Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:22, 14 February 2006

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

Place either:

{{no source|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

or

{{no license|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image may be put up for speedy deletion per criteria 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a change to fix the problem(s) (the templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own). It is not nessesary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:PUI]]

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 should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which are 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.

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.

January 30

Image:Empire state by hine.jpg - copyrighted. I had originally thought it was {{PD-US}}, but it was apparently not published until 1932, meaning the copyright is still in effect. See the image page for more info. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast, man! Keep. Created 1931, published in Hine's book "Men at Work" in 1932. I have not found any copyright renewals by Hine in 1958-1964 on [1], nor did I find anything for "men at work". This site claims "© The Estate of Lewis Hine". What now? If the publication in that book was indeed the first publication of this photograph (which seems likely), and the copyright on the book was not renewed, the image would indeed by in the public domain in the U.S. What do we require to show that a copyright was not renewed? If searching these records from the U.S. Copyright Office is considered good enough, I'd say tag it PD-US and state "copyright not renewed". Otherwise, I would suggest using a "fair use in" clause and discussing Hine's Empire State images in some depth in the article on Lewis Hine. But I see no reason to delete this right away. Lupo 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Federer.jpg (history · last edit) from [2] Terms of Use of the website reserve rights to all media therein (Section 3, subsection A). Redux 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Roger federer 50.jpg (history · last edit) from [3] . Cannot ascertain copyright status in website listed as source. Redux 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anna Eurovision 1980 and 1982.jpg - TV screen captures of Anna Vissi in the Eurovision Song Contest 1980 and 1982. Thuresson 20:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the tag to {{tv-screenshot}}, if that makes it acceptable? The JPS 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should be OK -Nv8200p talk 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anna mala.jpg - a collage of unsourced photos of Anna Vissi. Thuresson 20:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please post the details of the permission on the image talk page. Thuresson 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lechwalesa.JPG, tagged as PD but the source ilw.org.pl has no mention of PD or any other license. Thuresson 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obtained permission via email a long time ago. Sadly, my laptop is broken and I can't post the exact translation ATM. Halibu tt 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:David O Russell.jpg - tagged as promotional, and from [4], but there is no copyright info to verify this. Very unlikely it's free. The JPS 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that this probably doesn't qualify under the publicity photos policy of Wikipedia. I am having trouble finding a promotional photo of Russell, and am in contact with several photographers attempting to secure fair use permission. Until then, I will remove the pic from the page. Nscheffey 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After further examination of the Wikipedia fair use policy guidelines along with pictures in similar articles I have decided that this picture probably qualifies for fair use as illustrative of a certain object or person. Many other images, including the majority of film director portraits, use this rationale to post otherwise copyrighted images. Examples include Image:Wes-Anderson.jpg, Image:John carpenter.jpg, Image:Tim-burton.jpg, Image:Linklater edit.jpg, Image:Raimi.jpg, Image:Singercc.jpg, and Image:Oliver Stone.jpg. Nscheffey 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for listing those. I'd like those also to be considered as unfree. Quite simply, we do not own the photographs and there is no evidence to say that we can use them. Wikipedia's guidelines on so-called publicity photos clearly state that they must come from a press kit, and their copyright info be verifiable. We cannot ignore this guideline just because it happens to be inconvenient. The JPS 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that these images do not meet Wikipedia's publicity photo requirements. However, I believe they do meet all 10 of the requirements in the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines on copyrighted materials. Therefore I suggest Keep for all of them. Nscheffey 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

These pictures have been uploaded under a tag stating "This copyrighted image was published by an official agency of the Federal Republic of Germany or of its predecessor states ... . According to the Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright Laws) of Germany (§ 5(2)), it may be reproduced with a credited citation of its source ... ." This an incorrect interpretation of the German law; § 5(2) UrhG refers to laws promulgated by the government and the like, and all legal commentaries interpret this in a very strict sense. Many of these images can probably be re-tagged as copyrighted images used under the fair use doctrine, but they do need to have their provenance examined.

