Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

• 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)

• 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)

• 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.) -SCEhardT 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 are some free clip art websites which lists it for free use: [[1]][[2]]

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Will do. BobbyLee 01:02, 26 February 2006 (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.

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)
  • The listed source says that all of its pictures "are considered to be in the public domain, as they were found in various places on the Internet." So, yes, the listed source does claim public domain, but more than likely does so illegally. The picture in question is labeled with "Picture copyright information: Not Available". I think this is grounds for a speedy delete. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Laila Rouass.jpg - uploader claims public domain, but no indication of that at listed source. Chick Bowen 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Image:Neelam.jpg - uploader as two above, claims public domain Chick Bowen 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. -SCEhardT 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just added the promotional tag, since that should be what it qualifies under. Dbinder 19:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Three_right_feet.jpg - Claimed pd/no restrictions, but it seems thats's not true. --Apoc2400 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The photographer's immediate licensing terms override the default Stock.xchng terms. This is a free use image. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Cancel that entry - image speedily deleted after request from uploader. David | Talk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• 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.[3] No Guru 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

February 28

• 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)
• 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)
• Image:Ice spike.jpg - Tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but the source site[4] seems to only permit non-commercial use of the images unless we buy a license. --Sherool (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

^{copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)}

You tagged Image:Ice spike.jpg as a possibly-unfree image, but I believe we have permission to use the photograph.

  To: kgl@caltech.edu
  Subject: Ice spike photographs

  Hi there.

  I just read your fascinating page on ice spike formation, and was
  wondering if you'd mind if I uploaded one of the photographs to the
  Wikipedia community encyclopedia?  The credit would read:

    This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use 
    it for any purpose.

    Photographer: Kenneth G. Libbrecht <kgl@caltech.edu>

  My thanks in advance.

The reply:

  You can use an ice spike picture, but with a different credit line:
  Photo provided by Kenneth Libbrecht (http://www.snowcrystals.com)

  ********************************************************** 
  Kenneth G. Libbrecht
  Professor of Physics and Physics Executive Officer
  Office: 263 W. Bridge
  Address: 264-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
  e-mail: kgl@caltech.edu
  URL: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/
  **********************************************************

--Ghakko 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but permission to use is one thing (unfortunately we don't allow "exclusive" permission only images), permission to re-publish under a free license is something else entierly and as far as I can tell he did not agree to actualy do that. Unless you can convince him to explicitly release the photo under the GFDL, or a compatable CC license or whatever (see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission) I'd suggest we just delete this image and have someone make a free photo of an ice spike instead. Alternatively tag this as {{fairusein|Ice spike}}{{withpermission}}{{fairusereplace}}, but we are not rely supposed to use fair use images unless it's impossible to make a free alternative, wich should not be all that hard in this case. --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

March 1

• Image:Athabaskan R79.jpg: 1960s Royal Canadian Navy image, still under Crown copyright. Lupo 08:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Charles Avery Dunning.jpg apparently still under Canadian Crown copyright. Lupo 12:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nubus-slot.gif - Source stated is a commercial website that, while not stating any copyright claim, does not show any indication that this image is really public domain either. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

March 2

• Image:Cephalonia and Ithaca elevation.jpg - Possibly scanned from a book [5], says is copyrighted and used by permission. Nonfree license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  Update: Uploader now indicates copyright owner has authorized licensing under the GFDL and has tagged accordingly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Miss Iceland.jpg - This is either a TV screen shot from the Miss Word beauty pageant, or its a publicity still. Either way, it's very likely to be copyrighted. Technically, the uploader did give a source (the pageant) and the license ({{CopyrightedFreeUse}}), so it may not be a speedy. --Rob 08:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:1stBatBW.jpg - Probably an AP or Reuters image - was incorrectly tagged as a newspaper page scan - either way it's a copyright violation.

