΔT 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Coban.jpg - No reason to believe that the copyright holder has released rights to this image BigΔT 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cikatic.jpg - "(promotional photo of Branko Cikatic. http://www.bcikatic.htnet.hr/photoes/guard.jpg)" No reason to believe that the copyright holder has released rights to this image BigΔT 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Iron_leg.jpg - "(promotional photo of Golden Glory. http://www.goldenglory.com/fighters13.html]" - no reason to believe the copyright holder has really released rights to the image BigΔT 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Magomed.jpg - no reason to believe the copyright holder has really released rights to the image BigΔT 21:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Dany_bill.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Slowinski.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Arrab.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Glaube_Feitosa.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Peter_Graham.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Badr_Hari.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Suttie.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Zabit_Samedov.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ramazan01.JPG - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mike_zambidis.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mike_zambidis.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lloyd_van_Dams.jpg - A promotional photo from a commercial website - no reason to believe the copyright holder has released all rights to it. BigΔT 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)