Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 June 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:52, 13 June 2008

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

I made this image and I don't know what the rules are about using a copyrighted image and changing it. Does the new image then belong to me? How much does something have to be changed to make it different enough from the copyrighted image that it isn't an issue anymore?--Silversmith Hewwo 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Sample (music) and Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films. Basically, where any potential copyright case is concerned, imagine the judge you would be brought in front of as an old one-eyed Pakistani guy with a two foot beard who has spent all his life sitting under a tree rocking back and forth chanting verses from the Qur'an except for the occasional legal case where someone has got his attention long enough for him to point his finger and yell "Death!", and you have a good idea of the American legal system. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blue_Marble_Puzzle_Globe_in_stand_with_passport.png

Wikipedia != source - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it has come to my attention that an image this is derived from appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website

The Transhumanist 21:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:300px-National_Nine_News_2008.png

Clearly LOGO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:National_Nine_News_2008.png

Clearly Logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something that should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shreky.jpg

Clearely not a PD-Self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fifiona.jpg

Clearly not PD-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pussyboots.jpg

Clearly not pd-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lipovo_from_space.jpg

Unsourced - Is it feasible uploader has access to arieal photo imagery? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MrsDoubtfireMovieP.jpg

Clearly not Pd-Self - Movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retag with {{Non-free video cover}}, as (nearly) all film posters and home media covers are protected by copyright. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fel_Sala_1.jpg

No evidence given to support GFDL claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fel_sala_1.jpg

No evidence to support GFDL claim, Permission claim but no OTRS ref Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Al-khatib.jpg

The photo was taken from the Syrianhistory.com website of Sami Mubayyed. Other photos have been taken from the website before with consent of Sami (see this one for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashim_Atassi_Inauguration_1936.jpg). And the same goes for the rest of the photos that you tagged. Yazan (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That one's public domain so is fine. Polly (Parrot) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the one's you uploaded are public domain in Syria, then you should alter the licensing to reflect that. Polly (Parrot) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it was published on Wikipedia first. I'm sorry, I might not get this well yet, what exactly should I do in this case?Yazan (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding the Public Domain template to the photo license but it didn't work (

This image was first published in Syria and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired according to the Syrian law. This work meets one of the following conditions:

It is a photographic work and ten years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created.

It is a broadcast program, or movie and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created.

It is another type of work and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which the author died.

To uploader: Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.

This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.:

if it entered the public domain in Syria prior to June 11, 2004, or
when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.

Information about the creation date and creator should be provided.

If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Syria an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.

If the media is in the public domain in both Syria and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.

Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}.
This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

). Yazan (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Sami Mubayed again about the photos and he assured me that i have full permission to use them on wikipedia under a CC license. Can I remove the "possibly unfree image" tags?

One other thing, why does the PD template works on that photo but doesnt work with the rest? Thanx Polly. Yazan (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Noureddinatassi.jpg

Image:Al-kasm.jpg

Image:Khoury-UNSC.jpg

Image:Fares al-Khoury1.jpg

Image:Shishakli 1.jpg

Image:Khalid al-azm.jpg

Image:Nazim al-Kudsi.jpg

Image:Al-ayyubi.jpg

Image:CCF Flag CGGS.jpg

How can a logo coined in 1856 be GFDL?? — Happy‑melon 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Muhammed Faris, First Syrian Space.jpg

No source given, wrongly subst'd license reason, probably a FU replaceable since it is of a living person. MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wbepic.gif

There are two issues with this image. First, this image does not add anything to the article in which it is used which could not also be expressed (and in a more accessible fashion) in plain text. Second, the image contains likely unfree clip art for which no source or licensing information has been provided. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I beleive it's a matter of opinion as to whether the image adds value or not. I have been careful for reasons of accessibility to include the information in writing as well as in the picture. However it is much easier for a user to see and digest the flow of interactions in a diagramatic form than in a bulleted list. I have just checked the licensing terms of the clip art i used (in microsoft word) which states that it can be used in the creation of websites. I agree however that I need to list it's source with the image, and so I will do so. Your first point could be valid (depends on the consensus on this) but your second point shouldn't be valid once I have added this info. Cheers James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtq4u (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it could be easily re-worked without the clip art and still serve the same purpose. Although can a created image of this sort be original research! MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have any evidence that the clipart is non-free? -- Ned Scott 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The diagram does add value to the article. The article itself was AFDed. The close was disputed but I have arranged usefication rather than going to the trouble of DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to the section of the license agreement cited on the image description page, the clip art is licensed for commercial use (specifying websites and software, although I believe it's reasonable to include printed material under the "websites" criteria since, well, you can print a website), derivative works, and further distribution--unless I'm missing something, there's actually no attribution requirement, which makes this license even more liberal than the {{cc-by-3.0}} often used by the Wikimedia foundation for licenses. While {{attribution}} would probably be the more appropriate, this clearly qualifies as "free" content for the purposes of Wikipedia. --jonny-m t 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ike.jpg

This is a different image than what was licensed as public domain. It looks like a video game character so likely copyrighted and orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hell is that public domain :D Happy‑melon 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 * '''Keep''' The diagram does add value to the article.  The article itself was AFDed.  The close was disputed but I have arranged usefication rather than going to the trouble of DRV. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - According to the section of the license agreement cited on the image description page, the clip art is licensed for commercial use (specifying websites and software, although I believe it's reasonable to include printed material under the "websites" criteria since, well, you can print a website), derivative works, and further distribution--unless I'm missing something, there's actually no attribution requirement, which makes this license even ''more'' liberal than the {{tl|cc-by-3.0}} often used by the Wikimedia foundation for licenses.  While {{tl|attribution}} would probably be the more appropriate, this clearly qualifies as "free" content for the purposes of Wikipedia. --[[User:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#297AA3">'''jonny'''</span>]]-[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|<span style="color:#A3293D">'''m'''</span>]][[User talk:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#3DA329">'''t'''</span>]] 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 ==== [[:Image:Ike.jpg]] ====