Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

Place either:

{{subst:nsd}} for no source

or

{{subst:nld}} for no license

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s) (the templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own). It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:PUI]]

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

Instructions

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
- {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
- {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

September 9

Image:University School Shaker Small.jpg, Image:Us hv02 small.jpg, Image:University School Uniform Example.jpg, Image:University school community service.jpg, Image:University School Fields.jpg. Tagged as NoRightsReserved, but the source site says "© 2006 University School. All rights reserved." - EurekaLott 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:İlberOrtaylı.jpg Has two "free licenses" Cannot verify either is legitimate from website listed. -Nv8200p talk 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Öskjuvatn, Iceland.jpg Source is non-existant. Cannot verify GFDL claim -Nv8200p talk 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet archive to the rescue - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://world-traveller.org/ I can't find any GDFL anywhere (though not all the pages are archived). Megapixie 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source exists, and this is the relevant page: [1]. Worldtraveller 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it says "Creative Commons by-nc-nd licence". ND is a no-no on Wikipedia. // Liftarn 08:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Zyklon cannister used in WW2.JPG No evidence why User:Ear1grey can release Rich Boakes image as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:202 savonuzzi.jpg and Image:202 nuvolari.jpg - source site seems gone, but they look old so I dubt they were originally made for that site anyway. // Liftarn 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1991lingeriecalendar.jpg claims NoRightsReserved, but somehow I dubt Playboy does that. // Liftarn 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue with Image:Tonyaoffer.jpg uploaded by the same user. // Liftarn 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1993 Alfa Romeo RZ.JPG claims NoRightsReserved, but the image seems to not be from the site claimed as source so it's impossible to tell. // Liftarn 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1985 lancia delta martini f.jpg claims free use. Source site says nothing. // Liftarn 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lancia Delta S4 (2).jpg comes from a GeoCities website. I dubt they are the original source as it looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1972limo.jpg claims free use, but source site says "© Copyright The Detroit News.". // Liftarn 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Y2JIcChamp.jpg claims to be a TV screenshot, but clearly isn't. Looks more like a promo shot. Sasaki 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LaceStormIC.jpg claims to be a TV screenshot, this isn't obvious. According to my understanding of fair use the law wouldn't allow this image's use in an article about Lance Storm anyway. Sasaki 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Parma Snow.jpg: edited Google Earth screenshot. Not PD. - EurekaLott 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青被带上法庭.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青在开会.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青号召批林批孔.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青与美国总统尼克松交谈.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青同志与美国总统尼克松交谈.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bill.gif --This image was uploaded with the same name as one that previously existed and was unrelated. The copyright info on the page applies to the previous image and not to this one, which is therefore without source or copyright info. blameless 23:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Image:Aucklandprogressivepicket.jpg is not GFDL. According to the permissiom notice [2], ... feel free to use any of my pictures on wikipedia.... I would straight out copy left my pictures but am worried that they could be used innapropriatly... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be the approiate licence for this image? Lossenelin 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acalogo1234.jpg is not an original image, it is copyright from NineMSN and the A Current Affair page. Incorrect license. I suggets deletion. This user has done it many many times check his talk page. - Mike Beckham 08:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:皇后凤冠.jpg is a color photo. {{PD-old}} is obviously a wrong tag. --64.229.179.10 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for Image:慈禧太后的花盆底鞋.jpg. --64.229.179.10 08:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lecmanagementteam.jpg - derivative work (or rather a direct copy). // Liftarn 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marybaker.jpg - the source website is American governmental, but the picture does have third-party copyright, so either delete or claim fair use at related article(s). The same image at Commons has been deleted.--Jusjih 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ninoy87.jpg - Repost of Image:Naiat3.jpg. The image even has ©SOM written on it. -- Mithril Cloud 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Class334 3-car juniper.jpg - the source website is [3]. The SPT website copyright statement says content may be used for personal use only, and specifically forbids any commercial use. --Vclaw 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PICT4827.JPG - derivative work or copy of a (most likely) copyrighted image. Garion96 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avatar-arcidi1.jpg - unlikely PD-self from WP:SPA. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ICjerichoChamp.jpg - Repost of [[:Image:ICjerichoChamp.jpg] - as image listed 9 September; claims to be a TV screenshot, but clearly isn't. Looks more like a promo shot. OWW are not the author of this image as claimed. Sasaki 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Image:Nguyen Dieu Hoa.jpg tagged PD-self, but also found on [4] as [5]. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Amber1.PNG Possible CV. Uploaded by user User:ChrisRy5 without any tags or source/copyright info, and added the image to the article AMBER Alert. On 4-SEP, I asked the user to supply source information. On 5-SEP, the user added the "fair use" tag to the image (without responding to me directly), and indicated that the source of the image was taken from the "NYS Amber Alert Website - http://www.nysamber.troopers.state.ny.us ". However, when I went to that site to verify it's source, I couldn't find the image there. I asked the user for clarification. I have not been responded to since. We have no idea of where the image is actually from, so I am recommending this image for deletion as a possible copyright violation. Kevyn 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fair use in any case, unless we are talking about the specific photograph (which we aren't) Megapixie 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Fields of gold.jpg~~ - claimed as cc 2.5 but the source [6] says that the image is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. --Hetar 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: ~~Image:Fieldscape.jpg~~ and ~~Image:Clouds over hills.jpg~~ --Hetar 05:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second