Image:17SSGrenadiers.jpg
Image:1941WewelsburgSchematics.gif
Image:5SSWL-PCARD.jpg
Image:6SSLMPGDA.jpg
Image:Ahnenerbe class.gif
Image:Ahnenerbe-Tibet.jpg
Image:AlHusayniHitler.jpg
Image:Alnaujocks.jpg
Image:August Hirt.jpg
Image:AugustHeissmeyerFamily.jpg
Image:Baumbach.jpg
Image:BrunoSchweitzer.jpg
Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg
Image:Coffinmap.jpg
Image:CrewofU-47.jpg
Image:Deisenhofer - near Caen, 1944.jpg
Image:Der-ReichsfuhrerSS-Ahnenerbe.jpg
Image:EK 1class.png
Image:EK 2class.png
Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
Image:Evabrown-by-Hitler.jpg
Image:Franz Böhme.jpg
Image:Fritz Kolbe.jpg - possibly not Nazi era, though he was a Nazi figure
Image:Genehmigung.jpg - not an artwork. Might not be copyrightable
Image:Gestapo anti-gay telex.jpg - not an artwork. Might not be copyrightable
Image:Goebbels-Family-pic.jpg - not used in article space
Image:GoebbelsWithChildren.jpg - not used in article space
Image:Gorbachev GDR 1989.jpg - Not Nazi era
Image:GotthardHeinrici.jpg
Image:Grosse Platz.jpg
Image:GustavRiek.jpg
Image:HJ-marseille.jpg
Image:Han-arm.jpg
Image:HeinrichiHitler.jpg
Image:Helmut-Goebbels.jpg - not used in article space
Image:HermannFlorstedt.jpg
Image:HermannHackmann.jpg
Image:HilterPainting1.jpg - not used in article space
Image:Invalides1.jpg
Image:Kageneck.jpg
Image:Klaus Riedel.jpg
Image:Kovnopogrom.jpg
Image:KurtStudent.jpg
Image:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg tagged politicalposter, fair use claimed
Image:Masha bruskina.jpg
Image:Naujocks.jpg
Image:Nurembergracechart.jpg
Image:PGDA - FPD HG.jpg
Image:Panzer2.jpg
Image:Paris.gif
Image:Planting-smine.jpg
Image:Prien-hitler-schmidt.jpg Free image available at Commons (Image:121k.jpg)
Image:RHeydrich.jpg Free images available at Commons, e.g. Image:Reinhard-Heydrich.jpg
Image:Schäfer-Berger.jpg
Image:Signal 1941.jpg - tagged as a book cover, fair use claimed in a credible way
Image:Ss tibet.gif
Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg
Image:ThomasMüller.jpg
Image:Tibet-Expedition.jpg
Image:Tibetahnenerbe1.jpg
Image:Tibetahnenerbe2.jpg
Image:U-47atScapaFlow.jpeg
Image:Volkshalle10.jpg - not used in article space
Image:Volkshalle12.jpg - not used in article space
Image:WaldemarHoven.jpg - possibly not Nazi era, though he was a Nazi figure
Image:WernerGoldberg.jpg
Image:Wilhelmvoigt.JPG - dated 1906, likely free, someone please check
Image:Wir stehen nicht allein.jpg
Image:Wmohnke.jpg

