Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr Zak (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 28 May 2007 (→‎May 27). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied"

If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion G12. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}.

If an image is missing source or license information, place either:

or

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 user.

Shortcut

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

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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. 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.

May 13

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.

May 14

All claiming PD-art but that only applies to 2d works, images are of 3d works, no sources in majority of cases so cannot check other copyright Madmedea 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how Image:Ahmose.jpg can be considered 3 dimentional. Thanatosimii 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is of a stele, a carved piece of stone, and therefore is in 3-d.Madmedea 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what the law defines it as, I suppose there's nothing that can be done about it, but strictly speaking, since we exist in 3 dimentional space, all works of art have some deapth to them, and thus there is no such thing as a 2-d work of art whatsoever. Shouldn't the definition of 3-d have to do with whether or not the third dimention actually changes the quality of the intended image, not simply exists as a result of an accidental characteristic of the medium? But if the law is the law... Thanatosimii 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re. the medal-related images listed above. I uploaded these some time ago, at a time when I was less familiar with licensing etc than I am now. The images were scanned from photographs which I found in my photographic library, probably photographs which I took a few years ago. That being the case they are probably {{pd-self}} and I will amend them accordingly.
Xdamrtalk 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took (photo) Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg, from a book on display, but since the contents is clearly PD (and looooog time so) neither I nor anybody else for that matter, can claim copyright of such an image (also not the book I photographed it from). I could have found the image on the web, in a book or on the street. Unless I do something drastically with the image, like a new work, one can’t claim copyright. There is a court case about just this thing – and its on wiki, since I read it here, just can’t remember the name. Will look around for it. Twthmoses 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its this one Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Twthmoses 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PD-art template was misapplied to this photograph. I have changed it to PD-old-70 which probably puts it in PD - may be impossible to confirm though, since the photograph was possible taken by an unknown photographer at a neighborhood studio. Abecedare 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a better license tag but not perfect.... for me probably isn't quite good enough as the photographer could still easily have been alive less than 70 years ago....Madmedea 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I am not trying to claim that the image is indubitably PD. The image though can perhaps be used under FU on some relevant wikipedia pages. By the way, I added the source information to the image page (it is from C. V. Raman's Nobel prize bio) Abecedare 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree there is a fair use argument for illustrating some articles. At the moment a thumbnail is used as part of a stub template which is a little worrying.Madmedea 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correspondence needs to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information.Madmedea 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new image in the same name which doesnt have any license problem.So remove the picture from this list. thanks alot.Sreekanthv 07:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image is claimed as user's own work. No reason to doubt otherwise. WP:AGF. Problem resolved I think.Madmedea 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

But the rest of them aren't. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in this case. MER-C 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Delete them, I removed them from the article. -- Phoenix2 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ash flower images

All of these are used only by permission and could be replaced.

—Remember the dot (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The author has agreed to license the image with CC-BY-SA-2.5 and sent a message to OTRS to that effect. --Para 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 16


May 17

May 18

May 19

Could fair use be argued? --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as unlikely, because rail network maps are normally used in part anyway. I've never seen an official rail network map shown on Wikipedia in whole or in part - it is always necessary to substitute original works that can be correctly released with a suitable licence by their authors. -- Rob.au 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not fair use for illustrating the old alignment of the planned line, it might be for asserting how the line was displayed to the general public. (Please ignore my earlier edit - I read up on copyright law and discovered I was wrong). JRG 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images already exist on the CityRail page. Unfortunately no one has tackled creating a free version as has been done for Zone 1 of London Underground. —Pengo 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is no free version available - it's a photograph of something on a train. JRG 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