Found it - it's an AP image http://web.ripnet.com/~nimmos/under_the_kilt.html so clearly a violation. Trapper 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

March 3

• Image:Tiny Tove.jpg - This is a promotiional image, used with permission, with a few restrictions. This seems to beyond what's allowed. Given the full sized/commercial quality, it seems it doesn't meet fairuse requirements. --Rob 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  Suggest scaling down to size used in article and deleting other revisions. -SCEhardT 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The only restriction given is that the image maintain the Color Climax Corporation logo. They have no problem with global reproduction as long as the image maintains the logo, hell they dont even have a problem with commercial use of said image. As such its a "used with permission notwithstanding we claim fair use" situation. Quite clearly they dont give a crap what we do with it as long as their logo is attached.  ALKIVAR™ 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see permission for derivitative works. Also, regardless of that, even a trivial restriction, like a mark on the image itseslf, is to much for Wikipedia. Jimbo has (it seems) opted to treat "use with permission" in the same boat as unlicensed images. It has to be used under WP:FAIR, which means it must have a rationale, and it must be low resolution. Legally, Wikipedia could use this image if it wanted to, but by policy, Wikipedia has opted to delete huge numbers of images it's been permitted to use, due to its insistence on a type free license. So, really, we're not talking about the restrictions of the copyright holder, but the restrictions imposed by Wikipedia policy. --Rob 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Elton John 2.jpg - False licence, not an album cover. feydey 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

March 4

• Image:Indiapornstar.jpg - False licence, not a web page. feydey 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Web site: http://www.indiasplayhouse.com/hosted/racecar/?affiliate=960449 - Was a shot from this page. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a "shot" is not the same as a screenshot, i.e. still not a web page screenshot. feydey 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and delete it, I thought it was fair use. Sorry. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Untitledjes0yd.png - Claimed to be {{PD-ineligible}}. But, this is a professional quality modern picture of a famous person. The chances, it's PD are slim to none. --Rob 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nick3.jpg - Text "Picture sent to me for personal use.", and tag {{PD-ineligible}}. Even if the image was sent to him, that doesn't make it ineligble. --Rob 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Javanese.gif - This was taken from here. The uploader properly cited the source, but the web site has a very clear copyright notice, that makes no allowances or exceptions. --Rob 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ibm 1130 at osaka.jpg it says in it's talk page that the owner of the site the image was taken from believes that is it public domain, but having been taken in 1970 that seems unlikely to me. --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Images Image:31 JPG.jpg and Image:Iarline.jpg uploader claims that as images from the former socialist Romania they are not covered by copyright, however Romania is a signatory of the Bene convention, and even has a bilateral copyright treaty with the US from 1928[6] so this PD claim could need a review IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Devitoph.jpg --listed as "used by permission" but tag is GFDL-self. These are, of course, not compatible. Chick Bowen 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bigcypress.jpg -- confusing image summary, no evidence given that Burlington Free Press "released to public domain." Seems unlikely. Chick Bowen 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

March 5

• Image:Speedrunpic.jpg, also Image:Speedrunpic hires.png -- incorporates copyrighted images, but denoted as public domain by author. Not fair use in any of the articles it could be used on. Latter is orphaned. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:LRennison.JPG - no evidence of PD -SCEhardT 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tuyayuya.jpg - No reason it should be PD; needs fair use claim to keep -SCEhardT 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Paul Marshall Johnson Jr.jpg - No evidence of PD -SCEhardT 06:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Pic matlock.jpg - No evidence of GFDL -SCEhardT 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From Nancy Stafford's website - which tag is appropriate? It is a promo shot. --JamesR1701E 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Problem resolved -SCEhardT 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bb6 sam.jpg - insufficient sourcing to verify status. Promophoto is too liberal - we need verifiable source. The JPS 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • and an identical copy at Image:Bb samheuston.jpg. There is source info, but the copyright status cannot be verified. We cannot tell if these come from a press kit or are other photo shoots. 'Likelyhood' is not the issue: we need verification. I've gone through this loads of times with newbies and BB articles.
    Image:Bb Derek-Laud.jpg for rhe same reasons. Notice how the 'description' for the Sam article has been copied and pasted from Derek's. The JPS 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I uploaded Derek's image. We have discussed the status at length here and also here. To summarize, I think The JPS believes the copyright status of images must be known before they may qualify as fair use. Tagged the image for review--luke 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

March 6

• Image:Still Life -236.jpg, Image:Still Life -218w.jpg, Image:Still Life -243ht.jpg, Image:Still Life -250.jpg, Image:Still Life -258m.jpg, Image:Still Life -261m.jpg, Image:Still Life -256ms2.jpg, Image:Still Life -255w.jpg, and Image:Still Life -240b.jpg are all photographs of works by Roberto Azank who is still living and selling his work; I doubt he has released these into the PD. Also, his article was del as copyvio from various webpages, same editor Rudigan (talk · contribs) -- claims to be artist. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Staxringold Coolshot 1.jpg and several other images at User:Staxringold/gallery. Staxringold claims that he "must be asked and must give permission before any of the following images may be used outside Wikipedia, no matter the purpose." - is this allowed? Trainbuff 03:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's not allowed. According to the upload page, "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain." If Staxringold decides not to license them under the GFDL, then they must be deleted from Wikipedia. It's unfortunate, because some of those images are quite good. Rhobite 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• My mistake, I'll relicense them right now. Staxringold 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