Pilatus 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With two exceptions (and two more possible exceptions) as noted above, this is material from the Nazi era. Does anyone have a suggestion what would be the appropriate copyright claim? While copyright may technically persist, I've never noticed anyone (even in print) hesitate to use such materials. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we begin respecting Nazi era copyright and start using free images. One would think that the copyright of Nazi era government-commissioned works is with the German government. (That's incidentally why Mein Kampf is not available in German, the text is owned by the Bavarian government and they refuse to license it.) Likely enough, the German Historical Museum has material available, they just might agree to release some under the GFDL. I notice that there is much American material on Nazi war criminals from the Nuremberg trials, being commissioned by the US government it's PD and free. Pilatus 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi-era copyright is still enforceable, both in Germany and in other Berne Convention states. Unfortunately, it is covered by the 1901 law and not the current version of the Urherberrechtsgesetz. Under current policy, a fair use claim is impossible if we do not know who the copyright holder is. Physchim62 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that our (featured) article on Paragraph 175 cannot reproduce a telex demonstrating part of the process by which the Nazis persecuted gays because, in principle, it is copyrighted by the Gestapo and we don't have their permission to use it? This seems absurd to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gestapo anti-gay telex.jpg and Image:Genehmigung.jpg are not copyrighted as there isn't enough creative input to warrant copyright protection. Tagged accordingly. Pilatus 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dakota2.jpg - An uploader took this photograph, but there is no copyright status on it. adnghiem501 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. What's wrong with it? The uploader has stated that he took it himself. In the absence of any other specific copyright tag, this defaults to {{GFDL-self}}. Note: the "fair use" argument is hogwash. If he took it himself, and uploaded it to Wikipedia, it's GFDL. Note that under 17 USC 120 (the U.S. federal copyright law), one has the right to take photographs of buildings from public places and to distribute such photographs in any way one likes. (BTW, in German copyright law, this is called "Panoramafreiheit".) And anyway, the Dakota, which was built well before 1990, is not copyrighted. The picture was taken from the street and shows a view towards the interior court of the building. It is fine. I have, for now, tagged it as {{GFDL-presumed}}. Lupo 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know why you are claiming the image under GFDL, but you may be right. adnghiem501 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jackson.browne.jpg - Uploader claims self GFDL photo... Image screams professional publicity headshot. Not 100% sure this is a copyvio... but pretty sure. ALKIVAR™ 09:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fed trazeno.GIF Image has PUI tag from Jan 25 but cannot find a listing onthat date. Looks like a derivative of copyrighted image -Nv8200p talk 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Inauguration12.jpg "Official" site does not look too official. No copyright info I can see. Cannot assume PD -Nv8200p talk 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1977Skyhawk.jpg Uploader claims PD but image is from a website. No reason to believe this image is PD or fair use -Nv8200p talk 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it as a PD image because it was taken from a non-copyrighted page, and it appears to have been taken by a random used car dealership. --ApolloBoy 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For material this recent, it is subject to copyright unless explicitly stated so. There is no such notice on that site, so we need to assume that the image is copyrighted. JYolkowski // talk 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4SnowQueens.JPG Uploader claims PD but there is no source to verify this. Claim is doubtful. Looks like an ad shoot -Nv8200p talk 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aragüaney.JPG This image is not PD. It is from a copyrighted website. May be no fair use justification either -Nv8200p talk 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bcprayer.jpg Image is from a copyrighted website. No reason to believe it is PD or fair use. -Nv8200p talk 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:BeckjornLettermanLetter.jpg~~ Not enough sourcing to verify PD claim -Nv8200p talk 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader OK'd deletion -Nv8200p talk 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BillKenney.jpg doubtful this is PD. Maybe fair use if you can source properly -Nv8200p talk 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:PercyHoward.jpg is also probably not a PD. I got that and the Kenney image from the same site, I don't know what the proper status of images from a site like that would be. -- transaspie 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably copyright violations -Nv8200p talk 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure I've seen a few other sportsattic images on NFL player pages...I might try to help tag those as well so that Wikipedia stays lawful. ;) -- transaspie 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Bolivia miners.jpg~~ Nothing at source to indicate image is public domain -Nv8200p talk 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn Tag switched to fair use and rationale supplied. -Nv8200p talk 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dbede32afa.jpg Uploader claims Japanese government website is public domain, but website says copyright all rights reserved -Nv8200p talk 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hogfish.gif Source not adequate to establish public domain -Nv8200p talk
~~Image:JWterbraak.jpg~~ No indication that German government records are public domain. Need link to verify that -Nv8200p talk 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a German government record. It's a UK government record (Public Record Office) given on the file. It may be public domain, but if not, then it's certainly fair use in the article it's in. David | Talk 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to contact the record office you got this from and see what the licensing is -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have confirmed it's UK Crown Copyright, now noted on the image and on the page it is used. David | Talk 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nomination withdrawn -Nv8200p talk 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:New3B.JPG Uploader claims PD but there is no source to verify this. Claim is doubtful. Looks like an ad shoot -Nv8200p talk 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stephenh.jpg have to assume it is copyrighted unless there is a specific public domain release. -Nv8200p talk 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:UCC-duke.jpg~~ Website has no public domain disclaimer so we have to assume everything onthe site is copyrighted -Nv8200p talk 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn tag changed to fair use and rationale supplied -Nv8200p talk 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