pages of his userpage [7] and [8] (on which all three pictures are displayed) clearly states "© This photo is public." Please remove all the tags. Nauticashades 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That means that the photo is available on flickr to the public for viewing. It says nothing of the copyright. See [9]. Garion96 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa (email added to images' talk pages). howch e ng {chat} 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:WTC attack 9-11.jpg - It is on a USGov website, but it is not the work of the USGov. This is an AP photo, see [10]. --Rory096 06:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Missed that it's a Commons image, forget it, moving this there. --Rory096 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DSC 1129.jpg No evidence copyright holder released image under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image posted by a member of senior management of copyright holder, who has since provided copyright information plus written permission to post the image on Wikipedia to Wikimedia PR Depertment. Unfortunately, the e-mail address provided within Wikipedia -- 'permissions@wikimedia.org' -- does not seem to exist. E-mails have been returned as undeliverable. -Rob McAlear 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Image:LPD 1885.jpg - was taken no later than 1885, but claimed {{PD-self}} which is patently impossible unless the uploader was around in 1885. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Image now has proper source to justify the PD claim. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still learning about this whole thing. I will make the correct change if that is alright.
Image:DAVE-MC-WILLIAM000.jpg - one of dozens of images uploaded by User:Shanequinlan01 with made-up license/copyright tags. Demiurge 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ThomasBuffel.jpg: Orphan. Claimed PD-self, but gives a URL [11] as the source. This is probably a photo by a news agency. —Bkell (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's by Reuters. -Elmer Clark 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salute2ladies095.jpg, Image:ILUVthe70s045.jpg, and Image:Nashville004.jpg: All claim PD-self, but they look like screen captures from television programs. —Bkell (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Burnwelk, I have changed the status from PD-self to TV screenshot on all three pictures in dispute, hope that clears everything up.
  - The images are not properly sourced. They all need to mention they are from the Lawerence Welk show and you the copyright holder is. -Nv8200p talk 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TimemachineCutaway.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time1.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time2.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time3.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Time* images above were, according to John Titor, posted on a bulletin board. The photographs are supposedly taken by the author but the drawing from an instruction manual from the future! :-) Do future documents have copyrights in the past? Oh, this is just too good! :-D
- Good indeed. Image:TimemachineCutaway.gif says "Army model" so it could be PD due to it being a US Gov creation. ;-) // Liftarn 13:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Unless the fact that U.S. federal government images are in the public domain will have been changed by then. (Or willan haventa on-change... Where's Dr. Dan Streetmentioner when you need him?) —Bkell (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the images are in the public domain but don't know if the bulletin board where they were posted has some copyright clause. I've emailed the webmaster of http://www.johntitorweb.com/ asking for information since the images seem to be (have been) hosted on that site. --Swift 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should retain it. We might need the images for references in the future ;) 219.93.44.71 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reguardless of any dispute about time travel, or future governments. The FACT is that they were originally created and/or distributed by the individual "John Titor" in public domain, via a message board. They are not copyrighted by anyone or any organization, except "John Titor" of course. And if John Titor would like to complain about these images breaching any of his copyrights under the law, he is most certainly welcome to do so. Otherwise, it's assumed that "John Titor" released them without any copyrights to the public domain via the forum in which he originally posted them at. Even if you wish to argue the point of the drawing coming from the future, (in which that is neither confirmed nor is it disproven) copyrights in the future have no effect on the present, as they are not currently copyrighted. (IceSage 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You cannot assume these are not copyrighted. Every creative work is copyrighted by default in most countries of the world. The author or copyright holder would have to specifically state the images are in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but can we assume so because the pictures were posted on an internet forum and exist on several websites without being contested? If not, I'll try contacting some other holders of the images or the original forum posts. --Swift 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't assume they are not copyrighted! Just because others may be engaging in copyright infringement doesn't mean that we can or should follow suit. --ElKevbo 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see if I can get to the bottom of this. Give me some time and I'll report back. --Swift 00:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FOSS 115.jpg, from the website of the Norwegian Department of the Treasury. Norwegian government photos are not PD. --Kjetil _r 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag is now changed to Attribution (which is more correct), but the source does not mention the right to make derivative works. ND-licenses are not allowed on Wikipedia. --Kjetil _r 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Khamenei and Nasrallah.jpg, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is CC-BY-SA. howch e ng {chat} 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Westfield xtr2.jpg Uploader claims to have created the image, but it has www.westfield-sportscars.co.uk printed on it, and is presumably copyrighted by them. Other images of this same car have appeared on their website. -Elmer Clark 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag has now been changed to fair use but...I still don't buy it. First of all, it's 975x649, which I somehow doubt is significantly lower quality than the original. I also am not too happy with the idea of using images with URLs prominently displayed on them. Doesn't that constitute advertising, if nothing else? I still dispute this image's licensing. -Elmer Clark 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original image is much higher resolution - this is a lower resolution image made for the web. Photo is specifically for promotional purposes, directly from Westfield. As there is no other available photo submitted to Wiki, this seemed appropriate. The URL on the car in the picture is not prominent, but the image can be modified to remove the information. Really no different than a direct external link to the Westfield Sportscars website which currently exists on the main Westfield listing.