March 7

• Image:Stanley2.jpg No evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• David-snowball uploaded five possibly unfree images. I am not sure how they should be tagged, as he claims that the college has given permission for them to be distributed freely. However, I have not found such a statement on the college's website. In fact they have copyright notices at the bottom of every page I've seen. I think it would be unusual for a college to make such pictures freely distributable, as well. Also, it appears that he used copyrighted text in the Augustana College (Illinois) (in the music section before the reversion, see the talk page). I don't think that he was necessarily acting in bad faith, as he may have been unaware that the material is copyrighted. -- Kjkolb 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Ashton3.jpg Uploader asserts {{Movieposter}}, however only article using image is Ashton Kutcher. Image is not used to illustrate the movie in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork, and is merely a cropping of Image:JustMarriedPoster.jpg. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does mention the film, once under "Career" and once in the filmography. The caption for the image also mentions the film. As such it is relevant to the article and illustrates both the subject of the article and the film. JackO'Lantern 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Giant-mary.jpg claims release but the source listed does not indicate that. Chick Bowen 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

March 8

• Image:Impeachment.gif - figure from a news source showing graphs relating to public opinion polls - not used in an article about the work in quesiton - but about one of the topics of the opinion polls Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Is this OK? Johntex\^talk 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Photos of Robbie Williams in concert in Australia. Photos from Amanda Gilligan's photo blog www.lyptonvillage.com and apparently she is the photographer. Uploader claims photos are CC but website has no mention of CC. Thuresson 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Robbie Williams in concert black and white.jpg
  • Image:Robbie Williams in concert.jpg
  • Image:Robbie Williams singing in concert.jpg
  • Image:Robbie kissing fan.jpg
    • Hello, I'm the uploader. In November I got permission from Amanda Gilligan herself to use the images on Wikipedia under a CC license. I've sent a copy of the e-mail to you and permissions@wikimedia.org. What is the best practice for noting permissions on the images? (P.S. I used to help out in PUI a lot, so I should have done a better job marking the images!) --Foofy 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Request withdrawn. I left a copy of the permission on the image talk pages. Thuresson 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tom Strong 11 SMASH.jpg Uploader claimes fair use, but it's not a cover. (It didn't have a tag at all -- I found it via untagged images). The JPS 11:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Tomuren.jpg - permission given, but restricted to wikipedia. The JPS 11:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hmcs bonaventure.jpg - Canadian Crown copyright, not yet expired. Lupo 11:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Huntssnackpack.jpg claimed as released into PD. First of all, I'm not convinced it was taken by the uploader (who is currently blocked), and second of all, there's still copyright on the packaging. Chick Bowen 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:MBT2000 Al-Khalid.jpg the uploader claims it be Copyrighted Free Use but the site from where it was downloaded says something else. --Spartian 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

March 9

• Image:Ashton2.jpg - fair use image is not used to illustrate the movie poster in question; instead, it was cropped from the original image, claiming that this is used to identify the person in an article of the subject. -adnghiem501 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does mention the film, once under "Career" and once in the filmography. The caption for the image also mentions the film. As such it is relevant to the article and illustrates both the subject of the article and the film. JackO'Lantern 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Phantoms edited.jpg - see last rationale above. - adnghiem501 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See my rationale above. Film is mentioned in article several times, and the poster explicitly identifies the film. JackO'Lantern 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Torenbreskens.jpg - states that it is PD due to being made by Dutch government, but I cannot find any law stating that Dutch government images are PD. Also orphaned. Stifle 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • An identical copy is at Image:Torenbreskens2.jpg. The version Stifle has helpfully listed is not used in any article, so should be deleted anyway: wikipedia is not an image repository. The JPS 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The second image makes a fair use claim, at least. Stifle 11:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Megaman.jpg - Marked as public domain, description states: "Image complements of Atomic Fire, official art gallery". I suppose that means that it isn't actually in public domain. (Am I wrong?) - Mike Rosoft 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

March 10

• Image:Sunnydale High.jpg Marked as public domain, although almost certainly isn't. However, a fair use claim may be possible, I'm not an expert on it. Stifle 11:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• A series of images:
  • Image:Armeniangenocide starved.JPG
  • Image:Armeniangenocide starvedchildren.JPG
  • Image:Armeniangenocide deadpeople.jpg
  • Image:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg

We cannot annonymously claim fair use. I am fine with a fair use claim if given which archive these images are originaly from. If they have been coppied illegaly from archives or websites they must be deleted. (counties generaly want to regulate the material. You can comment on the material (Ie write a book) but you cant make copies.)