These images are from www.sportsattic.com. Like two I've used from the site, these probably violate copyright laws, despite claims they're in public domain:

I'll check to see if there's more... --- transaspie 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NoRand.png - you can't take a copyrighted image, draw a big red x on it, and call it GFDL or a parody, either one. —Cryptic (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In its current location, this pretty clearly falls under the "Comment and criticism" aspect of fair use. Putting a red X over someone's likeness is an effective way of instantly communicating opposition, and given the fact that this is political criticism, First Amendment concerns would probably trump any copyright claims, especially given that the use of the picture in this manner does not in any way impede the profitability of Rand's works. Note that pictures modified in this and similar manners are extremely common at rallies and protests. To my knowledge, no one has ever made an infringement claim under such circumstances. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't know if the images use in the little box qualifies as "comment and criticism". -Nv8200p talk
- Parody is possible (it would still have no place on Wikipedia, of course -- unusable in both article and user space). But the claim of the uploader that it is under the GFDL is clearly bunk. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the inaccurate GFDL claim and replaced it with a custom tag (since none of the existing fair use tags made sense in this context) that explains the uploader's justification. I also cited an external source (Stanford.edu) for the fair use criteria in question. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It does not fall under fair use. It is copyright infringement because it appropriates the original. The image decreases the opportunities of licensing the original picture, and diminishes the original's commerciability. But, keeping it on here will only be a nuisance instead of really breaking the law. The case law for this type of parody is Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986): "Thus, infringement occurs [**15] when a parody supplants the original in markets the original is aimed at, or in which the original is, or has reasonable potential to become, commercially valuable. See, e.g., Air Pirates, 581 F.2d at 756; Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 541, 545 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 822, 85 S. Ct. 46, 13 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1964); Parody Defense, supra, at 1409-11. "--Muchosucko 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. The JPS 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Let us for a moment asume it qualifies as fair use. In that case it must be used in an actual article or be deleted per Wikipedia rules. I have tagged it as "orphanded fair use". --Sherool (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Atlaspuked.jpg - incorporates portions of a copyrighted work, the cover of Atlas Shrugged. By the same user as the above; looking on the image description page, it is clear he is deliberately flouting copyright law. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty clearly a parody, wouldn't you say? Of course the GFDL tag is inaccurate and should be replaced. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not denying it's a parody; it's still annoying that he insists on uploading images we are going to delete, providing obviously false license information. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt copyright laws are violated here. Delete because of OR. Go through the procedure to get user blocked if user continues.--Muchosucko 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These images have been tagged as "unknown copyright" for quite some time:

--Sar e kOfVulcan 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kellys.jpg no licensing information. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PNM MantledHowler Uwho.jpg: fair use claimed, but seems very doubtful. Eugene van der Pijll 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Image:United.a320-232.n408ua.750pix.jpg: claimed "Reproduced with the permission of Airbus UK" without any evidence, explanation, link to source, etc. —Steven G. Johnson 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100px and 100px are from the now Defunct Eaton's company of Canada, and although they are a defunct company, I say they should stay. So, Ergo, KEEP. Michael 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader cannot provide justification to support claim images are public domain. And they are not being used in a "fair use" manner -Nv8200p talk 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:12AE10CompactronTube.jpg No release from author for public domain -Nv8200p talk 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:16symondsst2.jpg Image says ownership unknown but cliams PD -Nv8200p talk 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1976Cordoba.jpg Image is from a copyrighted website. no release for public domain -Nv8200p talk 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2 90.gif No reason to believe this image was released into the public domain -Nv8200p talk 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

