Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 18
December 18
Linked source is an Google image search to re-directs to a fansite that provides no valid source imformation or permissions for use. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not deleted - the image is already tagged for fair use, so we know it is non-free. I have applied the correct no rationale and replaceable tags. --B (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sourced to website without PD release 140.247.249.16 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not deleted - The user left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 18 claiming authorship. The source website credits "Jim Derwin" and the uploader's name is "Jsderwin". I'm inclined to accept this claim of authorship. --B (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Collage of photos that come from who knows where 140.247.249.16 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of this user's dozen or so edits are racist vandalism, including uploading these professional-quality photos and sticking them in unrelated articles with inappropriate caption. 140.247.249.16 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of this user's dozen or so edits are racist vandalism, including uploading these professional-quality photos and sticking them in unrelated articles with inappropriate caption. 140.247.249.16 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sourced to website w/o PD release 140.247.249.16 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Need better evidence to support the GFDL claim. Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if the last PD-self statement by 194.74.160.114 is what the uploader means. Jusjih (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Questionable PD claim. Jusjih (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now has OTRS ticket. MECU≈talk 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Questionable PD claim. Jusjih (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now has OTRS ticket. MECU≈talk 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any OTRS permission logged as claimed by the uploader? Jusjih (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Uploader removed PD-self unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Flickr source no longer has the photo. Anyway to find historical licensing? Jusjih (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
When I uploaded it, it was creative commons liscenced with the correct liscense for wikipedia. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Flickr source no longer has the photo. Anyway to find historical licensing? Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The external link does not work and it is not fully sure if it qualifies for PD-USnavy. Jusjih (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The external link does not work and it is not fully sure if it qualifies for PD-USnavy. Jusjih (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The external link does not work and it is not fully sure if it qualifies for PD-USnavy. Jusjih (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Questionable PD-self claim. Jusjih (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Questionable PD claim previously challenged for no fair use rationale. Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
PD-self claim challenged Jusjih (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Unclear what the claimed permission is while previously challenged as replaceable fair use. Jusjih (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Permission granted from owner via email. Unsure how to provide evidence on Wikipedia Quork (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:COPYREQ and WP:OTRS. You can not claim fair use if you get permission. You need to get a free license or we cannot accept this image. MECU≈talk 14:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work from a MacAndBumble.com image. original. Others from same uploader also appear derivative. --StarGeek (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Found at infocoches.com, thecarconnection.com, netcarshow.com and conceptcarz.com. This also applies to Image:07h.jpg (found at cars.com, autobytel.com, Optimum Autos, luxurymotors.com, Cars Direct and cars-plus.info) and Image:04rl.jpg (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:04rl.jpg). Given these as well as Image:PS11012.jpg and the other images listed below, I personally do not find any of the uploader's copyright claims to be credible. I would appreciate if this matter could be handled speedily so that we don't have to duplicate more of the process at Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims both own work and "Photo from Bonneville Club Photo Catalog". Liftarn (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- This also applies to Image:93se.jpg, Image:93sle.jpg, Image:94ssei.jpg, Image:97sle.jpg, Image:98sse.jpg, Image:IMG 2134.jpg, Image:03sle.jpg, Image:01SSEi.jpg, and Image:04gxp.jpg. The uploader is the same as for Image:06rl.jpg listed above. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims own work, but is watermarked "Unofficial Club Sony Ericsson". Liftarn (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Description is ambiguous as to whether he took it himself or downloaded it from his school's website. I doubt he took all these himself. Mangostar (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also nominating
for the same reason. Mangostar (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sourced to a now-dead website, doubtful that the uploader created it Mangostar (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
GFDL license appears unlikely B (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No reason to believe image is available under GFDL - source website has a copyright, all rights reserved message. From the article, this image is from the WWII era, so it is theoretically possible that it is PD - the PRC uses life+50 for individual works and 50 years from publication for corporate works, so if we had more context, it may be that this image is PD B (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No reason to believe GFDL, Source website says all rights reserved. B (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission, as with one of the above, this one may be PD by age. The image was taken in the early 1930s. B (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL permission B (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image looks professional, and uploader has uploaded copyvios in the past that he claimed were his own. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio, image from a new account – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image is listed as self-made, but it's unusual for someone to request a free image just a few days before contributing one of their own. This photo and ones from the same shoot are sprinkled across the web. [1] [2] [3] [4] ×Meegs 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-free image that serves the same purpose as which is considered copyright-free. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
says both copyright and pd, copyright holder doesn't have same name as uploader Mangostar (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
obviously a publicity shot Mangostar (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
says both copyright and PD Mangostar (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
taken by uploader's friend, no explicit release Mangostar (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
says it's self-taken, but there are lots of photos of similar systems on the internet in a suspiciously similar style. i couldn't track this particular one down though. Mangostar (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
says it's self-taken, but there are lots of photos of similar systems on the internet in a suspiciously similar style. i couldn't track this particular one down though. Mangostar (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No clear explanation of fair use. It will by mainly seen in the UK, so notice about fair use in USA might not be relevant. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
this user has been uploading all sorts of professional phtoographs and tagging them PD-self (can someone else go thru the logs and post those here?) Mangostar (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)