Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:43, 6 December 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 criterion 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 necessary 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. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the 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 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.

November 16

Image:Cbaek-reservation stations.jpg, Image:Cbaek-register status.jpg, and Image:Cbaek-instruction status.jpg: according to the descriptions they were not created by the uploader, but taken from a copyrighted book instead. Kimchi.sg 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the description and current usage these are reproductions (derivative works) rather than blatant scans of the original material. Since these images depict a table of outputs based on an algorithm, there is no real creative authorship involved in the original work. These images should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Image:Banksvspele4.jpg. GFDL-released image, includes derivative content. Was tagged for speedy deletion (reasonably), but surely the best thing would be for someone to just edit out the derivative part and reupload. Not me, 'cause the GIMP keeps crashing my computer. Chick Bowen 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dr Zak 15:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Philippine Idol images: Image:AppleChiu.jpg, Image:ArmsCruz.jpg, Image:KenDingle.jpg, Image:StefLazaro.jpg, Image:GianMagdangal.jpg, Image:MauMarcelo.jpg, Image:ReymondSajor.jpg, Image:DraeYbanez.jpg - all had no sources, previously licensed as "GFDL," although it's obvious that they're from a website. Retagged as {{promotional}}, but no sources were given. --Howard the Duck 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Acad2b.jpg; claimed GFDL self, but seems to be a scan of some other images, and the uploader has uploaded other suspect content. --Robth^Talk 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

Image:JulieCostelloDS.jpg; claims to be public domain, but is from Google Images, and it's doubtful that an image of a wrestler can be public domain. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Marunouchi-sen-ochanomizu-2004-05-06.jpg; claimed GFDL from ja wikipedia, but source missing there, with explicit note not to copy image. 71.135.114.67 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:King-cheetah-01300894b.jpg; The uploader of this image asserts that the copyright holder has released all rights to it, but I can't find a source for it. The photo is originally from this page, which says that the pictures are "supplied courtesy of www.southafrica.net". I wasn't able to find the picture on southafrica.net (the only page mentioning the king cheetah is this one, but the footer on all pages says "© Copyright 2005, South African Tourism", which would imply that the image is copyrighted too. —JeremyBanks Talk 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Is it possible to ask them?--Marhawkman 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Teresacormac.jpg; tagged "no rights reserved" but provides no evidence of this. Image is from findagrave.com and apparently uploaded to there by somebody else. —Chowbok ☠ 18:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Image:Byrdarwork.jpg claims the source is from The Washington Post, but the license is "Attribution" with no proof of this being so. bogdan 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Byrdincom.gif claims the source is from USA Today, but the license is "Attribution" with no proof of this being so. bogdan 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PipelineRoutes.gif claims "Image provided by the University of Colorado", with "Attribution", but no proof of this being so. bogdan 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BBC Broadcasting House 400.jpg can be found on [1] as Picture No 10094656 - BBC Broadcasting House at Portland Place - Photograph by Fred Musto for the Mustograph Agency - Credit Mary Evans Picture Library - hope this helps Zir 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

November 21

Image:BBC Broadcasting House 400.jpg See also the recent Commons comments [2]Zir 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TGrave.jpg - Comes from ITV, thus the GFDL-no-disclaimers tag is highly suspect. howch e ng {chat} 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg Does not appear even to amount to promotional pic. Website from which photo obtained reserves all rights to 'Empics' [3]. WJBscribe 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair use per WP:Fairuse#Counterexamples - i.e. AP photo used to illustrate the subject of the article and per FUC #1. Megapixie 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Architect148.jpg is directly copied from [4] - I can't read the French, so maybe it's ok to use, but the image is tagged I, the creator of this work,... and I somehow doubt that. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sin347.jpg is copied from http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~pf/htdocs/images/blogpics/agent47.jpeg (site Copyright Peter Farrell 2005) --ArmadilloFromHell 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Louisiana regions map.gif tagged with a custom "This work is copyrighted, but use is allowed as long as credit is given." (now listed on TFD) tag, based on The following permission statement: "As long as the center is cited as the source, we have no problem sharing this information with you. Thank you for your inteerst. Jennifer Cooper". I do not think that is quite enough to qialify as a free license release though, since it does not mention distribution, modification or commercial use. The easiest solution would probably be to create our own region map based one a blank state map. --Sherool (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I used a blank PD map from commons and added the same colors, taking this to IFD instead since it's redundant anyway now. --Sherool (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greater-Iran.png -- modified from a screenshot of Google Maps. Ayatollah's hashish 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