Image:Bassil_Mikdadi.jpg A photoshopped, hoax image (which accompanies an embarassing hoax article), therefore by no means covered under the "sporting event" licence claimed. ++Deiz 03:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Muslim Dress Billboard.jpg. The uploader tagged it as {{GFDL}}. The image is little more than a picture of a billboard poster. As such, the copyright is most likely owned by the poster's creator, not the photographer. IANAL, but a claim of "fair use" is unlikely IMHO, as the poster itself isn't really unique in any way. —Gabbe 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think there's a real problem here -- the photograph itself is properly and correctly GFDL, but the copyright of the content of the billboard which is photographed may be different from the copyright of the photograph itself. This is the same situation as with images of coats of arms and such, where the copyright status of the actual image may be different from the copyright status of the coat of arms depicted in the image. I don't see why there couldn't be a fair-use claim on the billboard, which was obviously placed on public display. AnonMoos 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that I'm not well versed with the specifics of American law concering fair use, but from what I gather there needs to be some sort of rationale for claiming fair use. At the very least this pic should be retagged as fair use, provided that a proper rationale can be provided. —Gabbe 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was going down the list of approved categories, and the closest one is I can see right now is "Political Poster", but I'm not sure that quite works. Will think about it some more. P.S. I wonder where the artist for the billboard got the idea that tilted heads are an infallible sign of immorality? AnonMoos 05:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stelios Giannakopoulos.jpg & Image:Darren Bent.jpg & Image:Jose Mourinho.jpg & Image:Kelvin Davis.jpg & Image:Robbie Keane.jpg & Image:Tony Hibbert.jpg & Image:Tony Warner.jpg & Image:James Beattie (footballer).jpg & Image:Paul Konchesky.jpg & Image:David Moyes.jpg & Image:Mick McCarthy.jpg & Image:Phillip Bardsley.jpg From a copyrighted website. Users cannot claim free use. More likely a copyright violation -Nv8200p talk 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, some of this is my fault. Cheked original site and it isn't free to use after all. GOt a dodgy tip-off. I'll tidy my mess up. Dancarney 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a template at {{SocEur}} for images from http://soccer-europe.com/. You can find the template listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Apparently, they've all been released for free use provided that the copyright holder is attributed, which is "free enough" for Wikipedia. Personally, I think that the website's claim that, "The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster," means that Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to use any of these images, as they seemed to have been released only for use on Wikipedia — something we don't allow — and, subsequently, wrongly labeled with a free use tag. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bettedavis.jpg, claimed to be uploaded from image farm ibailer.com. Thuresson 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

Image:Masonsigns.gif - template added to page, but not here. No source information given.--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Image:Jeffkrulik.jpg - fair use cited, reportedly promotional image. According to the article, the image is a "rejected badge photo," leading me to believe it was never released for use by the subject.Shaggorama 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bledsoe.jpg - is listed as being in the public domain (author dead more than 100 years ago). Picture was taken in 2005. No Guru 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MichaelIrvin.jpg - claims a GNU Free Documentation License but source is listed as cowbloysplus.com, which is a Dallas Morning News website. The home page of that site claims their copyright at the bottom of the page. Image probably does not fit under GFDL. No Guru 17:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Southwark-cathedral.jpg from southwarkphotolibrary. Their image policy do not include use by third parties. Thuresson 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get the idea that third parties cannot use? As far as I am aware anyone can reuse them. The images we have don't feature ordinary people. Secretlondon 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This says that material can be used for non-profit purposes. It also says that written permission must be obtained. The JPS 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Parolles.jpg from [5] which bears the message All photographs remain the property of their copyright holders. ©2003 SpearheadNews. All Rights Reserved. -- RHaworth 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:P-51polished.jpg; Image:1939 Zephyr.jpg; Image:48 Mercury convert.jpg; Image:Latoli couple.jpg; Image:Australopithecus couple.jpg; Image:Xray for shoes.jpg; Image:Compat3D Portlandv.jpg. These images were originally tagged by the uploader as {{NoRightsReserved}}. However, the uploader also added a summary with the contradictory statement that they are "noncommercial". As a result another editor has changed the tags to {{noncommercial}}. A message regarding the images was left for the uploader on 29 January, but so far there has been no reply. JeremyA 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tak14.jpg - was added as unverified by User:Grenavitar. its only online source is through this fan page. a possible legitimate replacement would be from her music label's press pics. --Quiddity 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