For example: www.armenian-genocide.org copyright notice suggests:

"COPYING-AND-PASTING" OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON ANI'S WEB SITE TO YOUR WEB SITE, INCLUDING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MAPS, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY PORTION OF ANY MAP, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONSTITUTING ANY PART OF ANI'S WEB SITE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED (See Publishing below for further information). ^[7]

Think this scneraio: Images were coppied from http://www.armenian-genocide.org to http://www.armeniapedia.org (a wiki most images are sourced at) and to us. This would put wikipedia at a problematic situation. A fair use claim cannot apply.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Otcsposter.jpg - tagged as GFDL-self. Problem. It's been created from a screenshot from a copyrighted computer game. Such use of the screenshot wouldn't fall under fair use (and you couldn't GFDL a derivative work of such anyway). Also unknown as to the copyright statuses on the other photos this is made from. On the offchance that's explained away, there's also the "by permission" nature of the sentence on the description page; "author authorizes use on Wikipedia." Rob Church (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

March 11

• Image:Tammian5.jpg - tagged as a promotional photo, though the site it comes from (and the page the same photo is used on) talks about breast implants. I have sincere doubts as to whether or not the website owner has rights to the photo, or if it isn't something (s)he grabbed from somewhere. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Beagle2.jpg - tagged as US government image, but other information seems to indicate copyrighted by Beagle 2 project team. Awolf002 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I got it from original file at NASA site. See NASA Photo guidelines. Guinnog 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Now, I'm really confused... Awolf002 12:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have begun a discussion with Beagle Project Leader Professor Colin Pillinger as to who owns the copyrights on this image. I will report back with news as it arrives. Ralphybaby 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I, meanwhile (the uploader) have had no response to my email of Saturday to the NASA picture editor. I, too, will keep you informed. Guinnog 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
          • From Colin Pillinger: The image referred to was produced by the Beagle 2 Project, and the copyright belongs to us. I am happy for it to be used on Wikipedia. It should be marked "All Rights Reserved Beagle 2". Ralphybaby 08:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Newgeniori.jpg tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but the source site is in Japanese and I can't tell whether rights are reserved or not. Also, I haven't been able to find this actual image at the source site, although there are many similar. Chick Bowen 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Basilicaofthenationalshrine.jpg and Image:Basilicaofthenationalshrineinside.jpg were tagged as PD by User:Ekong, but the links in the image description show that they are from blog on a commercial web site eightwheels.com, and there is no indication on that site that the images are PD. —Steven G. Johnson 21:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many other images uploaded by User:Ekong apparently without permission and incorrectly tagged, for example: Image:Buergenthel123.jpg, Image:Camauroght.jpg, Image:CamauroPOPe.jpg, Image:Catholiccrosier.jpg, Image:Bmitre.jpg, Image:Zucchetto.jpg, Image:Gsandoval.jpg, Image:Teenpuplove.jpg, Image:CardinalMckarrick.jpg, Image:Philadelphiacathedral.jpg, Image:Detroitcathedral.jpg, Image:Bruce-mahoney trophy.jpg —Steven G. Johnson 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Rama_sita.jpg - This image appears to be from the front cover of an older issue of an Amar Chitra Katha Indian comic book. It seems unlikely that the image would be distributed under the GFDL. The image seems to have been originally lifted from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rama_sita.jpg, where it's also marked as being GFDL. --Anirvan 22:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  I uploaded this image to English WP; I affirm that I found it on German WP, (here) and tagged it the same way it was tagged there. ImpuMozhi 22:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Many images uploaded by User:Fearingly and (apparently) incorrectly tagged as PD or NoRightsReserved: Image:Olajuwon 370 history.jpg, Image:Jordan3 295 ADB20.jpg, Image:Kobehighschool.jpg, Image:Draft fashion malone85.jpg, Image:T1 walton.jpg, Image:Bird Picture.jpg, Image:Pippen mvp94.jpg, Image:Ewing hoyas.jpg, Image:Top10can nash.jpg, Image:Bird 350.jpg, Image:BarkleyAurburn.jpg, Image:Stockon Malone.jpg, Image:Babelou.jpg, Image:Monica Lewinski.jpg, Image:Jb21.jpg, Image:Lickingthemanshead.jpg, Image:Earlymike7.jpg, Image:MJohnson&LBird1.jpg, Image:Lsu-shaq1.jpg, Image:Mcguire article.jpg, Image:Kobe Bryat.jpg, Image:Nhk.gif, Image:Henchel.jpg, Image:MILKEN,Michael.jpg, Image:Nateslamdunk.jpg, Image:Charlieward.jpg, Image:Rchapman.jpg, Image:Sfrancis3.jpg, Image:Jcrawford.jpg, Image:Starks.jpg —Steven G. Johnson 23:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

