Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
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.
May 13
- Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg - Used by permission only, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2007 (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.
May 14
- Image:Snodin Ian.jpg - dubious free use claim. Punkmorten 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's looking like a newspaper scan to me so the original source is probably breaching copyright as well as the WP image. Madmedea 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AlexanderJannaeus.gif, Image:AlexanderJannaeus.jpg, Image:Ahmose.jpg, Image:C Alba.jpg, Image:Cleopatra VII coin.jpg,
Image:Balticrev.png, Image:Crimea1854rev.png,Image:Cynethwkrev.jpg, Image:Cynethwkobv.jpg, Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg, Image:Siddharta Gautama.jpg, Image:GandharaBuddha.jpg, Image:Harthacnut.gif, Image:Hippostratos.jpg,Image:IndMutinyrev.png, Image:Indian1854GSMobv.png, Image:Indian1936GSMrev.png, Image:Jade Ruyi.jpg
- 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)
- I fail to see how Image:Ahmose.jpg can be considered 3 dimentional. Thanatosimii 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image is of a stele, a carved piece of stone, and therefore is in 3-d.Madmedea 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- The image is of a stele, a carved piece of stone, and therefore is in 3-d.Madmedea 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see how Image:Ahmose.jpg can be considered 3 dimentional. Thanatosimii 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- I think its this one Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Twthmoses 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman.gif - the chap in this image was born in 1888 so I think there is a fairly good chance that the photographer who took this image has not been dead for 100 years. No source is given so its impossible to check Madmedea 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Image:F 30596 1.jpg - modern photograph uploaded as PD-art. No source so impossible to check copyright. Madmedea 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Radio_Active_-_Good_Day_Sport_excerpt.ogg - BBC (C) - Longer than 30 secs ShakespeareFan00 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rambling_Syd_Rumpo_excerpt.ogg - BBC (C) - Longer than 30 secs ShakespeareFan00 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Round_The_Horne_excerpt.ogg - BBC (C) - Still aring BBC7? ShakespeareFan00 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sandbaggers_theme.ogg - TV Cream was asked to remove a number of themes persuant to rights issues and complied ShakespeareFan00 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Images-4-.jpg - no idea what this is, but it sure as heck hasn't been taken by a photographer who has been dead for 100 years, the same applies to the image of Che Guevara which the latest uploader overwrote. Madmedea 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mani Madhava Chakyar.jpg - I doubt this picture (which was used in many newspapers, as the uploader claims) is really GFDL. Definition of author is unclear: does the uploader mean the subject or himself. If the latter, a different GFDL-template should be used to make things clear.Errabee 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)- Uploader answered on talk page, but I'm still not entirely satisfied. Errabee 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was not aware how to license a book cover when i uploaded Image:Nātyakalpadrumam.jpg, thats why i put GFDL, but i don't know how that is creating suspicion to you! i made a mistake without knowing it, now you edited it back great. so problem is over right?Sreekanthv 10:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. If the family gave you permission to use this picture freely, I would like to see that in writing. If this is not presented, any newspaper could claim you copied it from them. Errabee 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then i will come up with a new photo or a written permission. in case of written permission how i am supposed to show it to you? i hope now the problem with Image:Nātyakalpadrumam.jpg is over.Sreekanthv 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. If the family gave you permission to use this picture freely, I would like to see that in writing. If this is not presented, any newspaper could claim you copied it from them. Errabee 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was not aware how to license a book cover when i uploaded Image:Nātyakalpadrumam.jpg, thats why i put GFDL, but i don't know how that is creating suspicion to you! i made a mistake without knowing it, now you edited it back great. so problem is over right?Sreekanthv 10:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader answered on talk page, but I'm still not entirely satisfied. Errabee 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Image:Carl_Mydans.jpg - Source indicates that image "may be restricted". It is unknown if this is a work of the US government. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kryptonian alphabet.jpg - No evidence that this image has been released under the GFDL. http://inventurous.net/ states "COPYRIGHT © 2004 DARREN DOYLE". —Remember the dot (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sadat.jpg - definitely not eligible for PD-art, source link does not point to image so actual copyright status unclear. Madmedea 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Paul Adelstein from Prison Break.jpg Licensed CC, but looks like promo. Also, source link broken. tiZom(2¢) 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Chinju.jpg Like the other (now deleted) images that were taken from this site, the editor makes a claim of no copyright, but no proof to back this up. Komdori 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:SSR.jpg - modern colour photo claiming Pd-art, no source to verify actual copyright status. Madmedea 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- This image is not used and is actually a duplicate of Image:Santosh.jpg, although an older version of this latter reveals an entirely different image. Errabee 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Image Santosh.jpg then also needs its copyright examined as well so I have tagged it. Although tagged GFLD with no source information that's impossible to verify. I've let the uploader know Madmedea 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:NicholasCourtney2005NOtxt.JPG - Used by permission only, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:SK1.gif - Used by permission only, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Omsi african crab.gif - The uploader tagged this with several copyright tags before settling on {{copyrighted}}. The image is replaceable and should probably be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Take_It_From_Here_excerpt.ogg - BBC (C) - Still airing (BBC 7)? ShakespeareFan00 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Agnesdrandolph.jpg - Unknown author. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Woodson70s.jpg - Unknown author and date of publication. [1] says that Julian Belmont Woodson died in 1963, so pictures taken of him could still be copyrighted. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Wall Drug 9333 Miles.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
May 15