  • Image:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.jpg and Image:JustinGuarini concert screencap3(resize1).JPG - no evidence that any image from the cited site is in public domain. Plus, copyright for concert footage belongs to the promoters/venue. --Ytny (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • RESPONSE: No reason the image should be disputed. Read the image description.
      • It's an original image made by me. I'm the original source. I created "public domain" by creating the image and putting it on Wikipedia. Explained when I posted the image.
      • I made a cap from a friend's fan-made video (which is posted on the cited fan site, not the image). There is no copyright issue. The footage doesn't belong to promoters/venue. Once again, already explained in the Image description.
      • I made the image to avoid image disputes. Please don't waste our time. Bkstone 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Questions There's no need to be hostile about it. You hadn't explained that it was a friend's video, just that it's an image capture from a video posted to a website. That said, you have to clarify a few issues.
          1. If it's a friend's video, then the creator of the image is actually your friend, since your friend shot the video which serves as the source from which you created a derivative image. Your friend will have to give permission to use images taken from the video. Can you get permission from your friend to release the video to the public domain or license it as {{GFDL}}? (Also, a link to the original video would be helpful)
          2. But it gets a little complicated because the video was posted to a website. Some sites assume the copyright of user submissions. Some sites don't. Could you point to the site's copyright policies?
          3. What further complicates matters is that some venues and promoters prohibit video recordings of concerts, and own the rights to any recordings from their concerts. Where/when was the concert and what were the recording/reproduction policies? Ytny (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Questions: What is your authority? Do you have a Wiki supervisor? How do I directly contact your (or a) Wiki supervisor? Also, please provide location(s) of Wiki guidelines that specifically address/support your alledged requirements and assertions. Thanks. Bkstone 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • ETA: Haven't heard back from you w/ the information I requested. In the meantime, I spoke to the video owner/website manager where the video is posted. Ready to document permission. However, I was hoping to avoid any more manufactured hoops for us to jump through. Bottom line: The image is tagged for not being "original". By any reasonable use of logic, the image is clearly original since I made it (which was clearly explained initially). To be frank, this dispute feels done more for your amusement rather than for any legitimate concern. That's why I'm worried you will keep manufacturing requirements and making demands that are unwarranted, no matter what we do. So, I wanted the information I requested. If I'm wrong about your motivations, accept my apology. However, I still want the info I requested. Thanks. Bkstone 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no authority and I have no supervisor. I just happen to be relatively knowledgeable about copyright. If you don't believe me, you could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... or talk to a copyright attorney, I guess, but this is all basic copyright stuff. I think you're confused because you "created" the image file, but the image itself isn't your creation. For the purposes of copyright, you didn't "create", but extracted an image from someone else's work and created a derivative image. But really, it would be to your benefit to to give more information on the image, so I can help you determine its copyright status. Who took the video? Where was the video taken? Where was it posted (i.e. is there a link to the original video) Ytny (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I was previously told that making a screencap from a free source was the safe route, and the current image accepted when posted to replace last disputed image. The line keeps being moved. Thus, the frustration. See updated Image page. The video maker posted permission/explanation. She took a few free minutes away from her family vacation this morning to do so. I do not wish to bother her again. Plenty of information/links are provided. It's one screencap from a friend's vid. Look at other AI pages, there would seem to be far more legitimate image concerns than this one. Bkstone 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

