Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:08, 28 February 2006

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

Place either:

{{subst:nsd}} for no source

or

{{subst:nld}} for no license

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

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance 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.

None at this time.

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.

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]

The reason 'someone else' changed the tag is in the paragraph just up there! Also, don't remove PUI tags during the process, as it says quite clearly on the tag itself. I'm afraid I don't think that making the image fuzzy gets you out of a great deal; it is still almost identical to Alexa's, it just looks a bit worse. -Splash^talk 12:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw what you meant by someone changing the tag; I've no idea why Natalinasmpf did that. I still don't think you can claim PD on that image, though. -Splash^talk 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where would you draw the line? I could quantize it once per month; seven data rounded to about four bits each, or less than 30 bits, is hardly a "substantial work" upon which a copyright could be asserted.

Do you have any reasons or sources indicating that the rights to a derivative work of a graph remains vested in the author of the base, or is that just a personal opinion? --James S. 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "to be protected by copyright, a work must have been fixed in tangible form for more than a transitory period." The courts have held this to exclude stock and commodity price graphs generated by computers "on-the-fly." --James S. 18:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for that? Lupo 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a court decision handy, but recommend the AAUP Copyright Guidelines: "a simple graph charting gross domestic product of the United States over a twenty-year period may be below the threshold of copyright."[1] See also my comment below. --James S. 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, graphs which are no more than "a collection of facts" are not protected for the same reason that white pages telephone directories aren't. --James S. 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But remember that presentations of bare facts can be copyrighted. See WP:PD#Uncreative works, the Eckes v. Card Prices Update and following paragraph! Lupo 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have revised the graph to make the presentation less precise, removing any and all of the original graphic elements and replacing them with paraphrase or the graphic equivalent. I am willing to make the graph even less precise should anyone feel that neccessary. --James S. 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garylocke.jpg --From a U.S. state Web site but tagged as PD because a work of the federal government. --Lukobe 06:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Timea Vagvoelgyi wrestling 7.jpg, Image:Timea Vagvoelgyi wrestling 3.jpg, Image:Timea Vagvoelgyi wrestling 4.jpg Image:Timea Vagvoelgyi wrestling 6.jpg. Currently tagged "PD-self" with the statement "I took this image in 1997". However, they all look like screencaps. Besides, images with a 3 has a watermark saying "Dwwgalaxy.com". / Fred-Chess 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

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]