March 12

• Image:TMBG-early promo photo.jpg Tagged as a promo photo, but copyright is not mentioned on source beyond crediting a string of people who scanned pictures from magazines and who took pictures at which concert. It appears to be one of the former and there's no way of knowing which magazine it was taken from. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:PepChi logo.JPG. I'm not convinced that the photo of the glass is not under the copyright holder of the logo on the glass. Chick Bowen 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Laroche.jpg labeled as "personal photo" and tagged as {{No rights reserved}}, but it seems unlikely that such a close up action shot from that angle could be made by a spectator at a baseball game. I could be mistaken naturaly, but a lot of uploaders seems to think they own the copyright to anything they have bought a copy off(magazines, movies, trading cards etc), so I'd like to see some more source info on this before I'm comfortable with the "no rights" license. --Sherool (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg taken from a U.S. government web site (which usually means its PD). However, this same image was was deleted from Commons (see log) because it is copyrighted material. ABC holds the copyright. It was a "Courtesy photo". It's important to note that the photo was submitted by " 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing", but "submitted by" is different than "photo by". Its common for the two to be different. "Photo by" is who took the photo (which effects copyright). "Submitted by" is the employee who uploaded the image (e.g. its equivilent to an uploader in Wikipedia, who might not be the copyright holder). Unfortunately/confusingly, U.S. military web sites will display copyrighted material, provided as a "courtesy". They will show corporate logos, DVD covers, promotional shots, screenshots, etc... The simple fact it's on the web site, does not mean its PD. The default assumption of being on the web site is its PD, but in this case, its reasonable to conclude that this is not the case. This is simply not a work of the U.S. government. Note: the law doesn't say "stuff of U.S. government web sites are free", it says works of the U.S. government. My position is obviously disputed by the uploader, though. --Rob 15:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This guy is a real timewaster. This is not the first time he's tried to have this photo deleted. I uploaded the photo, I have checked the status and it is clear for use. The image is tagged with the relevant copyright info and the permissions for use of the photo. The complainant seems to just want to be obstinate and insist he is right, stringing his longwinded *generic* explanation together. Also, he provides no evidence for his assertion that this photo was taken by ABC. The government website it is from clearly states it is ok to use -"2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.". --Vert 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please there's no need to get personal. I would like the image to be useable. Also, if you check history another user previously removed the PD tag. Also, as mentioned, the same image was deleted by an admin (I'm not an admin) on Commons. So, it's not me personally. I would be very happy if a person who's an expert (not me, not you) tells us this image is ok to use. --Rob 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Nyumbani.gif tagged as NoRightsReserved, but the source is listed as www.rehupa.com which says nothing about relinquishing any rights (it does say that "all articles are copyright by their authors" [8]). —Steven G. Johnson 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • REHupa published Image:Nyumbani.gif in a fanzine from 1978, that is where the original image appeared. Which is why the organization was given as a reference. The map was reproduced here http://www.dodgenet.com/~moonblossom/Iatlas.html and this was my source. Would you rather I changed the source to the website it was gotten from? Basique 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem was not that you didn't list a source (you did), but that you claimed without evidence that the copyright holder had relinquished all rights to it. You have to assume that all rights are reserved unless there is explicit written permission by the copyright holder. —Steven G. Johnson 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Cat13.jpg tagged as fair use but seems very questionable (subject matter is something that we could easily take our own photo of). Also Image:Marinerscentregame2.jpg, Image:Marinerscentregame.jpg, Image:Halifaxmetrocenter.jpg. (Uploader has uploaded many other problematic images.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Stanislaw Ryniak.jpg tagged as CC-by-sa but very dubious since it comes from a museum (and also, author has uploaded zillions of other images without source information and/or improperly tagged...sigh). —Steven G. Johnson 17:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Collegeqaxsw.jpg tagged PD, but seems to come from http://www.worksopcollege.notts.sch.uk/splash/default.asp Guinnog 19:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Bob.Costas.daughter.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