Image:Acmiexterior.jpg Image:Cinema1.gif Image:Interios.jpg Image:KEQ-001.jpg Suspected Copyright Infringements Ansett 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Image:Seamus Brennan.jpg, Image:Geoghegan-quinn.jpg, Image:E Regan cathaoirleach.jpg, Image:Archbishop Brady.jpg, Image:Eugene Regan.jpg — all uploaded by Crimson Observer (talk · contribs), claiming {{promophoto}} when they're not from a press kit, or other contradictory tags like claiming both {{fairuse}} and {{PD-release}} at the same time. Demiurge 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Image:Programmer.jpg - Source site says ©2004-2005 Jan Nordgreen and is an image commonly distributed throughout the internet, definitely not CC. --Rory096 04:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg - Apparently taken from a U.S. Senator's website, but that doesn't make it a work of the U.S. Senate. She was never a Senator anyway, so why should they have a picture of her? In short, no evidence of being in the public domain. Angr 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Never found copyright owner; replaced image with another & can be deleted: Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg. -Wikid77 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mitsubishi mirage asti 891 0.jpg claims a lot, but source site says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.". // Liftarn 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mitsubishi mirage 104107 0.jpg has same source site and the same claims. // Liftarn 10:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
And there are many more where that came from[12]. I'll be back with another load. // Liftarn
Another bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
If the images really are free (needs to be verified) it's great. If not we have some work to do. // Liftarn 10:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed CC-BY by the uploader:
And there is still more to come. // Liftarn 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the final bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
Phew... // Liftarn 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I missed Image:Suzuki Swift.jpg. that's also from AUTO.VL.RU. // Liftarn 11:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out for those who might be confused that "Родина японских машин" just means "Cars made in Japan", and is the title of the site. --Fastfission 13:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexandria_Map.gif. listed as PD US gov, but is the work of the City of Alexandria. The city holds copyright [13] Specifically: The digital maps provided by the City are deemed and remain hereafter proprietary information of the City, shall not be provided or assigned to other parties, without the prior written consent of the City, and are afforded the full protection of copyright law. ccwaters 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hamtaro2.gif: An animated picture of a hamster from Hamtaro. Its from a commercially produced television show, it is not free. Furthurmore, it was 'found on gifdex.com', which at the current time doesn't even load. Being on a random website of GIFs doesn't confer GFDL, and its certainly from the commercial provider. Its currently being used for mostly decoration to its purpose in the article, so I doubt it meets proper fair use requirements if it were desired to be used that way. --Kevin_b_er 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:K8530.jpg, Image:445.jpg, Image:V6330.jpg and Image:K4200.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site does not support that. // Liftarn 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SLR660.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site[14] does not support that, but say "I allow free use, with some restrictions, of the photos I own copyright to. For manufacturer photos, you'll have to check with them yourself."[15] This is a case of manufacturer photos. // Liftarn 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GeorgeTupouV.jpg. It states that image is released under GFDL, but I could only find a (c) notice on source site. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Image:Canton10 Herzeg Bosnia.gif - The image has not been indentified by the author. Seems that it has been taken online from: worldstatesmen which states that everything is under copyright. Files can only be purchased and the author must give approval for its use.

Image:TimemachineCutaway.gif, Images released freely by author predating GFDL . Vaughanwj·User talk:vaughanwj 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time1.gif, Images released freely by author predating GFDL . Vaughanwj·User talk:vaughanwj 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time2.gif, Images released freely by author predating GFDL . Vaughanwj·User talk:vaughanwj 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time3.gif, Images released freely by author predating GFDL . Vaughanwj·User talk:vaughanwj 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sierrasantamarta.jpg, Listed as copyrighted free use but source appears to be use by permission for the source site. --Robth^Talk 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Image:Hussite Infantry.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}. However, the source is given as [16], and at [17] it says:

Copyright and permission information

We the webmasters of this site do not necessarily hold any claim to images or text in this site, unless noted otherwise. The various contributors to this site assert that use of any copyrighted material is under the United States fair use doctrine.

In other words, AllEmpires.com has no clue about where this image came from, who the copyright holder is, what its copyright status is, and so forth. There is no evidence that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. —Bkell (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PostcardWhalesMouth.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but the image and the filename seem to indicate that it's a postcard, which makes the self-authorship claim unlikely. —Bkell (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PostcardVic.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PostcardBowFiddle.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PostcardHarbour.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PostcardWestRocks.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BiancoSean.jpg: Claimed {{NoRightsReserved}}, but at the bottom of the source page [18] it says, "Copyright 2005, Capital Public Radio. All Rights Reserved." No evidence is given that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. —Bkell (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Birolli nudo.jpg: Claimed PD, but according to the Renato Birolli article it was painted in 1941 by an artist who died in 1959, and no evidence is given that this painting is really in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag has been changed to {{PD-art}}, which claims "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years." But, as pointed out before, the artist died in 1959, so we have another 53 years until {{PD-art}} is appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could claim fair use - given the low resolution of the image, and the fact we are using it to indentify the artist in question, and we are using just a single image of his art. Ideally we should discuss the piece within the article. The PD claim for the photograph on the artist's page is somewhat dubious. Megapixie 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would really be fair use in the article on the author. You should probably write a separate article on the painting, put the image there and link to it from the artist's article. The other option is to mention the painting and provide an external link. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