Image:Picnic9yb.jpg - Claimed to be released in the public domain, but it's a professional-looking piece of art, used only on the user page of a user (KarmaCentral (talk · contribs)) with only 5 edits (all to the user page). Looks like the work of an artist named KuKula (see [http:www.sourharvest.com/thinkspace/smitten/works.php here for samples]) swiped for use on a vanity page. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Unquestionably a copyvio, of "Tea for Anna" at http://www.kukulaland.com/. So tagged. --Calton | Talk 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:HildeJohnson.gif - Used by permission only, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Dixoncourtroom.jpg - Closely resembles (but is not an exact copy of) a smaller image found here (among other similar images of the same room found on swlaw.edu, which can be found with "Dixon Courtroom" at Google Image). Source given as Southwestern Law School itself, whose material is certainly copyrighted. The image does have camera metadata, but the GFDL tag does not identify the uploader as the creator. I don't think this is a clear-cut case, but it would be good to be sure. –Unint 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it looks identical to the image you say it resembles, but is higher resolution. I don't think this higher resolution version is available anywhere else on the web. I would WP:AGF and ask uploader on talk to clarify image source and release. Nardman1 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the perspective looked different, but it looks like this may just be because the larger image was also cropped. Meanwhile, the uploader has had no edits since early April and I have received no reply to my message on talk. –Unint 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it looks identical to the image you say it resembles, but is higher resolution. I don't think this higher resolution version is available anywhere else on the web. I would WP:AGF and ask uploader on talk to clarify image source and release. Nardman1 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Marcsalmoncaptain.jpeg and Image:Dr. Martens Stand.jpeg - appear to be web images, and user has uploaded several images from the web as GFDL-self. --Ytny (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Horsfall Chapel from Bullpaddock.gif - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Horsfall Chapel and Organ.gif - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Matthew-hemingway-2004.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Qc2k2.ym.2002-08-16.272.levelord-appears.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Southafrican.arp.750pix.jpg - Used by permission only, replaceable, Image:South.african.b747-400.zs-sax.arp.jpg can be used instead. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LCI cosmo.JPG - unfree because subject is a 2D copyrighted piece of art. MER-C 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:LCI Art.jpg - unfree due to large portion of composition being non-free copyrighted art. MER-C 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this day is starting to suck very quickly. I suppose I can't argue the other one, but the image is still unfree even without the consent of the owner? One of them is mine anyway... --Phoenix 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the rest of them aren't. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in this case. MER-C 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- So be it. Delete them, I removed them from the article. -- Phoenix2 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the rest of them aren't. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in this case. MER-C 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kieranmccarthy.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Paul Tyler.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Futura.b737.anet.arp.750pix.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Raphael Hernandez runway.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ross930Fleet.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rodsmall.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Distance1.gif - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nostoc AZOLLAE.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
May 16
- Photos uploaded by User:Muslim7:
- Image:Ajjkj.jpg, GFDL claimed but no source.
- Image:Bint jbail map.jpg, maps from the BBC are not released as GFDL
- Image:YMA.jpg, no source
- Image:Normal aad.jpg, person depicted disappeared in 1978, no source for GFDL claim.
- Thuresson 10:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Photos uploader by User:Jaber:
- Image:Hjaber.jpg, photo from the 1960s, unlikely to have been created by uploader / Owned by uploader, not created by uploader.
- Image:Alsafa.jpg, person depicted died 1945, unlikely to have been created by uploader / Owned by uploader
- Image:Generaljaber.jpg, copyvio from a web site. / Website not subject to copyright
- Image:Moussasader.jpg, person depicted disappeared in 1978, unlikely that uploader took this photo. / Uploader owns this photo
- Thuresson 10:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above request was removed from this page by User:Jaber777 on May 16.
- Twice. User is now edit warring over the puidisputed tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the people in question died long ago, isn't someone destined to own their pictures?Jaber777 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The photographer or his heirs. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the people in question died long ago, isn't someone destined to own their pictures?Jaber777 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Twice. User is now edit warring over the puidisputed tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above request was removed from this page by User:Jaber777 on May 16.
- Image:3JuniusStreet.JPG - Wrongly tagged, no licensing information on source site. grendel|khan 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ariane 5 to launchpad DSC 0430.jpg - Non-free image copyrighted by ESA. This needs to have a fair use claim in order to be kept, however free licensed alternatives seem possible since the facility is open to visitors. --Sherool (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:ESA-Kourou-spaceport-port-02222.jpg - Non-free image copyrighted by ESA. This needs to have a fair use claim in order to be kept, however free licensed alternatives seem possible since the facility is open to visitors. --Sherool (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
May 17
- Image:Cr-So th.jpg - looks like it has been lifted from a campaign/government site. Upload log says "Obtained from City of Melbourne government website."--Peta 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MS SwaminathanC.jpg; from UN, as far as I can tell these UN images are copyrighted and are not available under a cc license. --Peta 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Golden Langur, kaziranga.jpg and Image:Elephants, kaziranga.jpg; cc 2.0 no derivatives; non-free licence. --Peta 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Hyannis Port.jpg more incorrect and unfree cc images from flickr.--Peta 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Neelakurinji.jpg flickr link is bogus; if the image is from the listed user, then it is not freely licenced at all. --Peta 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rosa rugosa LadyCurzon .jpg lifted from listed external site; nothing to confirm this image is cc licenced. --Peta 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Perumalai.jpg, source site states it is copyrighted. No evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to the applied licenses. --Peta 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tirparappu Water Falls.jpg, Image:Imperial crown of India.jpg, Image:Kuntipuzha-river.jpg, Image:TN Crocodile Locations.gif, no evidence for the license applied by the uploader. --Peta 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Three_Eras_-_Houston.jpg - image source says non-commercial: [2] MER-C 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I thought Wikipedia was non-commercial. I've sent an e-mail to the artist, Tom Haymes on flickr.com, to see if he will provide an acceptable license. --Evb-wiki 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Haymes has graciously modified the license on the flickr page here to {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}}. I hope that will do. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- This has been resolved. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Haymes has graciously modified the license on the flickr page here to {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}}. I hope that will do. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I thought Wikipedia was non-commercial. I've sent an e-mail to the artist, Tom Haymes on flickr.com, to see if he will provide an acceptable license. --Evb-wiki 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Yulia Tymoshenko in Parliament — 31 October 2006.jpg, only for use in Wikipedia and only in articles of "proper quality". Thuresson 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose deletion the image is properly tagged with "According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights this work is in the public domain within Ukraine because it is one of the following: (a) daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information" and is released to Wikipedia by the photographer, in the sourcing. Chris 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a photo, not a current event, bus schedule, folk art nor a court decree. There is no evidence or even a claim that the photographer has released this to Wikipedia. Thuresson 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose deletion the image is properly tagged with "According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights this work is in the public domain within Ukraine because it is one of the following: (a) daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information" and is released to Wikipedia by the photographer, in the sourcing. Chris 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:0558869.jpg - tagged as {{PD-release}} but no evidence is provided to support this claim. Image information is correct - located at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0558869/M/ and taken by a M Radzi Desa. However immediately underneath the image on the source page is this statement: "this photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission".Madmedea 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:114167290 6f6034acaa.jpg - source from flickr where it is "all rights reserved".Madmedea 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:1244560267 m.jpg - tagged as {{PD-release}} but no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Madmedea 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sqtt.jpg - This is a scan of a timetable published by Singapore Airlines (SIA). SIA holds all copyrights to any artwork. It has been uploaded as {{Non-free magazine cover}}, yet it is being used in articles to illustrate the Concorde, not the timetable. What is needed is a free image of SIA Concorde. --Russavia 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. SIA operated the Concorde for only a period of months in 1978. It's impossible to go back in time and take another picture. I've added a fair use rationale which should suffice. Nardman1 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just a couple of comment. Just because the timetables were given out for free, this does not negate any copyrights that SIA has on that timetable, nor on the artwork contained on the timetable, nor does it preclude SIA wanting to profit from those rights at any stage in the future. Most importantly, whilst SIA may own the trademark/copyright to their logos and colours, if the photographer is not trespassing on SIA property, and is publicly visible, i.e. at an airport or in the air, any photos taken are fair game, and the photographer can do with as he/she likes, give away or sell - American Airlines tried the "you are breaching our trademark" line in regards to photos, and they were swiftly sent packing. So having said that, there are photos which could be non-free, such as [3] and [4], but it is up to those photographers as to if they want to release them. --Russavia 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. SIA operated the Concorde for only a period of months in 1978. It's impossible to go back in time and take another picture. I've added a fair use rationale which should suffice. Nardman1 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:12oz.jpg - claims {{PD-release}}, no supporting evidence. Scan of magazine cover, link to magazine website states "all rights reserved".Madmedea 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:1tro.JPG - claims {{PD-release}}, no supporting evidence. Described as scan from book, photo dates to 1940 so can't be PD-old. Madmedea 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:2002tf-ArcusProject.jpg - claims {{PD-release}}, no supporting evidence. Asian Cultural Council [5] where the image may be from claims copyright.Madmedea 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:23621.jpg - looks like a professional headshot, not convinced this is in the public domain. Tagged {{PD-release}} but no supporting evidence provided.Madmedea 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: you can get those for like twenty bucks at Sears. Nardman1 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- That may be true... but I'm not sure that I'd class that as supporting evidence that the copyright holder has released it into the public domain though....Madmedea 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really. What I should have mentioned is that the professionalness of the shot should in no way be used to infer where the image came from. I don't see any solid evidence it's been released either. Nardman1 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not evidence but it raises my suspicions as with the photo below. That's all. Lack of supporting evidence is the key.Madmedea 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really. What I should have mentioned is that the professionalness of the shot should in no way be used to infer where the image came from. I don't see any solid evidence it's been released either. Nardman1 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- That may be true... but I'm not sure that I'd class that as supporting evidence that the copyright holder has released it into the public domain though....Madmedea 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: you can get those for like twenty bucks at Sears. Nardman1 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:291433 V.Kostunica-009.jpg - ooks like a professional photo, not convinced this is in the public domain. Tagged {{PD-release}} but no supporting evidence provided.Madmedea 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Tag has been changed to {{PD-SerbiaGov}} and ({{PUIdisputed}} removed) but no source or supporting evidence yet. I'm going to ask the User for it.Madmedea 08:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:2ndoza.jpg - not at all clear what the cut and pasted license statement actually means, but it doesn't look like public domain to me. Any ideas? Madmedea 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Original website appears to be [6]. By "database" I think they mean a compilation of information about go tournaments or players. The license is hard to parse, but it looks like it may allow commercial use, but not derivative works. Definitely non-free. Nardman1 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:3030-mag.jpg - tagged as {{PD-release}} from a website. Unfortunately source website states "Website ©2007 Archaeo-Physics LLC. Unless otherwise noted, materials from this website may be reproduced for nonprofit educational purposes; please cite or link to source page.". This is definitely not PD and Wikipedia requires release for all purposes, including commercial. Madmedea 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:14badgesmall.gif, Image:405sqn small.jpg, Image:413badge.gif, Image:415sqn small.JPG, Image:434sqn.jpg - all from same website and from same uploader. Claims permission and {{PD-release}} - no evidence provided and website copyright statement is a little mixed [7] but definitely prohibits commercial use. Madmedea 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:51NorthQuayTower1 pic1.jpg and Image:53RiversideSouthTower1 pic1.jpg - claims {{PD-release}} but no supporting evidence. Madmedea 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:5CSL.jpg - not convinced that "distressing" a book cover (through use) generates a new copyright....Madmedea 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image claims direct release by author, which is doubtable. Nardman1 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doubt it all you want, but I own the copyright, and I have licensed it. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the publishing company owns the rights to the book (as you seem to say), then you as the author's heir would not have any special privileges, and this is still a derivative work. Am I missing something?--Pharos 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Epopt: No you don't, therefore you haven't done so validly. Let's assume for the sake of argument the absurd claim that "distressing" a book cover is sufficient to merit a copyright is actually not so absurd. Let's also assume that you really did inherit that copyright along with the physical book, which may or may not be true. It would still be a derivative work. The copyright holder of the original cover art, the publisher, is the only one who is able by law to authorize derivative works. Since this one is unauthorized, the entire copyright still belongs to the publisher. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fortunately, your absurd opinion, Csernica, is of no legal worth whatsoever. However, I have tagged the image with the same fair-use tag that allows inclusion of, e.g., the Harry Potter book covers. Since this book is much rarer than the Potter books (as my royalty checks prove) this image has a much stronger claim to fair use than those other cover images do. ➥the Epopt 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doubt it all you want, but I own the copyright, and I have licensed it. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image claims direct release by author, which is doubtable. Nardman1 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:ACF7A6D.JPG - claims {{PD-release}} but no supporting evidence or source.Madmedea 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:ACF7A6D.JPG - claims {{PD-release}} but no supporting evidence or source.Madmedea 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
May 18
- Image:Bill Hicks The Man in the Trench-Coat'.png - "fan art", apparent collage of at least one image not able to be licenced by the uploader as self-made public domain. Deiz talk 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BathSchoolMuseumflag.jpg - With permission only. Might be {{PD-US}}, but no such proof. Bryan 09:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:7stones.jpg - confusingly tagged as {{PD-release}} and {{PD-self}} but no evidence that uploader is creator. Artists websites clearly claims copyright [8].Madmedea 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:87009.jpg and Image:66016.jpg - tagged as {{PD-release}} although I think the uploader is probably the author of the images so they should be {{PD-self}}. However, I'm pretty sure that the models and their packaging probably carry their own copyright and therefore images of them could only be used under Fair use with a rationale.Madmedea 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Abu Anees.jpg - tagged as {{PD-release}} although no supporting evidence provided. Source link actually leads to an entirely different image. Madmedea 10:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:FH-Vikingur_4-0_islandsmeistarar_018_(39).jpg - No statement of permission for license terms, fair use may apply MECU≈talk 13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:8 May 2007.JPG] - tagged as {{PD-release}} and image summary includes a claim of correspondence with the source website (which claims a general copyright at the bottom of the home page). I've asked the user to provide this evidence to Wikipedia but apparently the email has been deleted. Unfortunately without this I feel the copyright is still unverified.Madmedea 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- These are photos of William Hawi. The uploader, who presents herself to be 31 years old (eg. born 1975 or 1976), claims to have created these photos of William Hawi, who died in 1976.
- Image:4all.jpg
- Image:4-tal-zaatar.jpg
- Image:2pierre.jpg
- Image:3intikhabatb.jpg
- Image:Avec-bachir2.jpg
- Image:William4s.jpg
- Image:William3s.jpg
- Image:William1s.jpg
- Image:William6ss.jpg
- Image:William6s.jpeg
- Image:4anniversaireb s.jpg - This photo is apparently from 1977 but the uploader, born 1975-1976, claims to be the creator
- Image:4bechir.jpg - Photo of Bachir Gemayel who was killed in 1982. Unlikely that uploader created this.
- Thuresson 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm odd one this. Even if she didn't create them she may hold the copyright - if she inherited them, but of course that is very difficult to prove. Definitely should then be {{PD-release}} and with an explanation of the provenance of the images.Madmedea 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me add that the uploader presents herself as a relative of the depicted person ([9]). AFAIK she does not claim to be a relative or heir of the photographer/s. Thuresson 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- She doesn't claim to be the photographer, the photos are from her family album. I don't think there is any problem with the copyright. Lizrael 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The important point is: has the photographers/copyright owners released these photos under GFDL? Nobody has claimed that they did. Thuresson 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a bunch a jiberish to me. I am the Granddaughter of the "deceased" as you put it. These pictures belong to my mother who is the "deceased"'s only child. They belong in my family album and are also being reprinted in my mother's biography of her father being published as we speak. So what would be the correct, i dunno, classification to post the pix on wikipedia??Jinanez 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, the pictures are over 30 years old and i dont see why i need anyone's permission to post pictures of my own grandfather. Do you need permission to show people your family album? Also, who knows who the hell is the photographer of what picture? it could be my mother, my grandmother or anyone of my family or even an outsider. The pictures are in my family album therefore they have been released to my family. Jinanez 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the copyright classification needs to be corrected than please advise what is the correct classification to do so. Also, i suggest adding more explanation about the different options to picture posters for us copyright dummies. Jinanez 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is separate from ownership of a physical copy of a photo. In Lebanon, copyright expires 50 years after publication, not 30 years. See Template:PD-Lebanon. Thuresson 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Still I have no idea what you require of me. These pictures are actual photographs of my grandfather in my possession. They are not part of any publication as yet but soon will be published in William Hawi's biography written by his only child (my mother). Please clarify your request.Jinanez 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is separate from ownership of a physical copy of a photo. In Lebanon, copyright expires 50 years after publication, not 30 years. See Template:PD-Lebanon. Thuresson 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The important point is: has the photographers/copyright owners released these photos under GFDL? Nobody has claimed that they did. Thuresson 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- She doesn't claim to be the photographer, the photos are from her family album. I don't think there is any problem with the copyright. Lizrael 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me add that the uploader presents herself as a relative of the depicted person ([9]). AFAIK she does not claim to be a relative or heir of the photographer/s. Thuresson 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm odd one this. Even if she didn't create them she may hold the copyright - if she inherited them, but of course that is very difficult to prove. Definitely should then be {{PD-release}} and with an explanation of the provenance