Moved from Jan. 30. Could not verify uploader was notified. -Nv8200p talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rmafire.jpg Tagged as Copyrighted Free use but no documentation to support this claim. -Nv8200p talk 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chicheemaun.jpg Tagged as GFDL but no documentation to support claim. Is Shari Chambers actually User:Brucegirl? -Nv8200p talk 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hernando de Soto Bridge.jpg Uploader has shown no proof he can claim free use -Nv8200p talk 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Image:Tops front then.jpg — Uploader asserts it's promotional, but source is on the company's intranet, so it's obviously not available to the public, a minimum requirement for fair use as promotional. Daniel Case 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, he says it was used in company ads several years ago during its anniversary year. I believe it would still have to be used for promotional purposes? Is historic use of that for that purpose still covered? Daniel Case 05:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Hm. Hard to make a fair use claim on that. I'd say delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wade Boggs.jpg is tagged as being copyrighted and that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. The source web site reserves all rights, however. [2] No Guru 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the uploader was mistaken. Delete.– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pap.jpg uploader claims GPL self created, however links [3] and [4] show that the image uploaded is a crop of the main image. The myspace page is questionable, however AllHipHop.com provides the photographer is Brian Mapp. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the uploader cropped the image and darkened the background, and then called the pic "self-created". But it's still a copyvio. Delete.– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomoconnor.jpg - uploader claims that they created the image and release it under the GFDL; however, the image appears to have come from the comedian's official website: [5] --Marknew 09:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader has also been blocked for vandalism. Looks awfully doubtful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willandgrace.jpg - the source does not satisfy the requirement that it is "known to have come from a press kit", or whether it was a photo shoot for a magazine cover. It was previously listed as a copyvio, but removed [6]. It was also incorrectly tagged as a screenshot. I've changed that to promophoto, but the cited source is not good enough. The JPS 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Perhaps this is a TV screenshot. Or perhaps it is from a press kit. Or perhaps it is neither. Either way, this picture's use in the Will and Grace article is clearly a fair use of the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't he souce dodgy? It's hardly an official website with verifiable copyright info. Is copying an image OK if it is already copied? The JPS 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A fair use claim does not require that the source be known. (A "fair dealing" claim in Austrailia does, but it's not required in the U.S.) That said, a better fair use claim could be made if we knew for sure it was from a poster or a press kit, so it should be replaced if we find a better sourced image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Noa briqualon.jpg - source now provided, but page displays " © Lucasfilm 2006. All rights reserved." Also incorrectly tagged. OK, the tagging can be fixed, but we should making it clear to uploaders to tag and source correctly. The JPS 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change the tag and keep. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the phrase "© Lucasfilm 2006. All rights reserved." ?The JPS 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's copyright Lucasfilm. That's why we use one of the fair use tags and leave a fair use rationalle. (Fair use only applies to copyrighted images where the copyright holder has not given us permission to use the image.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DhSeason1.jpg - claims image is from a movie poster. Although it is clearly a promotional image for Desperate Housewives the TV show on ABC. 152.163.100.67 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are enough fair use images on the page as it is. Same as the photos below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They all seemed to be mislabeled. And the pictures below don't seem to be 'screenshots' either. HeyNow10029 18:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. I've fixed the sources, types and copyright. They are being used. Dan777 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dh eva.jpg - claims image is a tv screenshot although the image is similiar to a copyrighted photo on ABC's Desperate Housewives gallery. http://abc.go.com/primetime/desperate/images/gallery/201/01.jpg 152.163.100.67 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dh teri.jpg - claims image is a tv screenshot although the image looks like it was taken from the ABC.com Desperate Housewives gallery. 152.163.100.67 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dh felicity.jpg - claims image is a tv screenshot although the image looks like it was taken from the ABC.com Desperate Housewives gallery. 152.163.100.67 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dh marcia.jpg - claims image is a tv screenshot although the image looks like it was taken from the ABC.com Desperate Housewives gallery. 152.163.100.67 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

Image:Mandy0035ra001.jpg - claims fair use as a magazine cover, however the image is not used in the Mandy Moore article in the specific context required by the license. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Image:Bar Kokhba's papyrus.png doesn't specify copyright holder; probably doesn't need to be deleted; I'll contact the uploader and remove the notice when it's fixed. Chick Bowen 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Image:Mjelde.jpg Cant find a (c) status on the site, but its def not all rights released... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Spargett-Birds.jpg, Image:City_hall.png and Image:Japanese_garden.png. All of these were uploaded with the note "all rights reserved". -- Anguis 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:City_hall.png is now relicensed under GFDL, however the other two still have no update. -- Anguis 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Image:NKR Coat of Arms.gif. Uploader claims Gevork Nazaryan allows free use of this image, but source do not verify that. See also Flagspot.net copyright. Thuresson 07:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stamps from India are not released under a free license, see indiapost.gov.in. Works by the Indian government are not free if they were first published after 1946, see commons:Template:PD-IndiaGov.