none

November 24

Image:Northwestern1.jpg copied from [5]. Same user has uploaded this image before and is now claiming it as his own work. Close inspection indicates this isn't even a photo, much less one that the uploader made. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Psychic mad cow exorcism polka ross aubrey.jpg - nothing at source supports copyright free use claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Image:James Obarr.jpg Nothing to indicate this image is released under GFDL -02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
–I actually do not know what liscens it would fall under. It was taken at the Dallas Comicon in 2005 by a fan. O'Barr's website asks fans to send in any convention photos they might have so that they may post them up for everyone to see. So I think since it is a fan photo from a convention it should not have any copyright on it. Though if it should not be on wikipedia, yes by all means delete it without hesatasion. I apologize if it should not be on here, I am truly sorry. Holyguyver 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When a fan uploads their image to a fansite, they still retain copyright, they have merely permitted readers of that site to view the image for free. Wikipedia requires a more permissive definition of copyright than what you have. If you would like to keep the image, please send a message to the photographer requesting permission on terms compatible with Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission. --Dgies 06:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is really no big deal, I just put it there for there to be a picture for that article because the articles talk page said it needed a picture. I really did not mean for it to be the permanit picture for the article, just a stand in until someone could come up with a better one. So I will just delete it now. I am sorry for any inconveniounce. Holyguyver 07:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright I deleted it from the article, you guys can delete the file whenever you guys want. I remain your humble servent Holyguyver 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coolafinalstage.jpg. Image copyright is owned by Toei Animation.
Image:Bleach-ch202-02.png - looks like it was scanned from some manga, and not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Penélope Cruz001.jpg, Image:Alex Breckenridge.jpg, Image:Kay Panabaker.jpg, and Image:Jaime King.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to have created them, although several are obviously screenshots. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Normal 032.jpg - User says that they created the image but did not provide a source for the original or give credit to the work that it was derived from which is more than likely copyrighted. Dismas|^(talk) 20:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:A Litvinenko.jpg - crop from AP's image shot by Alistair Fuller. Apply for permission, please? Reporting that it was previously unattributed to either photographer or agency. —Leather_is^tough 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added photographer/agent info on the main caption. Is that enough to qualify its use as fair? I would not have picked it out if it already had been marked up as from a given and/or valid source after it was uploaded. I located a bureau with a similar picture and I've listed the case here, really just to be checked. The other (hospital) photo has been withdrawn, so try and keep this. Clearly, this one with his book is a derivative of better resolution than the photograph as displayed at observed source. —Leather_is^tough 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the late Mr. Alexander Litvinenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Litvinenko quote: "This image has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on the removal." I would like to respectfully yet clearly add that imho in some situations where an event is suddenly true WORLD NEWS and copied a zillion times, Wikipedia's stance on copyright is simply too strict, and definitely "unworkable". With comments like this one about "pending deletion" Wikipedia is outright discouraging - to me - to post any contributions that would include certain photos or even certain links to immediately related material elsewhere on the web. Because they are deleted around here. My comment goes for the whole of Wikipedia, and not the article about Mr. Litvinenko only. For comparison: you'll have some images here too showing f.e. the moon, or other planets. Are you sure there are no inhabitants in those other worlds, and are you sure that whoever made such pictures legally arranged not to violate any possibly existing copyrights-rules on the Moon, on Mars, on Pluto and Lord knows where else in orbit? Does it take showing up with a court-order here first, in order for Wiki-contributors to show who is entitled to certain copyrights? And how do you deal with disputed copyrights? And how do you deal with very old legacies, and disputes over legacies incl. certain copyrights? Or: for what purposes material is allowed to be used (by the owner of the copyright), and for what purposes nót? Or in short: I find your policy re. commenting on copyrights, threatening to delete images, and deleting photos or even simple links to related material elsewhere, outright discouraging and a wrong kind of censorship for this type of "public encyclopaedia". Why do you invite and allow people to contribute and share information here at all, if you can't live with the fact that in CURRENT EVENT-articles Wiki-users do indeed include one or two highly relevant and well-publicised images or external links? Final quote from this very page while typing my comment: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." => Please be aware that my above quote in italic was taken from a webpage I believe to belong to Wikipedia. Its URL starting with http://en.wikipedia.org I'm not advocating or asking you to allow copyright-violations by way of "policy". I'm asking you to consider how you can stop discouraging potential Wiki-contributors, by chasing them away with your warnings all the time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YakWrit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you on about? I stopped when I got to the moon bit. All our moon photos are suitably/freely licensed, either taken by our contributors or from sources such as NASA (and so public domain). Whether or not people live on the moon is irrelevant, that has nothing to do with copyright. However this photo is fair use. I don't personally think it should be considered replaceble fair use but if there are concerns about the source info then this is a valid issue we must consider Nil Einne 17:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could never have been licensed as it is a press photo. Please see this then this. I think this shows that this image cannot be used Ryanpostlethwaite 02:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is a press agency photo doesn't necessarily mean it won't qualify as fair use. The question is whether its use prevents the agency from exploiting its own copyrighted work for profit. DWaterson 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