Image:Fatmouse.jpg This is not a PD image. On the Security notice page it says:

"Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." That makes it a "permission" image and should be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mind Mapping.JPG No source or license information included. Unfortunately original uploader has not contributed since mid September 2005, so it may be difficult to find details of original source.
Image:Cavacosilva.jpg. The only information the uploader gives is that the image was uploaded to a blog (now a dead link). He/she believes it is therefore public domain, but no evidence is given. In fact, images posted on blogs are often copied from somewhere else. RexNL 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blog archived at Internet Archive as of Feb. 7, 2005. A blog about Portuguese politics, I don't see any reason to believe that the text or photos are PD. Thuresson 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved from Jan. 23 and notified uploader as I could not verify any previous notification -Nv8200p talk 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Leonard miller.jpg Uploader says copyrighted but free for any use, but site has a copyright notice. Uploadeer might be the copyright holder. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

Image:Coelogyne-speciosa.jpg Can't find anything on the site that says images are public domain or freely useable -Nv8200p talk 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The right copyright tag is {{copyrighted free use}}. See authorisation by the copyright holder on the Commons : [6] JoJan 09:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KWright.jpeg - After coaxing (see edit history and their talk page), the uploader is asserting fair use for a promo image. There is no evidence of source information, however. The URL apparantly no longer exists, so copyright/authorship cannot be verified. The JPS 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very unclear why this image was so quickly targeted. I was asked to update the source...I did. I was asked to provide a more detailed explanation...I did. There was no "coaxing" involved. The image in question has been in my possession for over eight years. It was published by Lifetime Movie Network as a promotion for several films in which Katie Wright appeared. I believe it was also sent out via e-mail. As a promotional photo, the tag very clearly applies. -Husnock 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but there is no evidence (the tag emphasises this). It's certainly nothing personal, and there is a team assessing images for possible infringements across the entire project. It is listed here for assessment by a team who have expertise. It first came to my attention because it was tagged as a screenshot, which it so clearly isn't. The JPS 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:St1AdPic.jpg - vague sources. As above, evidence of copyright status is required. The JPS 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice removed as insignia pictures associated with Starfleet ranks and insignia have been discussed at length on the talk page of the article. I am the uploader of most of the images and they were either created by Star Trek fans and released into public domain or personally e-mailed to me by the persons connected with the production of the show. I will be happy to provide a detailed explanation of where any image on that page came from. I only ask that I be contacted instead of having a delete notice slapped on an image that I have uploaded without first being asked about it. -Husnock 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not remove the tag. Tags shouldn't be removed by people involved in the dispute, including me. Please review all of the images you have uploaded an provide a 'detailed explanation of where any image on that page came from'. This is required upon uploading the image. As far as these Star Trek images are concerned, then we need evidence that they are in the PD. There is also a procedure to follow if you have permission. I am sure someone here will be able to guide you. The JPS 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

Image:Convicts.jpg - The source on this image is unknown and (see the image talk page) the webmaster of the site currently hosting the image is unsure of its age, but seems to think it was created much more recently than the convictism period. -SCEhard T 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Image:30WiMAX.gif No indication on the website that this image is copyright free use as tagged. -Nv8200p talk 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Diego.jpg This image is from a copyrighted website and is not free use -Nv8200p talk 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Image:Duffybond.jpg. User claims that image is in public domain, however, it is composed of nonfree images (film screenshots, to be precise).Soothing R 14:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added film-screenshot tag to it (to cover the film frame) as well as PD-self (to cover the composition). EASports 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