September 17

~~Image:Mdew.png~~: Claimed PD-self, but clearly a derivative work of the Mountain Dew logo (Image:D079b88a.jpg). If a copyright on the Mountain Dew logo is enforceable, then the copyright would probably extend to this image, as well. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been nominated before. See Image talk:Mdew.png -Nv8200p talk 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I didn't notice that. I guess I should retract this under the principle of double jeopardy. —Bkell (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tim Willits & DOOM.JPG: Claimed copyright status was irrevocably released, but no evidence has been provided - and such evidence should be conclusive, because Gamespy.com is fairly rights-protective. Captainktainer * Talk 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BBC Broadcasting House 400.jpg: Claimed PD. Source given as [19] which states "In these web pages you can find most of the photos from the books (hopefully out of copyright!)". I'm not sure if the images published in 1932 are now out of copyright/public domain. Alexj2002 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jessica_Alba.jpg: Uploader claims to be the creator, releasing under the GFDL. This however, is highly doubtful. Valrith 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Julia_Miles1.jpg: Uploader added tag claiming image had been released into the public domain, but text in image and page shows image is copyrighted. Valrith 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kelly_Pkm.jpg: Definitely not a low-res image. Hard to see how fair use applies. Valrith

Image:Leachianus.jpg: Appears to have been ripped from here. Caption also suggests this. --Yummifruitbat 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xiphos.jpg, tagged as {{Nonfreedelete}} June 29 2005. Seems to be from Enciclopedia delle armi, which is not free. --Kjetil _r 20:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HishamBharoocha.jpg No evidence image is released under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Image:Colo9.gif and Image:Colo3.gif - both from same uploader. Nothing at source supports PD claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Obi-sash.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StevenHicks.jpg: Orphan. Claimed PD, reasoning that "these pictures have been released into public domain through newsprints and media coverage." But media coverage is not a release of the photos into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stevenwtuomi.jpg: Used in Steven Tuomi. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Richardguerrero1.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jamesdoxtator.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tracyedwards.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AnthonySears.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anthonyhughes.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Edwardsmith.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Raymondlamontsmith.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ernestmiller.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Davidthomas.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Curtisstraughter.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Erollindsey.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Konerak.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mattturner.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jospehbradehoft.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Oliverlacey.jpg: Orphan. Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tiki.jpg: Dispute from person who claims to be copyright holder that image is not PD - SimonLyall 20:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Image:Mussolini hitler.jpg:Copyright depends on date of death of the author not of the subject. 67 years (where did this number come from) is not enough for PD-old. /Lokal Profil 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Elektrolyse1.jpg: Claimed PD because it "was taken by students of the University of Siegen during the class of General chemistry." That doesn't make it a public-domain image. —Bkell (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Elektrolyse2.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Naked snake.JPG claims video game screenshot (i.e. fair use), but it's not used in any article about the game. // Liftarn 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ireland Catholic land 1641-1703.gif Noncommercial license only. Twinxor t 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DSC_8466a.jpg Uploader claims the image is licenced under ShareAlike, but this is doubtful. Valrith 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KerryMarie1.jpg Tagged as magazine cover yet image is clearly not; as well, no source is given for the image so we cannot retag the image to something else. Tabercil 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nuveman5.jpg – no indication of PD status on source site; I doubt USA Softball is staffed by federal gov't workers; uploader used PD tag recklessly for other sources too. ×Meegs 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Image:Hussite Wars.jpg Uploader claims that it has been released by the copyright holder but there is no evidence of that. The image is an illustration by Angus McBride and appears in Stephen Turnbull's Hussite Wars (Osprey Publishing). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emphysema.jpg: Orphan, claimed PD-USGov, but the source given [20] is a page of the American Lung Association, which is not a U.S. federal government agency. There is no indication that this image is the work of the U.S. federal government. —Bkell (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lungcancer.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Clean lung hr.jpg: Same as above, though the source is not mentioned for this image. —Bkell (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:StMaryCathedralLafayette.jpg: Listed as PD-self, but found at http://www.saintmarycathedral.org/images/9805-300-13.jpg ccwaters 02:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bengalis.PNG: Listed as PD-self, but 3 of the 4 images used to make this composite are not free, and are in wikipedia only under fair use.--Ragib 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Image:Idolbannerha8.jpg: Claimed PD, but is actually a collage of fair use images. --Howard the Duck 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SNSROlogo.gif: Derived work from a non-notable company whose logo seems copyrighted could be a copyvio.--Jusjih 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Image:120.jpg: Claimed PD-Self on the same time as saying that it is a screen capture for a video. Maybe a case for Fair Use had it been used anywhere. /Lokal Profil 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tatumbell.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a published photo belonging to the Associated Press and credited to a David Zalubowski, as can be seen here [21]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:JasonRichardson.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Andrew D. Bernstein, on Image:Jkidd.jpg, an Associated Press photo, on Image:Iversonlayup.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Fernando Medina, Image:Vincecarter.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Ned Dishman, and on Image:Larryjohnson.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JasonRichardson.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site and is credited to an Andreew D. Bernstein, as can be seen here [22]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:Tatumbell.jpg, an Associated Press photo credited to David Zalubowski, on Image:Jkidd.jpg, an Associated Press photo, on Image:Iversonlayup.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Fernando Medina, Image:Vincecarter.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Ned Dishman, and on Image:Larryjohnson.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jkidd.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a published photo belonging to the Associated Press, as can be seen here [23]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:JasonRichardson.