Image:Andrew wiles2.jpg tagged as both fair use and CC-BY-SA; these are not compatible. Also, if it's the latter it needs to be attributed, which it isn't. Chick Bowen 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See copyright notice at [6] stating public domain. Please let me know what tags should be used. SureFire 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it says, "We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain and that provided you use them on a website you are unlikely to encounter any difficulty. However, if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems. " That's not exactly a statement of certainty. Please be aware that CD and printed editions are indeed some possible ways for Wikipedia to be published. Chick Bowen 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Coffee house.jpg No evidence that user has rights to release image under creative commons -Nv8200p talk 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LOM.PNG No evidence that user has rights to release image under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 04:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LOPES-telescope-antenna.jpg No evidence that user has rights to release image under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LOURDSSTORM.JPG No evidence that user is the copyright holder as claimed and has any rights to release image under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LOWRES.jpg Appears to be from a commercial source and the upoader has no rights to release as GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 04:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LS2pic.jpg Image is from a commercial website. No evidence user has permission to release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GeorgeCogarPortrait.jpg Dispute source/copyright information. Copyright belongs to the original publisher, not the person who scanned it. --Dgies 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HitlerMatsuoka.jpg claims PD, but does not appear to have been created by the US government. Also from the same user, Image:Mongolsoldier1.PNG is supposedly created by him/her, but no information on who they are is provided, and part of the image is clearly edited to block something about. Taking a guess, it looks like this might be from a cell phone advert or something, with the device poorly blotted out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Seminolesmassacreingwhites.jpg claims PD but source says "(c) Copyright 2003, State University System of Florida." Seems to be a scan of an old PD image. SEWilco 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is a photo of a page from a book/pamphlet published in 1836. The original is clearly in the public domain. The copyright notice in question is at the bottom of the screen, and indicates that the web screen is copyrighted, but does not claim that all of the images are copyrighted. The image in question is an un-modified photo of a two-dimensional object that is in the public domain, and therefore not subject to copyright as a derivative work by the reasoning given in Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works. It is therefore a public domain image. -- Donald Albury 10:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't know the precedents in #Derivative works had been WP-accepted. The image web page makes no mention of copyrights upon the files in their collections. Looks like it is PD and OK. (SEWilco 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Image:AMRAWk.JPG Image copyright is owned by World Wrestling Entertainment-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bulk nomination: Images are copyrighted screenshots, cannot be marked PD-self. True source was a news report on Sun TV (India) All upped by User:Kandyboy --Dgies 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barlowgirl AnotherJournalEntryExpanded.jpg, Image:Krystal34.jpg, and Image:Krystal1.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to be the creator of all, but the first one is obviously a CD cover, the second a screenshot (probably from a music video) and the third one looks like a promo photo. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:La Muerte de Jose Marti Mario Perez.jpg Derivative photo of recent artwork -Nv8200p talk 13:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:La Salette Cross.jpg Image from copyrighted website. No evidence uploader has rights to release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:La quemada.jpg Source listed is a website. No evidence upoaders has rights to release images from the website under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Batmanbegins custom case.jpg taken from a website and passed off as own work. // Liftarn 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The work is taken from MY website and is MY work. My email stored on wiki is the same as the website the picture is taken from if that is the proof you need. All of my information is in the picture description. -Qtip42
Image:Defyant case mod.jpg - ditto. // Liftarn 15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Spider-Man3.jpg, Image:EddieBrock.jpg, and Image:Sandman.jpg - distorted screenshots from Spider-Man 3 that the uploader claims to be the creator of... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Image:Aeta05.jpg image is claimed as public domain, but the source website claims All Rights Reserved[7]. Was tagged with PUI back in August. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aeta07.jpg as above, image is claimed as public domain, but the source website claims All Rights Reserved[8]. Was tagged with PUI back in August. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Image:Edgein.jpg - Source given, http://www.allserialkillers.com/ed_gein.htm, is certainly not the copyright holder, and gives no indication of releasing all rights to it, even if it were. —Angr 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly would the copyright status be for a police photograph? Because the image originated as a police photograph. Bignole 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a US police photograph, I believe it is in the public domain, hence as free as it gets. -- Egil 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since Ed Gein was one of the most horrific murderers in US history, I'd say it is a US police photo; so I would take that to mean that the rights of this photo should not be in question anymore. The only real question is what information does it need. It can't simply survive on just the "public domain" tag, can it? Bignole 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually US police photographs are not necessarily in the public domain; it varies state to state and gets quite complex. This needs to be verified. Chick Bowen 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, he lived in Wisconsin, was arrested in Wisconsin, and the photo was taken in Wisconsin...so...I think we've narrowed the state down. Where would one go to check state police photograph copyrights?? Bignole 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to Document 76 Op. Att'y Gen. 162 (1987) at Wisconsin Legislature Data, only statutes, judicial opinions, and state administrative codes are exempt from copyright under state law. However, that opinion also suggests that copyright has to be claimed in order to be considered valid. In this case, we can have no idea whether copyright has ever been claimed without an official source for the image. I don't mean a site on the net that has it, I mean the actual source of the photograph. I can't find such a site, so I think your only choice would be to e-mail the village of Plainfield, WI --their e-mail is vilplain@uniontel.net--and ask whether police photographs from that era are likely to be under copyright. Chick Bowen 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the email addy, I've emailed them asking about the license for police photographs. Hopefully I'll hear back soon. Bignole 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Simmons2.JPG - tagged public domain but unlikely. Used on an article replacement/nn-bio at John Garrison. Uploader notified. -- nae'blis 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg. This photo was taken in 1904 but neither Lupo nor I has been able to verify the date of publication, and of course its PD status depends on publication rather than creation. See my talk page. I've replaced it in the James Joyce article with a PD-US image. Chick Bowen 19:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally uploaded this image under a fair use claim because of the inability to source the earliest date of publication. While the photograph may not be in the public domain, I think that its usage is consistent with Wikipedia fair use policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SlpCityHall.gif Uploader stated the image came from the city web site. License says from U.S. Govt. That assertion seems highly unlikely. Appraiser 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