March 13

• Image:00364xgb.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:00tonycu.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:020.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:033.jpg - text indicates {{permission}}, not 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Image:S3700097.JPG and Image:Tom bright sig.JPG uploaded by same user —Steven G. Johnson 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:0412 Focus Silvestrov.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Image:Uranium235.jpg and Image:Lynott-sm.jpg by same user
• Image:050905roberts1.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Image:230206sept11.jpg, Image:160605collapse.jpg, Image:150605reynolds.jpg, Image:Pp080204von.jpg, Image:230904davidschippers.jpg, Image:241105paul.jpg, Image:Pp210404flight93.jpg, Image:180705flight93.jpg, Image:121105collapse.jpg, Image:150805edmonds.jpg, Image:Madrid fire.jpg, Image:100902stock-market1.jpg, Image:Prsnplntwtc.jpg, Image:Crimp.jpg, Image:Squibs.jpg uploaded by same user —Steven G. Johnson 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please have a look at this. [9] I used the most appropriate image use tag I could find.SkeenaR 06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While the source website does not hold a copyright on these images, someone does. We need to determine who if they are going to stay on Wikipedia. -SCEhardT 06:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you sure there is a copyright on it? And if there is, wouldn't this be fair use? SkeenaR 07:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Under US copyright law, creative works are copyrighted by default, unless you have explicit written permission to the contrary from the copyright holder (not a random web site that happened to host copies of the image). As for "fair use", it's not a blanket permission to use any copyrighted image that we want, alas. See WP:Fair use, and note specifically that using a photo to illustrate an article about the subject matter of the photo, rather than about the photo itself, is generally not fair use. —Steven G. Johnson 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:05nat medal.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:07jd-front.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:08mproto.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See also Image:8pin.jpg, another problematic image uploaded by same user. —Steven G. Johnson 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:092str.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The source information already exists. Why tag the image "unfree" instaed of contacting the author? Both I and User:Ghirlandajo contacted the author by e-mail. There was already discussion on these images in my talk page. See the archive. How many times it will repeat?--Nixer 10:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to post the author's release on the image page. The source says "Copyright © 2005. Евгений. All Right Reserved." The image was tagged unfree because the burden is on you, the uploader, to contact the author and document this. -SCEhardT 13:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:100 SillsDavid.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:111111.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:1204-B4.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:12206.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:13c.jpg - copyright is owned by the magazine (possibly fair use) -SCEhardT 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Battlebeast3.jpg, Image:SnoutSpout 800.jpg, Image:Stinkor 800.jpg