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Andrew D. Bernstein, on Image:Tatumbell.jpg, an Associated Press photo credited to David Zalubowski, on Image:Iversonlayup.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Fernando Medina, Image:Vincecarter.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Ned Dishman, and on Image:Larryjohnson.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Iversonlayup.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site and is credited to a Fernando Medina, as can be seen here [24]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:Tatumbell.jpg, an Associated Press photo credited to David Zalubowski, on Image:Jkidd.jpg, an Associated Press photo, on Image:JasonRichardson.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Andrew D. Bernstein, Image:Vincecarter.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Ned Dishman, and on Image:Larryjohnson.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vincecarter.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site and is credited to a Ned Dishman, as can be seen here [25]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:Tatumbell.jpg, an Associated Press photo credited to David Zalubowski, on Image:Jkidd.jpg, an Associated Press photo, on Image:JasonRichardson.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Andrew D. Bernstein, Image:Iversonlayup.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Fernando Medina, and on Image:Larryjohnson.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Larryjohnson.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL-self. Image, however, is a published photo belonging to the Associated Press, as can be seen here [26]. Same uploader also claims GFDL-Self on Image:JasonRichardson.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Andrew D. Bernstein, on Image:Tatumbell.jpg, an Associated Press photo credited to David Zalubowski, on Image:Iversonlayup.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Fernando Medina, Image:Vincecarter.jpg, a commercially sold photo from the NBA.com web site that is credited to Ned Dishman, and on Image:Jkidd.jpg, an Associated Press photo. Mwelch 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:California - Humboldt County.jpg. Claimed as PD, but it looks more like it is an altered screenshot from the Google Earth program. Since Google Earth is copyrighted, then under current copyright laws, a derivative screenshot from that application like this one is also copyrighted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stevens County.jpg. Claimed as PD, but it looks more like it is an altered screenshot from the Google Earth program. Since Google Earth is copyrighted, then under current copyright laws, a derivative screenshot from that application like this one is also copyrighted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TylerFaith.jpg No evidence that user is copyright holder of this image and can release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ethanallen.jpg. No source listed. Tagged as a promo photo, but it appears to be a news photo, removed tag. Uploaded by User:ChrisRy5. Kevyn 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TrumanTH.gif No evidence user has rights to release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazleton gave me permission to use it via a forum discussion of the page it is on. If I could find the post I'd give you a link, but do to the changes in the site, i think the post is lost. You are more than willing to e-mail Brazleton at his site at Theaterhopper.com H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Truthcom1.jpg No evidence user has rights to release image under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Image:64dd.jpg - Uploader does not hold the image copyright and has no right to release it under the terms of GFDL ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Kaoklai kaennorsing1.jpg and copy Image:Kaoklai Kaennorsing1.jpg - uploader claims to be the creator, but gives official website as source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mee pok.jpg - according to source[27], it's not public domain, but "© All rights reserved". --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nec2.jpg - source states "All rights reserved.", nothing about GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stevekarlricky16wj.jpg and Image:Karlp47nj.jpg - these seem to be screenshots, and uploader is probably in no position to release these into the public domain.
Image:AnnRichards.jpg - photo of a recent artwork.--Peta 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the photo is of a recent painting, but the painting was commissioned by the State of Texas and hangs in the Texas Capitol. SteveHopson 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the State of Texas doesn't hold the copyright to the image? —Bkell (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images owned by the State of Texas are copyrighted. As a derivative work, I doubt you could claim a CC license -Nv8200p talk 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In the image's license, I have added a "fair use" rationale for articles about Governor Ann Richards. -Wikid77 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CC license. SteveHopson 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burnlogo Oct06 reduced.JPG - radio logo, released as {{GFDL-self}}. Ian Devlin (talk · contribs) uploaded it, stating that it was Created by Aaron Roscoe and Ian Devlin for Burn FM. However, it appears there is no way of verifying the image is really free. -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg Image is marked PD-ineligible which it does not qualify for. Source listed is a blog. -Nv8200p talk 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ineligible, because it is just a factual photo with no creative elements. Paranoid 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beavers hass 1029.jpg From a copyrighted website with no evidence copyright was released -Nv8200p talk 22:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fidel-recent-bw.jpg Cuba is a party to the Berne Convention so this image is not public domain. -Nv8200p talk 23:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fuentes.jpg No evidence author released the image to the public domain -Nv8200p talk 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gaelicfootball.jpg No evidence at the source that author released the image to the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been discussed before at User_talk:Gnevin#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Gaelicfootball.jpg

Image:Newton's apple hosts.jpg No evidence at the source that copyright holder released the image to the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

Image:926934 20060228 screen002.jpg From copyrighted game. No evidence the copyright holder is releasing for any use. -Nv8200p talk 03:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DE2006COMSAM.jpg Says GFDL-self but probably copyright State of Delaware -Nv8200p talk 15:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cristiano Manchester.jpg Tagged as GFDL but comes from a copyrightes website. -Nv8200p talk 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sandiego sprinter.jpg Was identified as not copyrighted but web site source says otherwise. - Can't Undo 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Image:Kostopoulos.jpg Uploader says GFDL-self, but it looks like a publicity shot from the TV show it is used to illustrate. Thatcher131 07:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1991 Alfa Romeo SZ.JPG and Image:1991 Alfa Romeo SZb.jpg (same image with watermark cropped off) - couldn't find anything at source to support uploader's NoRightsReserved claim, and the cropped watermark seems dubious. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Giasosa.jpg - couldn't find anything at source to support uploader's NoRightsReserved claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no need to delete it, just retag as fair use. Bravada, talk - 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Molotov 250X200.gif - nothing at source supports uploader's NoRightsReserved claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following images claim GFDL-self, however the website they are downloaded from says noncommericial use only, and there is no indication the uploaded is the photographer.