I believe the rules on the Indian Post website only refer to paper reproductions. The reading of the text makes the intent very clear - paper reproductions could very well be passed off as original stamps. Digital Photographs of stamps however are another matter - especially when they have cancellation marks across them. --Cheeni 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Image:Toi 150 common man.jpg

- - I've taken the picture of the stamp and uploaded it to Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of illustrating a particular stamp design. It goes against my expectation of common sense to see its legitimacy to be questioned; certainly not with a Sword-of-Damocles deadline of 7 days. I don't log into Wikipedia except when I have to make an edit, and this doesn't happen very often. Ergo I don't see deletion messages left on my user page. I was on vacation last month (without Internet access, I might add) for a couple of weeks, and I came back to see two of my images taken off from Wikipedia under the 7-day deadline rule. This is simply unacceptable. I'm just plain lucky to have spotted this message within 7 days. If this goes on, I believe I will have to stop contributing to Wikipedia. There's no point in seeing my legitimate efforts at adding content being thrown out of the window by Wikipedia brass with a rulebook.

--Cheeni 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Really the only reason we do this is because we don't want Wikipedia to be shut down with a copyright infringement lawsuit. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Image:Colachel Stamp.jpg
- Image:Kotnis-Indian stamp.jpg
- Thuresson 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. Thanks for the clarification. Have deleted references on the articles for Colachel and Kotnis. Please delete the two images. mkamat15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If required the stamps could be used as a fair use to that extent. Idleguy 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CatOnChaise1.JPG is from [7] - website says Copyright © 1998-2006 by Kittie Krafts. All Rights Reserved. while 'All rights released' is claimed on the image file -SCEhard T 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chris DiMarco.jpg - Tagged as Copyrightedfreeuse, but the website it is taken from says [8] Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you are not authorized to and may not reproduce, copy, transmit, alter, frame, distribute, perform, prepare derivative works based upon, or display the Materials in whole or in part without first obtaining the prior written permission of TSN. // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jim Furyk.jpg - [9] does not allow commercial and non-private purposes without the prior written consent of SuperSport Zone // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Retief Goosen.jpg - [10] no form of distribution or making available to the public (whether in print or electronic form) of any of this website's content is permitted. // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vijay Singh.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sergio Garcia.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adam Scott.jpg - It is tagged CopyrightedFreeUse, but contains no evidence why this image from msn.com is free use // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:FisherH.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse. I have not been able to enter the website, but that might be temporary problems // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is copyrighted [11] from here --Dystopos 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:275px-FisherH.jpg - same as Image:FisherH.jpg // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is copyrighted [12] from here --Dystopos 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Image:Tayshaun Prince Block.jpg - no explanation given why free use // —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Milleniumstadiumcardiff.jpg Image:Milleniumstadiumcardiff2.jpg Image:Millenium stadium4.jpg All released under the GFDL. User has a history of uploading non-free images with incorrect licencing (see talk page) No claim that user has created these images. Agnte 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:T-84 l.jpg. Uploader claims CopyrightedFreeUse from globalsecurity.org but that web site is not that generous, "reuse strictly prohibited", "for informational and noncommercial uses offline only" etc etc (copyright policy). Thuresson 19:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is ironic, because globalsecurity.org probably grabs the images from other sources and republishes them under "fair use". Oh well. —Michael Z. 2006-02-21 20:14 Z