Image:Lahishpark 3.jpg No evidence this image is free for use as claimed. -Nv8200p talk 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lahs.jpg From a copyrighted website. No evidence that uploader has any right to release under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fetbru.jpg No evidence source released the image under GFDL. Kimchi.sg 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Image:Lakelizzie.gif Says created using a screen capture. Very likely a map from a copyrighted source. -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Google Maps screenshot. What is the copyright policy for this sort of thing? --Dgies 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image. I see no problem with using my own screenshot of a website. Screenshots of games and anything else is allowed. Weatherman90 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Service are available here. I'm not sure if they're compatible with Wikipedia as we may qualify as a "business user". --Dgies 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Correa.c.jpg.gif Please don't discuss this here, go to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Correa.c.jpg.gif Nil Einne 07:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bay-of-Fires-014.jpg Copyright Infringement Ansett 12:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The uploader says it is their own work and I can't see any reason why not to believe that is the case. -- Barrylb 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look a little more closely at this site, namely [11], you will see they are doing business as "cedventure", which is the same as the username of the uploader claiming copyright. So is probably legit but needs a letter of copyright permission on file, unless there is some shady impersonation happening. --Dgies 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not enough we need to verify it. It does not meet Wikipedia requirements. IT SHOULD BE DELETED. Ansett 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the website owner who has confirmed he is happy for the images to be used here, and he is user "cedventure". I can put the email somewhere once I know the appropriate procedure for doing so. Barrylb 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bruny-Island-068.jpg Copyright Infringement Ansett 12:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above. -- Barrylb 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not enough we need to verify it. It does not meet Wikipedia requirements. IT SHOULD BE DELETED. Ansett 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lamela.jpg Noevidence uploader has rights to release under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lamello Top 20 S3.jpg CV. Same image as here with no evidence user created the image or has rights to release as GFDL-Nv8200p talk 12:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Barcelonaharbour.jpg Dubious claim that the image is publc domain and incorrect PD tag. -Nv8200p talk 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Walq19.jpg. Picture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi tagged GFDL by uploader, but unlikely that uploader has rights to release under GFDL. Dr Zak 14:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:149ha.jpg — uploader gives source as a skyscrapercity.com message board post, but I see no evidence on that page that the image is Free. —Psychonaut 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Image:Annieleibovitz.jpg - uploader added "unit of currency" template of all things to this professionally photographed portrait of a person. Redquark 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AUB Campus.jpg. Listed as {{Attribution}} but the source copyright page says it's for noncommercial distribution only. —Chowbok ☠ 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter Baalbek.jpg. Claimed to be public domain, but I see no indication of that on the copyright holder's website. —Chowbok ☠ 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mazuev at stage.jpg. Listed as {{NoRightsReserved}} but I see no indication of that at the image source page. —Chowbok ☠ 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