Thatcher131 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dean Butterworth.jpg - claimed to be a promotional image, but website credited as source doesn't give any indication of this and contains bold assertion "COPYRIGHT 2006 J.D'ADDARIO & CO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mr Lordi.jpg Claims to be GFDL but appears to be from a randoom wesite.Geni 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Image:NDS e3 2004 model.jpg, the picture is claimed to be under GFDL, but the uploader never claimed to have created it, the image is of too low resolution to have been taken with a camera, probably picked from some site. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note Image:Nintendo DS E3.PNG, a PD version derived from the previous one. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image was an edited version of that file. It wasn't taken by me... I'll edit it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yshoulduknow (talk • contribs) .

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nintendo DS System 1234.PNG, the picture is claimed to be in the public domain, however it is a promotional image (see the IGN logo at http://legalfreestuff.tripod.com/id20.html), which has been replaced by Image:NDS.jpg. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nintendo DS System 123.PNG has been uploaded as public domain, but is a promotional image (see http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/22/nintedo_ds_lite_euro_ship_date/ in example). Image has been replaced by free image Image:Nintendo DS Lite side.jpg. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DS compared to GBASP.PNG, image apparently created with non free images. The free replacement Image:GBAandDS SlotCompare.jpg is used instead. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1502012.jpg and Image:Gavaskar.jpg User:PushkarKolhe is uploading copyrighted images and claim release under GFDL with no evidence to support the claim. -Nv8200p talk 04:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SP123.PNG, uploaded as public domain, but clearly promotional. -- ReyBrujo 05:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:ITV Black.PNG, promotional image uploaded as public domain. -- ReyBrujo 05:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I personally made this using GIMP 2.0, with my own hands from scratch. YSHOULDUKNOW123 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then your name is James and you posted the picture here? Or your name is Chris L. and you posted the picture here? Quite a resume for a 12-year-old. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I really did use GIMP to make it, it's a MOCK-UP of the original Apple one. Look at the font!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I USED FRUTIGER INSTEAD OF MYRIAD, WHICH IS WHAT APPLE USED!!! OMG! I MADE IT WITH GIMP! Don't believe me? Look at the Myriad (typeface) font's letter i, then look at the Frutiger font's i, then look at my image, and this official image from the show: http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/itv.jpg. Now, do you believe me? If you don't, I don't know what else to tell you. YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!!! I JUST REALIZED, THAT SECOND SITE, THAT'S MY IMAGE THAT I MADE. I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING. OH MY GOD, YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE ME, BUT THEY MUST HAVE SEEN IT ON WIKIPEDIA AND TOOK IT. I'M SORRY YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE ME, BUT THAT IS MY IMAGE THAT I MADE ON BOTH OF THOSE SITES! YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I really do have a good resume (HA! I love making other peolpes stupid sarcasm and making it real). Look, the people from those sites, saw it here, and posted the image on their sites, because I listed the image as public domain. They used my image, which is fine, because it's public domain. I really don't know what else to say. I can't simply post my Photobucket account... I can't do anything about it... Believe me or not, I made it, and I think it should stay. Wait, I can mail the people from those sites... I'll post their e-mails when they respond to my e-mail I'm sending them... YSHOULDUKNOW123 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made it on September 16, I made it for my old NSider thread about Apple, and it took me about 2 hours to make. YSHOULDUKNOW123 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you post a higher resolution version of the same image ? Say 1000 pixels wide - this would prove that you created the image. Megapixie 08:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Sure, here you are... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ITV_Black123.PNG YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After taking a look at the images - the Chris L posting appears to have occured on September 18 - two days after the original image was uploaded to wikipedia. I can't find the image on the tech routlette site (could you provide a direct link ?). I'm inclined to side with YOUSHOULDKNOW - in that he produced the original image and the second higher resolution image. The images themselves are not outside of what someone could create in GIMP with a little time and work. The fact that the image appears to have been uploaded first to wiki - and then borrowed (perfectly legally) by several other sites- based on the PD tag attached to the image. Megapixie 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for your vote on keeping the image! YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Image:NY75FC.jpg, image [28] from a website [29] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these images are photographs of licens plates then they are derivative work and as such inherit the copyright of the original design. Therefor the licens of thes images depend on the licenses of the real licens plates (probably varies with state) but not on whatever license they may have been released under at [30]. This goes for all of the below images of licens plates as well.Lokal_Profil 10:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noticing may be that User:Only a Few Seconds's only contributions are these PUI reports. Lokal_Profil 10:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The works of the State of New York are copyrighted. It is possible we could make a fair use claim but not in the only article the image was used US and Canadian license plates. I removed the image from that article and it is now orphaned -Nv8200p talk 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nb87a.jpg, , image [31] from a website [32] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Image also uploaded by banned user. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nypud.jpg, image [33] from a website [34] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Njcv.jpg, , image [35] from a website [36] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Va2002vanity.jpg, , image [37] from a website [38] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tnrs1242.jpg, image [39] from a website [40] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NY license plate 2005.jpg, , image [41] from a website [42] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NJ01MUTTS.jpg, image [43] from a website [44] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Va2002vanity.jpg, , image [45] from a website [46] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nj99z.jpg, image [47] from a website [48] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Njcom.jpg, , image [49] from a website [50] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:On76d.jpg, image [51] from a website [52] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ON96ST.jpg, , image [53] from a website [54] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NY78TV.jpg, , image [55] from a website [56] which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Wikipedia." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:150px-Jonny.jpg No evidence this image was released under Creative Commons. -Nv8200p talk 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