Simply too much of a beautiful pic to let it go. I'd leave it where it is. Lohe

February 22

Image:29 09 RORY JENNINGS 14a.jpg Complicated, it's orphaned so it probably doesn't matter anyway. See page history for upload details which was blanked by the oploader (it seems to me). I'm not sure what the terms of the license for the photo are but I suspect that it doesn't meet WPs criteria. Matt 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mdew.png This is currently tagged as PD. It apparently was created in an attempt to get around the fair use issue of using the actual, copyrighted Mountain Dew logo Image:Mountain dewLogo.JPG. However, a close copy of a copyrighted work still may qualify as a copyright violation. I don't think it's fair to just re-draw this and claim PD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not a copyrighted work, it's similar enough to a trademark that people who know what it is supposed to look like recognise it. Much like if I made my own swoop, Nike could not sue me for copyright infringement. If you're thinking that this is trademark infringement, that would be a matter for a judge - this is definately not a copyright issue. Janizary 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christopher Hughes.jpg. Claimed to be PD, but the site given lists it as belonging to either the family or Associated Press, with no indication of public domain status. It's only used in the Kevin Cooper article, which barely touches upon the subject, so fair use isn't applicable. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fir0002-1yr.jpg, Wikimedia logos are protected by copyright, not licensed under GFDL. Thuresson 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? What's with that!--Fir0002 www 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polish nurse.jpg Copyrighted advertisement work added with a fairuse tag. But this doesn't fit. The image neither illustrates the work or product in question nor is the article Polish Plumber in the absence of other pictures that could serve such a purpose. The image is superfluous.--Neutrality Plumber 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Image:Stephen Harper.jpg - Tagged GFDL but with no evidence; uploader has been tagging all uploads GFDL when most aren't -SCEhard T 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Usa suburb.jpg - No evidence of released copyright found at source website; uploader has a history of improperly tagged images. -SCEhard T 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Press Dec 19 03 (Basra).JPG -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2004 bremer CPADinnerOrchestra.jpg -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:June 30 2004 at White House.jpg -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ave Maria U. Commencement June 19 2005 (2).JPG -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sept 13 2005.jpg -- uploader attributes image to -By Darren Mccollester -- Getty Images / For The Washington Post)- but hasn't shown any effort to get permission from the copyright holder, asserts {promotional} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bureaucrat man.jpg -- uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:May 18 2003.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Crazy dog.GIF -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hopping kangaroo.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Image has an embedded copyright notice -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rudolph Reindeer.JPG -- unsourced image tagged with {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Catinhat.gif -- unsourced, untagged image -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hearts.gif -- unsourced image untagged -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Merry christmas.gif -- unsourced image -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Einstein.jpg -- tagged as screenshot, is clearly not one. No need for this low-quality, copyrighted image in an article which already has plenty of good images. Uploaded has a history of uploading copyvio images. --Fastfission 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a speedy (re-upload of previously deleted content). We had deleted back in October 2004 a way better reproduction of Halsman's image as a copyvio; see Special:Undelete/Image:Albert_Einstein.jpg. Lupo 19:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Image:Space buddy2.gif - This image has been floating around the internet without an author for some time. It seems to me that we can't use it on Wikipedia because the author may still reserve his/her copyright. (That is, the websites currently hosting the image may be 'stealing' it.) -SCEhard T 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This is free clip art. This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif. Here are some free clip art websites which lists it for free use: [[13]][[14]]

Please advise on my talk page. Thank you. |||Miles.D.|||^{02-28-2006 17:33 (UTC)}