of the images.Madmedea 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Liam_posing.jpg - appears to be professional image, web resolution, no statement of permission, used for joke MECU≈talk 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- As this is an orphan, it might be worth just nominating this for deletion with {{ifd}}.Madmedea 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Camillechamoun.jpg. Uploader claims it is public domain because it comes from [10]. There is no information about the year or name of the photographer. Thuresson 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I swear you're following me ;) I was just looking at this one when I ran out of tagging steam! Not convinced by the license. Madmedea 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- When you pick up speed again, all the photos of the Lebanese presidents seem to have dodgy licenses :) Thuresson 22:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I swear you're following me ;) I was just looking at this one when I ran out of tagging steam! Not convinced by the license. Madmedea 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Riigivapimark.jpg - The image appears to be a three-dimensional object and, as such, I think the photographer would hold a copyright; no copyright holder or source, however, is indicated, so I am unsure whether the Template:PD-Coa-Estonia copyright tag is appropriately applied. Iamunknown 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
May 19
- Image:Matthaeus.jpg from [11] who do not release the content under GFDL. Thuresson 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AJAMA 404.PNG contains Windows and Firefox interface components and therefore can not be PD'd. Not particularly useful aside from that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Medschool.jpg - not public domain as per [12] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Carrarafemalechastitybelt1.jpg, Image:Carrarachastitybelt3.jpg, Image:Carrarachastitybelt4.jpg, Image:Carrarachastitybelt5.jpg, Image:Carrarachastitybelt6.jpg and Image:Carrarachastitybelt7.jpg. Set of images which were lifted from this page. "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any noncommercial purpose." --85.214.60.31 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:CityRail map WM to StL.jpg - image is a photograph of a copyrighted work, a portion of the CityRail network map, most likely an earlier version displayed in a train carriage. Copyright of the current CityRail network map [13] is held by RailCorp. -- Rob.au 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could fair use be argued? --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So what? There is no free version available - it's a photograph of something on a train. JRG 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:American_B752.jpg - The uploader indicates that it is from http://www.airliners.net/, but that he or she owns a copy; this language doesn't definitively mean its a copyvio or not, but its certainly unclear, so I'm dropping it here at WP:PUI. Iamunknown 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Ebe1 alien.jpg the evidence that this is from a goverment source is patchy at best.Geni 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- RESPONSE: No reason the image should be disputed. Read the image description.
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)
- Image:Avia bh21.jpg claims to be pd-100, but (a) is typical of the colour profiles that appear in contemporary aviation publications, and (b) illustrates an aircraft that would not actually be built until 1924, 18 years after the purported illustrator's death... --Rlandmann 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Richard_Lieber.jpg - Taken from web site of state of Indiana, but tagged PD-USGov. Sorry, but Indiana is NOT the US Federal Government. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was not sure how best to categorize it. I still think it qualifies as usable by Wikipedia.--Bedford 06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it was first published before 1923 or the creator died 70+ years ago, it would be in the public domain in the USA - but I can't see anything on the source page to confirm this. Otherwise you need to seek permission of the copyright owner. Try sending an email to the website and ask if they hold the copyright and if they will consider releasing the image under GFDL - or if they know how old it is and when it was first published. Details of how to request permission can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Madmedea 15:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The copying, redistribution, use or publication by you of any such materials or any part of the Portal, except as allowed for in the Limited Right to Use section below, is strictly prohibited. - from [14]. However, you are correct, it may be older than 1923, and each portal on the site sometimes has different licenses. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it was first published before 1923 or the creator died 70+ years ago, it would be in the public domain in the USA - but I can't see anything on the source page to confirm this. Otherwise you need to seek permission of the copyright owner. Try sending an email to the website and ask if they hold the copyright and if they will consider releasing the image under GFDL - or if they know how old it is and when it was first published. Details of how to request permission can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Madmedea 15:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was not sure how best to categorize it. I still think it qualifies as usable by Wikipedia.--Bedford 06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Firefox8-Optim.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Avant-Davodd.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is used in Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Was first uploaded years ago in JPG format as an example of hor the main page looked in the Avant browser. I don't care if it is deleted or not (doubt it is much use besiades as an archive of Wikipedia's history), and I don't even remember who asked me to take the screen capture for Wikipedia. - Davodd 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-IE6-Minesweeper.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Konqueror-3.1.4-topemo.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Amaya8.2-Arteitle.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage_Opera7.5_WindowsXP.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Konqueror323-Vystrix_Nexoth.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MainPage-Cello1.0-Arteitle.png - also depicts copyrighted software, not used in any articles MER-C 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- All think all of these above screen shots are candidates for a speedy deletion as very clear copyright violations. Fair use has not been claimed and could not apply as they are currently not used in any articles.Madmedea 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these are available under free software licenses, in fact IE is the only unfree one I can see off the top of my head. The free software licenses DO allow derivative works. Oppose speedy deletion. Nardman1 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise oppose speedy deletion, per Narman1. All images also used in Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots, which is being considered in MfD. If it's deleted by community consensus, just get rid of them as orphaned. Otherwise, there's no reason to get rid of any of them except possibly the IE6 screenshot. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, they breach copyright for reproducing the wikipedia logo - not all do (Image:MainPage-Amaya8.2-Arteitle.png and Image:MainPage-Cello1.0-Arteitle.png - but the majority do. They are tagged indicating this. Madmedea 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neither Opera, nor Avant browser of Cello are free licensed software (free of charge (aka freeware) maybe, but not free licensed), neither are the Wikipedia or FireFox logos for that matter... --Sherool (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- All think all of these above screen shots are candidates for a speedy deletion as very clear copyright violations. Fair use has not been claimed and could not apply as they are currently not used in any articles.Madmedea 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Evergreen forests of Silent Valley at Sairandhri..jpg and Image:Evergreen forests of Silent Valley at SairandhriC.jpg (one is derived from the other). I can find no evidence to support the asertion that this has been released by either K. A. Subramanian or Western Chats Biodiversity Information Systems under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. The website only aserts "All rights reserved". The second image is incorectly tagged in either case, but that's easy enough for fix if the status of the original can be verified. --Sherool (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