Image:Lilacash a.jpg - Listed as PD US Gov, but hosted by Colorado State university, copyrighted by Nebraska University, neither fall under PD-US-Gov. --Dual Freq 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lilacash.jpg - Listed as PD US Gov, but hosted by Colorado State university, copyrighted by Nebraska University, neither fall under PD-US-Gov. --Dual Freq 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Janet Napolitano.jpg - Listed as PD US Gov, but is actually a work of the state of Arizona. —Chowbok ☠ 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SonnyPerdue.jpg - Claimed as PD, but provides no justification. —Chowbok ☠ 21:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Risch.jpg - same as previous.—Chowbok ☠ 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)~~ No longer tagged as public domain. —Chowbok ☠ 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sebelius1.jpg - listed as PD Us Gov, but is actually a work of the state of Kansas. —Chowbok ☠ 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Philb.jpg - as above, from Tennessee. —Chowbok ☠ 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Scr-freudenthalpic.jpg - as above, from Wyoming. —Chowbok ☠ 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

Image:JohnLynch.jpg - as above, from New Hampshire. —Chowbok ☠ 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Brian Schweitzer.jpg - as above, from Montana. —Chowbok ☠ 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Markricks.jpg - as above, from Idaho. —Chowbok ☠ 03:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lgov.jpg - as above, from Indiana. —Chowbok ☠ 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Govjimdouglas.jpg - as above, from Vermont. —Chowbok ☠ 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Govdonaldcarcieri.jpg - as above, from Rhode Island. —Chowbok ☠ 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