  • Fixed the copy write information under promotional for both of these. Darwin's Bulldog 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:64b5.jpg, Image:Albert.jpg, Image:Bartgiamattistatement.jpg, Image:Suprempred.jpg, Image:Drew barrymore60.jpg, Image:ItsRatherWarmInHereDontYouThink.gif, Image:Jennifer Lets Her Hair Down.gif - claimed without evidence by User:TMC1982 that these images are PD or NoRightsReserved or GFDL —Steven G. Johnson 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Taipei 101 at the sunset.jpg, Image:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, Taipei.jpg, Image:Taipe101.jpg, Image:Taipei 101 under construction.jpg, Image:Taipei 101.jpg, Image:Taipei 101 from bottom.jpg, Image:Sevenstar Mt..jpg, Image:Kinmen.jpg, Image:Jade Mt..jpg, Image:20050219210107.jpg, Image:Yigge.jpg, Image:Fort San Domingo.jpg, Image:Confucius Temple.jpg - claimed without evidence by User:Jerry000 that these images are NoRightsReserved —Steven G. Johnson 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Claimed as "fair use" by User:D-Day for being "informational" and "adding significantly" to the article in question (by which rationale essentially any image of foo would be fair use for any article on foo): Image:Musgrave xl.jpg, Image:Henry Lenny1.jpg, Image:Hamlin.jpg, Image:18b.jpg, Image:60ameriquest.jpg, Image:50b.jpg, Image:BiffleBusch.jpg, Image:Scott Riggs.jpg, Image:Mayfield.jpg, Image:KaseyKahneMotorsports.jpg, Image:BurtonJeff.jpg, Image:Harvick.jpg, Image:25b.jpg, [[:Image:HallOFRacing.jpg], Image:MacMurray.jpg, Image:Kensethcar.jpg, Image:Biffle.jpg, Image:MarkMartinAAA.jpg, Image:13b.jpg, Image:Marty.jpg, Image:Wallace rusty6.jpg —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:58turbine.jpg, Image:44pizzahut.side.jpg, Image:5kelloggs-front.jpg, Image:98-29.jpg, Image:36centrex-nose.jpg, Image:42havoline-front.jpg, Image:42wcp2.jpg, Image:40coors-diecast.jpg, Image:18interstate-front.jpg, Image:39navy-side.jpg, Image:ILUVNEMECHECK!!!.jpg, Image:92 Barrett2.jpg, Image:48johnson bud.jpg, Image:Rs daleatdover.jpg, Image:99officedepot-pr.jpg, Image:27a.jpg, Image:33mill$.jpg, Image:73arc-daytona.jpg, Image:47wcp1.jpg, Image:Hitting.jpg - uploaded by User:D-Day, no evidence of norightsreserved/copyrightedfreeuse/PD —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:HMAS Collins 1.jpg - according to the cited copyright this image fits with {{noncommercial}}, not {{norightsreserved}} [10] -SCEhardT 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Similarly for other images uploaded by same user: Image:Sheean badge.gif, Image:Dechaineux badge.gif, Image:Farncomb badge.gif, Image:Waller badge.gif, Image:Collins badge.gif, Image:Rankin badge.gif —Steven G. Johnson 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Dolcett girl.gif I guess the reasoning being that the author is pseudonymous, they must have put their work in the PD. But neither US nor Canadian law supports that. See Talk:Dolcett#Images not PD. I couldn't find a statement anywhere online to support the claim that the author has released their work into the PD. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Image:Stadion Vasil Levski.jpg (claimed norightsreserved without evidence) by the same user. —Steven G. Johnson 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • • I have uploaded this image, not the user above. I copied it from the Bulgarian Wikipedia wihtout noticing the lack of license information and thought the user that uploaded it there had solved license issues, so I put the no rights reserved tag. It seems I've been wrong and sportni.bg explicitly states that any external use is prohibited, so delete it. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 10:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Dth&tlh.jpg - Unless the author specifically released all rights, they are retained by default -SCEhardT 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Union Pacific No 119 replica.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Same for Image:ATSF F7 274C.jpg, Image:SR SD24 2521.jpg, Image:BN SD24 6246.jpg, Image:Santa Fe SD24 959.jpg, Image:SP DH643 983.jpg, Image:NH DL-109 0749.jpg, Image:LARy PCC on lst Street at Spring Street.jpg, Image:QTTX 130775 flatcar.jpg, Image:Hormel NADX 23016.jpg, Image:FEC SD40-2 705.jpg, Image:CPR DRS-4-4-10 8010.jpg, Image:CPR DRS-4-4-10 8000.jpg, Image:GRS SD26 615 scrapped.jpg, Image:Guilford SD26 619-643-621.jpg, Image:FM OP800.jpg, Image:BM P-12-42 1.jpg, Image:UP H-20-44 1366.jpg, Image:Swift reefer photographed by William B Barry East Orange NJ late 1930s.jpg, Image:San Francisco Solano circa 1940 Will Connell.jpg, Image:ATSF RS-2 2098 PSRM.jpg, Image:ATSF 7513 1969 Paul Charland - U25C Freight.jpg -SCEhardT 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Resolved: Image:Atsf19.jpg -SCEhardT 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