May 21
- Image:Gorie statue.jpg appears to be a derive of copywriten scupture.Geni 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Image:Bono_honolulu.jpg- No evidence that this copyrighted image is freely licensed. Iamunknown 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)- Oops, I've double posted this, the uploader has permission but it has not yet been sent to OTRS. --Iamunknown 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The e-mail containing correspondence was sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", per Iamunknown's request. The e-mail was sent about 24 hours ago. Additional info was also posted on talk page more than a few weeks ago. Chupper 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- OTRS permission confirmed. Tag removed from image. MECU≈talk 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The e-mail containing correspondence was sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", per Iamunknown's request. The e-mail was sent about 24 hours ago. Additional info was also posted on talk page more than a few weeks ago. Chupper 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I've double posted this, the uploader has permission but it has not yet been sent to OTRS. --Iamunknown 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- No restrictions means we can WP:AGF that it's PD. N 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, but in another case, where we were told to "do what we wanted" with an image, it was determined that this was insufficient permission. Oh, well, standards change... Jenolen speak it! 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That case...hmm. Dunno. Sometimes closing these discussions is a judgement call. But to me "no restrictions" indicates an appropriate free license. It's up to the admin who closes this discussion to decide. I could very well be wrong. -N 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say keep it. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- That case...hmm. Dunno. Sometimes closing these discussions is a judgement call. But to me "no restrictions" indicates an appropriate free license. It's up to the admin who closes this discussion to decide. I could very well be wrong. -N 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, but in another case, where we were told to "do what we wanted" with an image, it was determined that this was insufficient permission. Oh, well, standards change... Jenolen speak it! 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- No restrictions means we can WP:AGF that it's PD. N 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jang.jpg fantastic image, but the upload has not responded with the permission details/verification. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note, discussion also ongoing: here and here. - Francis Tyers · 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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
- Image:Chemical weapon2.jpg unlikely to be GFDL, if it is GFDL it should be moved to commons. - Francis Tyers · 10:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Chemical weapon1.jpg unlikely to be GFDL, if it is GFDL it should be moved to commons. - Francis Tyers · 10:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- How do we know that the author of the site has the copyright on the images? - Francis Tyers · 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- How do we know that the author of the site has the copyright on the images? - Francis Tyers · 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You will probably need to make enquiries with his estate. - Francis Tyers · 08:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- Source like a web link.
- Date of creation. If the former is unknown, date of publication.
- Author(s) of the file.
- 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)
- Image:Jugosloveni.jpg - Derivative work of multiple copyrighted images. The user certainly created the composite, the parts used have varying degrees of copyright. --Ytny (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also adding Image:Oliver dragojevic.JPG and Image:Yugoslavs.jpg from the same user. --Ytny (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: essential to article on Yugoslavs, user seems to be suffering from copyright paranoia and should perhaps look to do something constructive on Wikipedia. - The Daddy 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PUI isn't a deletion discussion; the images will be kept if their copyright statuses are determined and, currently, the copyright status of these images are not determined. --Iamunknown 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note The uploader, User:Reisender, is currently under a 72-hour block so it would be fair to give the user time to respond. That said, I'm sure at least some of the images are copyrighted, and I don't think they'd fall under fair use. --Ytny (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PUI isn't a deletion discussion; the images will be kept if their copyright statuses are determined and, currently, the copyright status of these images are not determined. --Iamunknown 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kwicherbichen Bikini Team.jpg - pretty obviously a copyrighted image; doubtful pd-self. The Evil Spartan 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Clippercircuit.jpg & Image:Clipperckt.jpg: images are clearly scanned from a book, and that source isn't listed. Scanning a textbook doesn't put the information in the public domain. --Interiot 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Image:Mc202example.ogg, Image:Discobotter.ogg - No evidence that the copyright holder, Sven Buresch, has released this audio sample into the public domain. Iamunknown 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. Sven Buresch isn't even anybody famous, plus the exact equipment used to produce it is listed, indicating the uploader either personally made it or was in the same room when it happened. Resolve the issue on the uploader's talk page. -N 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith - the uploader has not edited since September 2006, WP:PUI is perfectly acceptable venue to resolve image copyright issues. --Iamunknown 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader's name is audioschotter.net. [[18]] isn't particularly helpful, but I did find [19] and [20]. I believe totally the copyright holder IS the uploader. Why don't you contact them via Myspace and find out? -N 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have an account on MySpace, but I suppose I can create one. --Iamunknown 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it. -N 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have an account on MySpace, but I suppose I can create one. --Iamunknown 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader's name is audioschotter.net. [[18]] isn't particularly helpful, but I did find [19] and [20]. I believe totally the copyright holder IS the uploader. Why don't you contact them via Myspace and find out? -N 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith - the uploader has not edited since September 2006, WP:PUI is perfectly acceptable venue to resolve image copyright issues. --Iamunknown 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. Sven Buresch isn't even anybody famous, plus the exact equipment used to produce it is listed, indicating the uploader either personally made it or was in the same room when it happened. Resolve the issue on the uploader's talk page. -N 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Several images uploaded by one uploader, who indicated on the image description pages that they come from http://www.wcupa.edu/: Image:Philips2.jpg, Image:Recitiationhall.gif, Image:Old lib1.gif, Image:Rubyjoneshall1buspublaff.gif, Image:Messikomer3admissions.jpg and Image:DrMAdler.jpg. No evidence is apparent that these images are freely licensed. --Iamunknown 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Walter.mercado.arp.158pix.