Image:Scienceworld.jpg - tagged GFDL-presumed, but the text also states "it can be assumed that this image may copyrighted but free for non-profit public use," which does not follow. The source page no longer exists. howch e ng {chat} 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I uploaded this image a while ago, and it was released under GPL. Therefore, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Thanks, Anthonyyeung 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kobebryantprofile.jpg - Picture claims fair use to illustrate subject of article Kobe Bryant. However, one of the fair use criteria is that there must be no free image alternative. There is a free alternative in this image, which was in place on the article before the copyrighted image was put in its place. Despite having this explicitly explained, User:Wikimania2 continues to revert the copyrighted image (to the point of violating WP:3RR) into the Kobe Bryant article, offering "refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights" as the only justification for doing so. Mwelch 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Native Boy (talk · contribs · email) has re-uploaded (and again mis-tagged as being {{GFDL-self}}) three of the same images that were deleted last month. Image:Aerial okc.jpg is obviously a copyright violation; the image's watermark indicates it is copyrighted [14]. When I contacted the owner shown in the image watermark, he confirmed via email that the image is not free and requested that it be immediately deleted from wikipedia. The other two images are Image:Tulsa skyline.jpg and Image:Downtown okc.jpg, both of which were deleted once before in November. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the third upload for most of these, but I'm holding off on deleting them because the uploader is only sporadically active and may have missed the window of the previous discussions. These images were all previously listed here on October 17 [15]. We should also consider these 5, most of which are also re-uploads

Image:Choctaw capital-museum.jpg

Image:Choctaw HQ.jpg

Image:Bryan hotel.jpg

Image:Bryan county courthouse.jpg

Image:Durant city hall.jpg

I'll say the same thing that I said last time: Unless we hear from the uploader, we should delete them all. I was able to find some of the others on web sites too ([16], [17]), and doubt all of the images' -self tags. ×Meegs 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

Image:Mizan Zainal Abidin.png - tagged GFDL, looks like a promo-photo. --Oden 10:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:The rule.png - tagged GFDL, caption says only allowed on WP. --Oden 10:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:20IMG 4889.jpg tagged GFDL, but source information says not. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mercyme.jpg tagged GFDL, but source information says not. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Natalie Grant.jpg tagged GFDL, but source information says not. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Matthew West.jpg tagged GFDL, but source information says not. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Recesscast.png tagged as public domain but contains copyrighted cartoon characters and (probably) copyrighted photographs. Mahahahaneapneap 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gnaa.png Tagged as public domain, but has trademark logo, and this page[18] says Copyright (c) 2003-2006 Gay Nigger Association of America. No indication that this really is public domain. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I made the image, and as the file upload by ta bi da shi yu clearly states, released it to the public domain. kthx. --timecop 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RayM.jpg and Image:Astor Theatre.jpg. Tagged as PD-self, but the first is obviously a publicity still (signed, no less!) and the second looks like a newspaper image (and has a watermark). The worst part is that these would probably qualify as fair use if the uploader had bothered to record the source and copyright correctly. A look at user's talk page indicates that the uploader (HollywoodGreats (talk · contribs)) has had other similar images deleted. Powers ^T 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Kate Winslet01.jpg tagged as free use, but copied from [19] --Appears to be cut from an image in [20]--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 *[[:Image:Recesscast.png]] tagged as public domain but contains copyrighted cartoon characters and (probably) copyrighted photographs. [[User:Mahahahaneapneap|Mahahahaneapneap]] 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 *[[:Image:Gnaa.png]] Tagged as public domain, but has trademark logo, and this page[http://www.gnaa.us/] says ''Copyright (c) 2003-2006 Gay Nigger Association of America''. No indication that this really is public domain. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
+:Nice try. I made the image, and as the file upload by ta bi da shi yu clearly states, released it to the public domain. kthx. --[[user:timecop|timecop]] 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 *[[:Image:RayM.jpg]] and [[:Image:Astor Theatre.jpg]].  Tagged as PD-self, but the first is obviously a publicity still (signed, no less!) and the second looks like a newspaper image (and has a watermark).  The worst part is that these would probably qualify as fair use if the uploader had bothered to record the source and copyright correctly.  A look at user's talk page indicates that the uploader ({{user|HollywoodGreats}}) has had other similar images deleted.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 *[[:Image:Kate Winslet01.jpg]] tagged as free use, but copied from [http://teemix.aufeminin.com/world/stars/photos__todo=zoom&i=1034&c=6222.html]  --Appears to be cut from an image in [http://www.coolwallpapers.org/celebrities/kate_winslet.php]--[[User:ArmadilloFromHell|<font color="#0000FF">'''Armadillo'''</font><font color="#000000">'''From'''</font><font color="#DD2222">'''Hell'''</font><font color="#AAAAAA">'''GateBridge'''</font>]] 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)