Image:Subbaraju2.jpg. Image cropped from here. It is likely owned by the film production company, or possible the idlebrain.com website. ×Meegs 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ugandacan team.JPG and Image:Camp children.JPG - both from the same uploader and tagged PD-self, but two different creators are credited in the summaries, so at least one image's copyright tag is wrong. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MeBorat.jpg and the identiacal Image:MeBorat.JPG were uploaded by User:BoratSagdiyev, a troll imitating the fictinal character Borat. Jon513 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HIMHaileSelassie.jpg No evidence uploader has rights to release under GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:92003.jpg Flagged with {{Video tape cover}} though image is obviously not a video tape cover, and therefore not covered by relevant licence. Image is likely copyright protected (non-free) newspaper content. Guliolopez 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hoe of destruction.PNG Derivative of a copyrighted work -Nv8200p talk 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Holcombheadshot2.jpg No evidence that the permission given was to release image as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Honkavaara ilves.jpg and Image:Honkavaara.jpg No evidence user has rights to release under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Horner St9 TourdeSuisse.jpg No evidence user had permission to release under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I just post the email from the originating site administrator here? I posted it on the image's page for now. Julius.kusuma 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order to release under the GFDL, if it isn't your own work you need to get an explicit statement saying specifically that that is the license that it is being released under. They may be free, but they may just be free as in beer as opposed to free as in open source. It may just be better to link to the images gallery from the article. Captainktainer * Talk 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Free does not mean you can release under GFDL. Please have the copyright holder explain what he wants to do. Does he mean the images are released into the public domain or that he retains copyright, but they are free to use for any purpose or he wishhes to release under a free license like GFDL or Creative Commons. These distinctions are important. Post the correspondence on the image talk page -Thanks Nv8200p talk 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Image:J70.jpg No evidence copyrighted website released image as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JCu.gif No evidence uploader has right to release as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JDK 60th Cake Salute small er.jpg Claims he is the creator of the work but had to get permission to use it. Also, permission is too vague. Permission for what? -Nv8200p talk 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JLPicard.jpg Derivative work using copyrighted image. -Nv8200p talk 04:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Msarovar2.jpg, Image:Msarovar3.jpg, Image:Sagar.jpg, and Image:Mangalagiri.jpg - all from the same uploader; nothing to support CopyrightedFreeUse (in one case even the summary says "All Rights Reserved")... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hhf.gif, Image:Newhorlickfield.jpg, and Image:Westsidebleachers.jpg - uploader claims to be creator, but apparently took the images from here and here.
Image:K 1033CR08-9 Yellow fungus on stalk.jpg Licensing says nothing about releasing under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KILLING CHE (COVER).jpg Book cover marked GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Image:LarsFriis.jpg No evidence at source that image is released under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lennyrandle.jpg No evidence at source that image is released under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:McMahon A.jpg. This image appears to be from http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/canada/alberta/calgary_mcmahon.shtml They do not seem to license their material as GFDL. Uploader's talk page, indicates a Image:Calgary_mcmahon.jpg was deleted for copyright problems. Uploader had previously asked if World Stadiums was a legit source, and was told (properly) it was not a valid source. I suspect they simply tagged it as {{GFDL-self}} to avoid deletion. Finally, given the angle of this show, it's somewhat hard for the average person to take. --Rob 09:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Traudlhead.jpg Need a better source as to where this image came from, off the web or an archive? No evidence this image is from a state issued ID card. Need citations that this image would be out of copyright under German Law. -Nv8200p talk 13:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alyson07.jpg This is a recreated image, one of a couple variations which was removed for being unfree. It is now added again under by a new person who claims to be the person the article is about, saying they created the image and it's free. Very doubtful; the official bio page from which the picture came also lists it as being copyrighted. —LactoseTI^T 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JenniferSu.jpg Similar for this one, although it seems the uploader in this case just threw as many "free" templates as possible on the page, hoping one would stick. —LactoseTI^T 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied the above two images as recreations of deleted content. Nandesuka 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ghtuy.JPG Claims GFDL but is "Promotional photograph", otherwise unused
Image:Maiden-avatar.jpg From a copyrighted video game. No evidence it was work of the uploader. -Nv8200p talk 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Image:Image7.jpg Claims GFDL but unlikely to be valid. Valrith 04:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sfxshamrockglasswindow.jpg This is a photograph of an sales invoice. Despite the attempts of three people, here and here, the uploader insists that they, as the photographer, can copyright the reproduction as they like. It may be possible to show that a document of this nature is exempt from copyright, but failing that, only Harry Clarke Stained Galss Limited can release the rights to the image. ×Meegs 05:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Only two people dispute it's use; one of the other people supports the use of this image. When a photo is taken of a books cover, the photographer is not claiming that he owns the copyright to the book cover, but he does own teh copyright to the image. I created the image, so I own the image. Some other points are, Church publications are not copyrighted, invoices/receipts from purchases are not copyrighted, and I also asked my parish priest (the owner of the document) if he would allow this image to be freely distributed, and he said yes (he then explained about the previous two points). So this image's copyright should not be disputed, and this image should not be deleted. - Ivan Kricancic 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an invoice could be judged to be an "original work of authorship" as needed to qualify for copyright. I believe PD-ineligible would be the correct tagging. -Nv8200p talk 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tag to "PD-ineligible", as an invoice isn't copyrighted. But I did still leave the PUI tag on it. - King Ivan