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tforstmann.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable, low quality. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Zlatko Zahovic vs UAE.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Wilfred.benitez.colour.arp.200pix.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Wayfarer-dinghy-W1720.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Iibstevensroom.jpg - appears professional - user has no other contributions, no way of verifying pd-self. The Evil Spartan 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jeff MacKinnon.jpg - appears professional - no evidence pd-self. The Evil Spartan 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cheeky_Girls.jpg - Marked PD with the summary that this is the user's own image, but that really doesn't seem to be the case here. The image definitely looks promotional, and a source would help. Coredesat 04:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Other images by same user have been marked:
- Image:Manchester Big Screen.jpg
- Image:Manchester Metrolink at Piccadilly.JPG - specifically says "released into the BBC" - hardly likely, and no proof
- Image:ExchngSq.jpg. The Evil Spartan 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
May 22
- Image:Cassiefree.jpg - dubious claim of ownership ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Eurocave.png - Derivative work of an image for which we don't know the license. Iamunknown 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
- Image:180px-Vojnovich.jpg - The image description page at the Russian-language Wikipedia (ru:Image:Vojnovich.jpg) provides neither a source nor a license. Iamunknown 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Sunandha.jpg - It's not clear when this image was originally copyrighted and, even if it is in the public domain in Thailand, it may still be in the public domain in the United States, which does not recognize the rule of the shorter term. Iamunknown 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tsminda Sameba snow.jpg. A commentator on the image page claims to be the copyright holder. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Dr.Melissa_Hershberg_-_headshot.jpg - source says image is copyrighted, not PD MER-C 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Carolschrader netv.jpg uploader claims this is a self created photo, but it seems fairly obvios to me that it's just a tv screenshot (in which case it would be a replacable non-free image). --Sherool (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
May 23
- Image:Lil Eazy-E.jpg — the up-loader claims it as his own work, but this seems inherently unlikely (and the up-loader has a history of image-up-load problems). Moreover, I found the image in two places on the Web: at the MySpace page of a 26-year-old Texan woman], and at ILLHILL.com. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Balinor.JPG The image description says, "I, Charles Glen Spurrill created this picture by hand drawing. This picture is not allowed to be copied for one's use for any reason." This is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Strangerer (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- As this was a user created and uploaded work the user has now exercised his right to change the tag to a wikipedia compliant license. In future, in circumstances like this, it might be worth chatting to the uploader first before listing it on PUI. Just a suggestion. Madmedea 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Angelpena.jpg - tagged as US published before 1923, person depicted wasn't born until 1950. Claims in text taken from PD website but link given isn't a full HTML address. Madmedea 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Snapshot_532d5048_d32e4339.jpg - Appears to be a screenshot from The Sims 2, not {{PD-self}} eligible. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:TjQuiche.jpg - Non-free derivative work of product packaging Iamunknown 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Stewartmaxie2002.jpg - Uploader claims their own work and public domain. However, I seriously doubt that as it appears to be a screenshot of a tv program and also has a digital watermark, probably of the station broadcasting the program. RedWolf 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikely that User:Justangel owns the copyright to "General Hospital". Thuresson 09:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Wpdms shdrlfi020l san fernando valley.jpg. Uploaded by User:Decumanus in June of '04 as "copyright Matthew Trump" (Decumanus's RL name). It was changed by an anonymous user that fall to "copyright Frank Perez." This may just be vandalism, in which case it should be reverted and left, but I've asked Decumanus to clarify. Chick Bowen 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
May 24
- Image:Judgingsams.jpg - Used only by permission, low quality, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kilischool.jpg - Used only by permission, low quality, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pcr.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now tagged as GFDL, but there is no evidence supporting this. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Great, thanks. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Image:Photo9.jpg - Tagged as PD-release, but I can find no evidence of this. The main page on the source web site states "©2005 Polar Air Cargo, All rights reserved". —Remember the dot (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Polar.air.cargo.arp.750pix.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Melbourne Yarra.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Suling.png - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Girlband3.jpg - tagged as {{Non-free music video screenshot}} although it is actually a photo. But even if the correct fair use tag was applied there is no rationale and it is definitely replaceable. Madmedea 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lrf.Studio96.75dpi.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lrf.globe.jpeg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Megophrys lateralis.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Midwest.arp.750pix.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Free (public domain) replacement is already on Wikimedia Commons: Image:Boeing 717 Midwest 2003 PD.jpg. -- Hawaiian717 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:APC_logo.png - stolen native artwork. 24.80.117.217 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This image was uploaded and listed as a non-free logo for use on Anti-Poverty Committee. User:24.80.117.217 has stated the logo was stolen by the group in question. The user has also made several edits to the Anti-Poverty Committee article, including an inappropriate redirect.--Bookandcoffee 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say keep. Where's the proof for that "stolen" claim? Also note that this image is not claimed to be free, it's under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 09:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who needs proof when, nowadays, you can just use rhetoric and obfuscation to say that everything is stolen from natives. I mean, it's pretty clear this image symbolizes something about North America, and the mostly-European-descended Anti-Poverty Committee is infringing on the First Nations people by using this image. 24.80.117.217 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Edison.gif - It is unlikely that this image is user-created: it is extremely low quality (a higher-quality photograph should be able to be uploaded), it does not appear user-made but rather professionally-made. Iamunknown 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Oneinamillion.jpg: Claimed PD-self. Most likely this was produced by 8TV (Malaysia); see One in a Million (TV series). —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Oneinamillion SyafinazSelamat.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:OIAM PaulMoss.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Oneinamillion MarionCaunter.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Oneinamillion Suki.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Add to that:
- all clearly not pd-self. The Evil Spartan 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:River.jpg: Used only on a single user talk page. Tagged GFDL-self-with-disclaimers, but this seems to apply only to the originally uploaded image. At least four totally unrelated images have been uploaded under this filename; the current one is apparently from [21], whose copyright page [22] permits free use of materials but prohibits derivatives (and thus does not provide a free license in Wikipedia's eyes). —Bkell (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Khan.jpg: Used only on a single user talk page. Tagged PD-self, but this seems to apply only to the originally uploaded image. Two unrelated images have been uploaded under this filename; the current one is apparently from [23], which says at the bottom "© 1996 - 2004 All Rights Reserved to The Palestinian Return Centre." —Bkell (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Cky.gif - Appears to be a derivitive work of the band's logo, see http://www.ckyalliance.com/ with the logo in the upper left of the page, the "font" and style seem to match MECU≈talk 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Attack-on-women-iran.jpg - no indication of release under the GFDL ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Anti-drugs_checks_of_the_Guardia_di_Finanza_in_a_italian_airport.jpg - This "{{PD-self}}" image has been sourced to http://www.gdf.it/IVreparto/direzionevetcinofili/Addestra_AD.htm, which (while not even displaying the referencing image) declares: "# Copyright © 2006 - Tutti i Diritti Riservati"
— pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
May 25
- Image:109242412 cf1148096b o.jpg - Apparently, one of the official renders of the project Costanera Center. Possible false claim of authorship. Jespinos 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bocelli.jpg - Not likely copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to the image. Garion96 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
May 26
- Image:AngelaHeadshot.jpg - Image is said to be a publicity photo but the uploader claims that they're releasing it into the public domain. Seems suspect. Image is also used on the main page of the subject's web site. Dismas|(talk) 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Same uploader har earlier contributed File:AngelaHeadshotNew.jpg under fair use. Is this the same photo? Thuresson 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:BigNa.jpg: Summary says "Image may be reproduced for non-commercial/educational purposes only." Uploader (Jdurg) may be willing to remove this restriction, though, as he did for Image:Thorium.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:VK_Choudhry.jpg - no evidence of release into PD MER-C 11:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:S.A.B._Logo.JPG - likely not PD MER-C 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:S.A.B._Logo.jpg - likely not PD MER-C 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think these two just need nominating for deletion as they are unused images which would only be allowable under a fair use license. Tagged as such. Madmedea 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Opera-kick.jpg - Used only by permission, low quality, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nuns001.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. Needs to be relicensed or deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Golden gloves.jpg - Used by permission, probably does not qualify as fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gene ray time cube.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Time cube mit 2002.jpg - Used only by permission, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
May 27
- Image:Helmut-schmidt-1994.jpg - I don't read German, but this doesn't look like a GFDL-compatible release of rights. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the source website holds the copyright given that it contains images going back to the 1800s. BigDT 04:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The source allows readers to download the material. It doesn't say anything about publishing and it does not claim that anybody can use the photos for any purpose. Thuresson 16:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Shigenori Nishikaichi, Image-IMG 2842.JPG the photo seems to predate Creative Commons by quite some years and there is no explenation why it's licenced that way. // Liftarn
- The uploader in his edit summary stated "Photo appears on cover of The Niihau Incident, by Allan Beekman, to which I hold the copyright and which I took a picture of" - if this is true then he can release the image under a Creative Commons license. I'd like to see a bit more information about that though. Madmedea 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jewish_Encyclopedia_Arnon_Gorge.jpg - PD image with copyright notice MER-C 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is just a case of a file using a deprecated licensing tag - the uploader indicates the Jewish Encylopedia as the source - the contents of which is in the public domain due to age (published 1906). At the moment the encyclopedia's servers are down so I can't verify this. But if it is from the source indicated it simply needs the tag updating. Madmedea 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Image:Signaturepic.jpg - Who is the person in the image? Does the uploader own the copyright to that image as well? MECU≈talk 17:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a derivative work - unless the person depicted is the user themselves - we definitely need more information to confirm license. Madmedea 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:The Sims Scholastic 2.jpg: This is a video game box. The uploader is almost certainly not the creator. —Bkell (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, maybe this is just fan art. This video game doesn't appear to actually exist. —Bkell (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely non-free as a derivative work of non-free The Sims cover art. --Iamunknown 01:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, maybe this is just fan art. This video game doesn't appear to actually exist. —Bkell (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
May 28
- Image:Dorothy75.jpg. Tagged PD; can't see any reason to think that it is. Probably copyrighted publicity photo. Chick Bowen 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bradstreet1.gif. Tagged PD-old, but source does not give a date. It is pretty clearly not from Bradstreet's life, so could be any age at all. Chick Bowen 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nantah Gate.jpg. Tagged PD-self, but the uploader states that the image was taken from Nanyang Technological University website.
- Image:Willhogeatl.jpg - No evidence of permission in the form of e-mail transcript or OTRS link Iamunknown 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Carllewis1.jpg - Tagged as PD-US Gov, but the image is from the Library of Congress, which contains more than just original works of the federal governmen. No authorship information is given, so we have no way of knowing if it is PD BigDT 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)