March 14

• Images uploaded by DaNASCAT that are marked 'no rights reserved' yet appear to be copyrighted: Image:20050506ge1165.jpg, Image:Pic22.jpg, Image:Pic8.jpg, Image:Photo 3.jpg, Image:Mexico1.jpg, Image:2006DS40COORS1.jpg, Image:D5PHXF0402PC jpg.jpg, Image:Normal 04 24 Darlington0048.jpg, Image:AJ Memphis02.jpg, Image:Db aj11.jpg, Image:Aaronfikethedriver.jpg, Image:050225DV0596 jpg.jpg, Image:Lnkblt83.jpg, Image:Front page head12.jpg, Image:8N-740S begin.jpg, Image:Nc24w-patricia.jpg, Image:51S begin.jpg, Image:104103.jpg, Image:NC75-84end.jpg, Image:Nc522n-patriarca2.jpg, Image:6E-end.jpg, Image:Nc4end-rockymount pic2.jpg, Image:Firstnc5.jpg, Image:Nc226s-patriarca1.jpg, Image:NC226warn.jpg -SCEhardT 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Rio-Niterói Bridge.jpg - postcard scan, claimed fair use but seems dubious to me (used to illustrate subject of photograph not photo per se, could easily be reproduced by a Wikipedian in Brazil) —Steven G. Johnson 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Milena.PNG - received permission from copyright holder, but permission is too narrow (does not explicitly allow commercial use, etcetera). —Steven G. Johnson 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:South-OssetiaMap.jpg - no evidence of "no rights reserved" —Steven G. Johnson 04:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:IsuzuIMark.jpg - no evidence of "no rights reserved" —Steven G. Johnson 04:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd bother to look at the history of the image, you'll see that I said that "I just recieved permission from the source to use this image." Unfortunately, I lost the original message so I will email the source again. --ApolloBoy 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When you do please make sure that you make it clear that you are asking them to release all rights to the image and allow anyone (not just Wikipedia) to modify, distribute, make profit from and otherwise use the image for any purpose as they see fit with no restrictions or strings attached whatsoever, because that is what the "no rights reserved" tag means. Having permission to "use" the image is not the same thing as having permission to re-distribute the image for "free use", not by a long shot. Unfortunately this is a very common misunderstanding (along the same weins "free of charge" or "free for personal use" does not mean that something is free licensed, but this is becoming a rant on the overall situation here rater than this image in particular so I'll stop here). --Sherool (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

March 15

• Image:Sandra nasic live.jpg - no evidence of PD -SCEhardT 04:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Dr.Rajendra.Prasad.jpg might not be PD, since Commons:Copyright_tags#India says, that it has to be first published before 1945 and he became president in 1950. --Flominator 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This image is taken by the Press Information Bureau which is part of the Government of India. As such this image is the work of the government of India. I couldnt find any copyright notice on http://pic.nic.in . It should have fair use right on it for journalists. I have emailed the contact on that site for specific license. --kunjan1029 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've moved this image here from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 3 in case something productive result from the mail exchange. --Sherool (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Pojmanski c2006a1.jpg - copyright statement says for educational or scientific use only. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Uploader provided source which says image is available under FAL. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Derrek Lee.jpg - Uploader has applied a promotional license tag to this image (source is chicago.cubs.mlb.com). Terms of use for that web site severly restricts usage of their content and reserves all rights. No Guru 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

March 16

• Image:Uhinnovation.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Same for: Image:Uhsports.jpg, Image:Dehavilland.jpg -SCEhardT 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:1993Vision.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' (the photographer still owns the copyright regardless of the status of the car brand) -SCEhardT 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also no evidence of 'no rights reserved' for Image:1997Breeze.jpg -SCEhardT 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the original uploader of these images, and I originally tagged them as promotional images, but User:Karrmann, for no reason, messed with the tags. --ApolloBoy 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Image:1loess.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• No evidence of 'no rights reserved' for: Image:1ltbumidang.jpg, Image:1ltrabonza.jpg, Image:Pmasealmed.jpg, Image:Mv querubin.jpg, Image:Eteddy.jpg, Image:Radiomess.jpg, Image:1ltsanjuan.jpg, Image:Gambala.jpg, Image:Ojord.jpg, Image:Crocre.jpg, Image:Batre.jpg, Image:Bandersnatch.jpg, Image:Philnav.jpg, Image:Pmc.gif, Image:Philscouts1.jpg, Image:Ricarte.jpg, Image:Esperon.jpg, Image:Sra0.jpg, Image:Sra10.jpg, Image:Lreact.jpg, Image:Sra9.jpg, Image:Spaw1.jpg, Image:Pmcrecon2.jpg from User:Chewygum -SCEhardT 16:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Jose.JPG, Image:Megan.JPG, Image:Irene.jpg. According to the image description: Copyright (C) 2005 Greek Council Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. -- bluemask 10:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)