07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WPC_02_cropped.jpg and Image:WPC interior.jpg claim promotional, but may be invalid because image not apparently released under free license by Westport Country Playhouse. [57] Sandy 07:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Miss Indonesia.jpg Summary says it is AP photo. Tagged GFDL. Probably not correct tagging. -Nv8200p talk 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlexisStodghill.jpg The article was a vanity delete, and the picture should be deleted as well.

Image:Pic_headquarter_col.jpg Copyright Violation - Copyed from [58] but claims GNU Free Documentation License.

October 1

Image:Pluspetrol300dpi.jpg Copyright Violation. Ansett 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a chance I'll take a picture of a Plus Petrol outlet myself and upload it. SMC 10:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zidane03.jpg from [59]: Unverifiable copyright status. Image is erroneously tagged with {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} but is taken from a fansite with no source details for its hosted images. --Muchness 06:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AndyLandersGeorgia.jpg - no reason given for 'no rights reserved' tag -SCEhard T 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Apostogan.jpg - Tagged {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} but summary indicates {{Permission}} -SCEhardT 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded this image, and the author specifically gave permission for its use on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand how this is a copyright violation.--Jfurr1981 03:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Armadale-station-ramp.jpg - Tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but summary indicates {{Permission}} -SCEhard T 19:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Please see User_talk:Ozzmosis#Railway_station_photos. Maybe you can help me out. --ozzmosis 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the specific terms of the permission you have for these images? -SCEhard T 05:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was granted by the author allowing free use of the images on the condition the {{attribution}} tag was used. His email was forwarded to permissions at wikimedia dot org in May 2006. --ozzmosis 08:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the posted permission on the image's talk page. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I link to the email? Can you give me an example of where another user has done this? --ozzmosis 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aston Martin AMV8 Vantage rear.jpg - Free wallpaper sites generally don't release all rights (which is not the same as "free") -SCEhard T 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Astrolabe yemen.jpg - No indication on source website of {{NoRightsReserved}} -SCEhard T 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AuburnStation1.jpg - Tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but summary indicates {{Permission}} -SCEhardT 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:AuburnStation2.jpg Same as above -SCEhard T 20:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Avenel1.jpg - Tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but summary indicates {{Permission}} -SCEhard T 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Image:Salem.gif - Listed as being 'for acacemdic purposes' which is not a release of all rights (and wouldn't be free enough for wikipedia anyways). Furthurmore, I cannot find evidence of it being released for academic purposes either. --Kevin_b_er 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Z7299.jpg - Listed as having been created by the poster. However, looking at his talk page and looking at some of his other postings, as well as a premature RfA, I'm pretty skeptical. The next three images of his also seem suspicious. Alex Dodge 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Triumph Doreen Luxury Soft Cup Bra.jpg - See above. Alex Dodge 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Strike14a_teenageRobot-1.jpg - See above. Alex Dodge 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:'Gorky Reading to Stalin' by Viktor Govorov.jpg - Tagged PD-Soviet, which is no longer valid as its reasoning is considered incorrect. Govorov died in 1959 and thus {{PD-Russia}} doesn't apply. Might be fair use if someone can come up with a good rationale. Lupo 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:"Anxiety" by Geli Korzhev.jpg - Was tagged PD-Soviet. Geli Korzhev is still living, so PD-Russia doesn't apply. Fair use is doubtful, given the shortness of the article on Korzhev. Lupo 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1972Sabre.jpg - Was tagged PD-Soviet. Photographer died 1972 or later, so PD-Russia does not apply. Lupo 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Zaikin dmitri.jpg - Was tagged PD-Soviet. No date given; the specified source (www.spacefacts.de) is clearly not the copyright owner and doesn't indicate any source. Lupo 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Police-4.jpg copyright is not verifiable, and licence restrictions are claimed. Uploader has a history of using false licences. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Altaf Hussain 2003-apmso25-4.jpg copyright is not verifiable. Uploader has a history of using false licences. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:O'boyle hall.jpg Courtesy of UCA does not constitute permission to release as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KamNews.jpg Natascha Kampusch on the cover of an Australian weekly. Not used to discuss the magazine, hence fair use doesn't apply. Dr Zak 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Eminajahovic.jpg Uploader "didn't make this picture", but it's tagged as PD-self. Source states "(c) 1997-2000 Balkanmedia" --Matt314 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nelsons Pillar Dublin2.jpg - This is a photo of the Nelson's Pillar after it was blown up by the IRA in 1966. Uploader claims that the copyright owner of this photo has been dead for 100 years which is obviously incorrect. Thuresson 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]