Image:Breanna Lynn.jpg - tagged {{GFDL}}, but no indication that the photographer has indeed released it under the GFDL. Uploader notified. Chick Bowen 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the photographer and a representative of the Web site at which the photograph is hosted have indeed confirmed their agreement with release under the GFDL and the use of the photograph in Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart. BobbyLee 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you mind asking them either to e-mail permissions at wikimedia dot org, or to put a note on the source website releasing it under the GFDL, so we can get this thing cleared up once and for all? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will do. BobbyLee 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gretchen bleiler.jpg - no evidence of {{promophoto}} status -SCEhard T 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Image:Ahn.jpg - It says "Reuters" on the corner, so how can the uploader claim "The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it ...." Does the uploader own Reuters ? Or did Reuters steal this pic from the uploader ? -- PFHLai 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ethier2.jpg - Uploader of the image asserts that the image is copyrighted and The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. The website terms of use agreement (mlb.com) states in part:All materials distributed in the Website (the "Materials") are either owned by or licensed to MLBAM. MLBAM and its licensors retain all proprietary rights to the Materials. Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you must not reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, perform or display the Materials without first obtaining the written permission of MLBAM. Materials must not be used in any unauthorized manner. [15] No Guru 18:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BradThomas.jpg - suffers from same copyright restrictions as previous image. The MLB terms of use page severly restricts use of their content. - No Guru 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Image:Amy Jo Johnson.jpg - uploader claims public domain, but no indication of that at listed source. Chick Bowen 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Laila Rouass.jpg - uploader claims public domain, but no indication of that at listed source. Chick Bowen 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out this one was listed at WP:CP but the {{imagevio}} tag had been removed, so I deleted it. Chick Bowen 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Neelam.jpg - uploader as two above, claims public domain Chick Bowen 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mexicana early timetable.JPG - claims copyright but allowing use for any purpose, but the website it's taken from says "allows users to use their photos on other websites", but GFDL requires use in published (written) works as well, no? Also requires attribution but website is down (509) so can't determine if author is webiste owner or another contributor (in which case the license quoted doesn't (necessarily) apply). Telso 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The source website shouldn't really be relevant since Mexicana actually owns the copyright. Since we know Mexicana published it, it should fall under a fair use claim. -SCEhard T 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Three_right_feet.jpg - Claimed pd/no restrictions, but it seems thats's not true. --Apoc2400 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Order5gy.gif. Uploader claimed self-made. This image consists of a still of Michael Martin (Speaker of the United Kingdom House of Commons) which has originally come from Parliamentary TV transmissions, overlaid with a red and yellow flashing "ORDER ORDER". Parliamentary TV is copyright held by the Parliamentary Recording Unit. I doubt that this really qualifies as self made. David | Talk 10:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cancel that entry - image speedily deleted after request from uploader. David | Talk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cocoheadshot.jpg is from mlb.com. The uploader asserts that the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it. The terms of usage agreement page states that mlb.com reserves all rights.[16] No Guru 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jerryrice.jpg The website of the image doesn't say it uses Creative Commons. Also who took and owns the photo? It doesn't look like a sports memorabilia online store "owns" the photo. The user seems has not contributed to Wikipedia in a while. --J. Nguyen 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adamlopez promoshot.JPG - after being tagged as 'no source', uploader now claims we have permission to use it. Isn't there a procedure for this? Someone may like to counsel the uploader (I don't think the source in it's current state is a healthy precedent). I wonder why permission wasn't claimed in the first place? The JPS 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 206: / Line 206: @@
 ===February 25===
 *[[:Image:Space buddy2.gif]] - This image has been floating around the internet without an author for some time.  It seems to me that we can't use it on Wikipedia because the author may still reserve his/her copyright.  (That is, the websites currently hosting the image may be 'stealing' it.) -[[User:SCEhardt|<font color="blue">SCEhard</font>]][[User talk:SCEhardt|<font color="#3D9140"><b>T</b></font>]] 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-::I respectfully disagree.  This is free clip art.  This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif.  Here is one free clip art website which lists it for free use: [[http://www.gifs.net/image/Animals/Dogs/Space_dog/1740| Space Dog]]. Please advise on my talk page.  Thank you. |||<font color="#56A5EC">[[User:MilesD.|Miles.D.]]</font>[[Image:Space_buddy2.gif|31px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]|||<sup> ''02-28-2006 17:33 (UTC)''</sup>
+::I respectfully disagree.  This is free clip art.  This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif.  Here are some free clip art websites which lists it for free use: [[http://www.gifs.net/image/Animals/Dogs/Space_dog/1740Dog]][[http://www.animatedgif.net/animals/dogs/dogs2.shtml]]
+Please advise on my talk page.  Thank you. |||<font color="#56A5EC">[[User:MilesD.|Miles.D.]]</font>[[Image:Space_buddy2.gif|31px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]|||<sup> ''02-28-2006 17:33 (UTC)''</sup>
 *[[:Image:Breanna Lynn.jpg]] - tagged {{tl|GFDL}}, but no indication that the photographer has indeed released it under the GFDL.  Uploader notified.  [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)