Image:Timea_Vagvoelgyi_wrestling_4.jpg - although the photographer has given permission, this is an image of a professional entertainment event; as such, the performers of the event may well have some copyright... it depends on the extent to which it is really sport (no copyright) versus the extent that it is staged (like pro-wrestling is = copyright applies). Which is not to say that we could not even then use it in free use, but in any case then the current licensing tag would be incorrect. --SunAdmin111 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Launch of the steamship Bremen.jpg why PD? the launch was 1926 ...Sicherlich ^Post 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:S po rosha.jpeg - source grants permission as long as image is unchanged and they are credited. Is this free enough? See image description (or source page) for exact wording of permission. FreplySpang (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Image:Jim rome pic crop.jpg - This is a cropped version of the copyrighted Jim Rome publicity photo that was previously uploaded as Image:Jim rome pic.jpg. The uploader of this Jim rome pic crop.jpg cropped image claims this under PD and is using it for a userbox. But, iirc, a cropped image of a copyright material is still copyrighted, and thus must follow under the rules of fair use. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unsure about this pic in the userbox when I saw it had been included. Since I was the one who requested the userbox in the first place, I'll edit the template to replace the pic. Willbyr 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:User_Jim_Rome_clone"

I have changed the licensing to "copyrighted publicity photo", as the original picture is marked in the same way. Sorry if I caused a major mix-up - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the below images are from the same uploader who has labeled them all "copyright free use". However it is clear that he/she simply took them from any site he/she could find them on, and none of the sites listed as sources give any indication that 1. they are the copyright holder of the photographs (most photos are professional), 2. that even if they were the copyright holder, they were releasing it for any use. Editor has been contacted about this in the past but has not clarified anything with anyone. Some are duplicates.

I think they are probably all copyvio. --Fastfission 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seigenthaler effect.gif. Uploader originally claimed public domain on a graph confessedly lifted straight from Alexa. Whatever it might be, it isn't PD (and nor do I think it ineligible, as claimed). The information is not available to just anyone, since one must visit a site using Alexa's proprietary toolbar for them to pick that information up. A fair use claim would be near-impossible to construct since this can't very well be used in an article about the graph! -Splash^talk 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I claimed PD as a derivative work. I don't know why someone else changed the licensing to inelligible. I will upload a certainly free version in a few minutes. --James S. 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed or replaced all of the graphic elements other than the raw data, and quantized the data by approximation. There is no possible remaining copyright claim on the graph. I have removed the dispute tag. --James S. 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 268: / Line 268: @@
 *[[:Image:Jim rome pic crop.jpg]] - This is a cropped version of the copyrighted [[Jim Rome]] publicity photo that was previously uploaded as [[:Image:Jim rome pic.jpg]]. The uploader of this Jim rome pic crop.jpg cropped image claims this under PD and is using it for a userbox. But, iirc, a cropped image of a copyright material is still copyrighted, and thus must follow under the rules of [[WP:FU|fair use]]. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 **I was unsure about this pic in the userbox when I saw it had been included. Since I was the one who requested the userbox in the first place, I'll edit the template to replace the pic. [[User:Willbyr|Willbyr]] 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:User_Jim_Rome_clone"
+*I have changed the licensing to "copyrighted publicity photo", as the original picture is marked in the same way. Sorry if I caused a major mix-up - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] [[User:Dussst|<font color="blue">'''• | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dussst|T]] | [[special:contributions/Dussst|C]]</sup> 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 All of the below images are from the same uploader who has labeled them all "copyright free use". However it is clear that he/she simply took them from any site he/she could find them on, and none of the sites listed as sources give any indication that 1. they are the copyright holder of the photographs (most photos are professional), 2. that even if they were the copyright holder, they were releasing it for any use. Editor has been contacted about this in the past but has not clarified anything with anyone. Some are duplicates.