Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 24: Difference between revisions
(BOT) Closing discussions for deleted/nonexistant images: File:Shaun-Donovan.jpg Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser |
Manutdglory (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
==== [[:File:Iwuchamps.jpg]] ==== |
==== [[:File:Iwuchamps.jpg]] ==== |
||
This user has uploaded a dozen copyrighted images which were improperly claimed PD-self. This image is web resolution, strikingly similar to [http://www.thenccaa.org/images/Soccer%20Images/08%20MS%20iwuchamps.jpg] and has a different timestamp then the non-webresolution images this user has uploaded. [[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
This user has uploaded a dozen copyrighted images which were improperly claimed PD-self. This image is web resolution, strikingly similar to [http://www.thenccaa.org/images/Soccer%20Images/08%20MS%20iwuchamps.jpg] and has a different timestamp then the non-webresolution images this user has uploaded. [[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Looks like I uploaded this one wrong - my bad. [[User:Manutdglory|Manutdglory]] ([[User talk:Manutdglory|talk]]) 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[:File:Biolaquad.jpg]] ==== |
==== [[:File:Biolaquad.jpg]] ==== |
||
Revision as of 21:55, 24 February 2009
February 24
Does not appear to be self-made, no evidence it was self-made, no source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No evidence to support the GFDL tag. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete uploader first uploaded image with attribution to web site but no copyright status; it was deleted. This reupload is according to uploader "Fair Use: Permission granted". Uploader was asked for clarification more than a year ago without response. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused image, no source listed. Who the picture is of is not clear either. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source listed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source listed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source listed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably self-made, but with no source info, and the uploader not active, there is no way to tell. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably self-made, but no source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Given the animal's popularity and frequent public appearances (while alive), there are likely free images to be found and freely used, rather than making a fair-use claim on a photo taken from a newspaper website. I've attempted to tag as disputed fair use, but uploader removes, but his logic is faulty (IMO). I'll let a broader discussion ensue here ZimZalaBim talk 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - Constant use of non-free images when they aren't needed is why photos are rarely released for free use. What are we learning by using this replaceable non-free picture? That he looked like a chimp? Do you think that readers will say, "Oh wait, I think I know that chimp!" It's a bit silly. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source for photo given. Also I'm not sure about copyright status of passport images from India. Anyone know about that? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. Also, I'm pretty sure that this would count as derivative. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- As this is a plaque from the South Carolina state house, I would imagine that the plaque itself is probably out of copyright. I can't find anything that conclusively states when it was created, though. The sourcing issue is still a problem. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source listed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No source given. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a derivative work; photo of several spines of Doctor Who DVD releases. Not sure the uploader can claim to hold the rights to this image. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Should probably be {{Non-free video cover}} at a lower resolution. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has uploaded a dozen copyrighted images which were improperly claimed PD-self. This image is web resolution, strikingly similar to [1] and has a different timestamp then the non-webresolution images this user has uploaded. Andrew c [talk] 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.thenccaa.org/images/Soccer%20Images/08%20MS%20iwuchamps.jpg){kind=link}
- Looks like I uploaded this one wrong - my bad. Manutdglory (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User has uploaded a dozen copyrighted image improperly claimed as PD-self. This is a really low resolution, web image. Andrew c [talk] 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User has uploaded dozens of copyrighted images and claimed PD-self. This is a web resolution image of a busy student union building that happens to be empty with the chairs perfectly aligned. How likely a situation is that? Andrew c [talk] 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Same as above, untrustworthy user uploaded webresolution image. Andrew c [talk] 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been taken from elsewhere. Watermark, low res, no information on how it was created. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Collage of a newspaper - derivative work and not free Peripitus (Talk) 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