  • Looks like a picture of a store to me. Japan does have limited freedom of panorama but it doesn't appear to allow commercial use. Despite this, it looks like a storefront and not just a sculpture. N 03:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not look like a picture of a storefront to me at all. I think it's obvious that the whole point of this image is the (presumably copyrighted) Gorie sculpture, as the photo is only located at the Gorie article.--Pharos 10:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tile changes from white to brownish right at the glass cage, and to the left is a register counter. Looks like a storefront in a mall to me. And of course the huge gaping statue in the middle. I'm neutral on whether that makes it a derivative work. N 10:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course it's in a storefront. My point is that it's the intent and focus of the photo that makes this a derivative work. It's a pretty clear-cut case in my opinion.--Pharos 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Derivative work - if I put up a poster of mickey mouse in the front of the shop and take a picture of it - I don't automatically obtain copyright of it. Megapixie 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Bono_honolulu.jpg - No evidence that this copyrighted image is freely licensed. Iamunknown 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Carol Lay.gif - Permission email subject says "Request for Wikipedia Image"; Response says "I'm very pleased to have an entry in Wikipedia. Attached is an image you may use with no restrictions." Request for Wikipedia? I thought we had to make it clear that the images we use aren't just for Wikipedia only? Isn't this a classic case of "Wikipedia Only" permission not being good/free enough? (Making this image a candidate for speedy deletion?) Jenolen speak it! 09:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No restrictions means we can WP:AGF that it's PD. N 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the original e-mail request, which should hopefully clarify matters. Please take a look. By the way, Jenolen, it's extremely poor form to list an image here without informing the original uploader. I wonder why you would do such a thing? Hmm... I note that you have never listed an image before, and are pointing to a image I nominated for deletion previously... not to mention you've been extremely critical of image deletions up to now, and have fought me tremendously both on my talk page and on my RfC. If I wasn't assuming godd faith, I might be tempted to think this was directed personally at me. But of course you wouldn't suddenly turn 180-degrees on your principles just to violate WP:Point, now would you? —Chowbok ☠ 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding was that "poor form" would only apply if I were nominating an image for deletion -- I didn't think simply asking, "Hey, isn't this the sort of thing that gets deleted?" required notification. (Lord knows plenty of people have picked over my contributions without telling my squat...) But of course now, I see the snazzy template that another editor added to the image page; honestly, I didn't know there was a template for listing an image here, and yes, I can read it, and yes, I see that it says "notify." But I didn't put that template on the image page -- so believe me, I didn't know there was a "notify the uploader" requirement -- I thought this page was a lot less formal than images for deletion. As for how this particular image ended up here, I know you'll find this hard to believe, but it was a random selection -- I was looking through a group of head-shot style images, and trying to figure out why some are deleted and others aren't. Believe me, the irony that you were involved in the procurement of this image wasn't lost on me! But it wasn't altogether unsurprising; the number of times I've recognized an editor's name on some seemingly random page has made me realize the active contributor base for Wikipedia is perhaps much smaller than I had envisioned. As for having "fought you," please don't mistake yourself for Wikipedia policy; they are not one and the same. As for the actual permission issue in question here, I am legitimately curious -- had the Rodney Tom photo been accompanied by an e-mail (and not a phone call, which I agree, is dodgy) saying "we hold the copyrights, but go ahead and do what you want with them," would that image have been kept, as this one was? Jenolen speak it! 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Jang.jpg fantastic image, but the upload has not responded with the permission details/verification. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, discussion also ongoing: here and here. - Francis Tyers · 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an excelent image that represents such an importent war for the Midleast. I have changed the image tag to that of a one that I think is more suited for it. The image may not be in the public domain but like one other Wikipedia user said, images made by the Iranians are under their law free and in the public domain 30 years after they are made, so there is at least another 5-6 years before the image is in the public domain. I think in this case we should let this image be keept because of the representation of the article of the war.Top Gun
Comment There is clearly written in Persian that all of the contents comprising articles, news, audio files, pictures, etc have been published under GFDL.[15]

باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده بلامانع است. «کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is clearly written in Persian that all of the contents comprising articles, news, audio files, pictures, etc have been published under GFDL.[16]

باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده بلامانع است. «کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that the author of the site has the copyright on the images? - Francis Tyers · 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I prove it? Even if I asked them, how could you be informed? I guess such questions can be asked about most of the images in the wikipedia.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could scan some images out of a magazine, put them on a personal site on the internet, claim they are under the GPL and then upload them to Wikipedia. That would be a copyright violation. You could give an email by the photographer, naming him stating that the works are his, when/where he took them and the licence. - Francis Tyers · 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photo[17] is taken by "Saeed Janbozorgi" in "Halabchi in 1988". Janbozorgi was one of the victims of chemical weapons and dead in 2002. Therefor I can't find and ask him whether he agrees or not. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably need to make enquiries with his estate. - Francis Tyers · 08:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that website is related to Iranian Government and the photographer with a very high probability was an employee of it. That website is a completely recognized government affiliated website and you can not label it as "personal site", and as you can see they have clearly claimed the rights of that picture and has released it under GFDL. I sincerely can not understand this copyright paranoia. --Pejman47 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why the above paragraph is still unanswered? if it will remain in this status I will remove the tag. --Pejman47 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't particularly interested in "possibilities". Just because it is a government site does not mean it respects copyrights, in fact it is probably less likely to. We need:
  1. Source like a web link.
  2. Date of creation. If the former is unknown, date of publication.
  3. Author(s) of the file.
  4. If you're not the author: Permission of author (not of the site it was published on) — also forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org and state the ticket ID.
If these conditions are met, I suggest you upload it to commons:, otherwise it should be deleted. - Francis Tyers · 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Image:Maroon5Promotional.jpg - Was originally tagged as a screen shot from a music video, which I don't believe it to be. Upload summary states it's a "Wallpaper" from the band's website. Considering they are living people who still tour, a free image of the group could easily be obtained. Additionally, the image is not depicting anything specific. Am I right in thinking this image should be deleted? --LaraLoveT/C 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe this image should be deleted or considered un-free. It is freely available to the public on the Maroon 5 website as a computer desktop wallpaper and therefore fully viewable by the public. It does not cost money to download and use. You do not need to create an account in order to download the image. People are encouraged to inform others and to distribute the wallpaper. Maroon 5 and their associated label are not losing any revenue as a result of the use of the image on this Wiki article. Richardmhenry 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The image, in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, illustrates "the person(s), product, event, or subject in question". In addition, this is a freely distributed promotional image as I explained above. Richardmhenry 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The image clearly illustrates the band and each band member, which live images do not do well at all. Especially since James Valentine and Mickey Madden have a habit of looking very similar from a distance. I think this is a case of 'perhaps a better image could be found'. But I feel this image need not be deleted, it is not 'un-free' and not a violation of US copyright law or International copyright law. Richardmhenry 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, as the image is simply used to depict living persons it is considered fully replaceable and therefore not eligbile for inclusion under the terms of fair use. Madmedea 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like it does have a general license, but whether or not derivative works are permitted is unclear. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied the Cheeky Girls image since the user blanked its summary. However, he also blanked this discussion and reverted all the PUI tags on the other images. I will leave a warning. --Coredesat 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

I'll second that. Who would produce a high quality photograph - print it - and then take a low quality digital photograph of it ? Megapixie 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. A friend took this picture for me with a camera phone. It's not digitally altered at all. cave 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped an email to the copyright holder suggesting he use Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright to get it removed. Maybe a scan of a postcard. Megapixie 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly, uploader claims in edit summary: Image captured by me from KETV news broadcast - 1991. I believe this is a fair use image for all of the following reasons cited in the fair use policy: Though this image is subject to copyright, I feel its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because. I believe this is enough, and I will be bold and change the license to FU, then do {{rfu}} The Evil Spartan 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

May 24

Now tagged as GFDL, but there is no evidence supporting this. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permission was received to OTRS from the photographer to license the image as CC-BY-SA-2.5, and I tagged it accordingly. --Para 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that:
all clearly not pd-self. The Evil Spartan 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

May 26

May 27

You're missing the point - why would such an image have a copyright notice on it? Either it needs to disappear to not give false impressions on copyright status or the image is non-free and should disappear altogether. MER-C 12:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The JE's copyright note is bogus. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is unambiguous, you can't claim copyright on reproductions of 2D artwork, not matter how much skill went into the reproduction. And if this was commissioned by the Encyclopedia itself it has now fallen out of copyright. Dr Zak 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=134150021"