Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aston~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 31 October 2006 (→October 30). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Place either:

or

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

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

Shortcut

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

Instructions

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

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

To list an image on this page:

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

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

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.

October 10

  • Image:Stjepanfilipovic.jpg - wrong license (was tagged as {{PD-old}}); copyright status unclear. Photographer unknown. 1942 photo from (occupied) Yougoslavia. Rasterized image, likely was scanned from a newspaper. Source given does not appear to be the source of this image (copy there is too small). Might be fair use, but needs a "fair use" rationale... Lupo 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not claimed, which makes it work without "paternal rights" according to the appropriate Serbian laws. Lupo is unsure of what he is discussing, as he ignored communicating with me regarding this matter. Please see the image page for proper explanation. If somebody, however, is familiar with Wikipedia's tags regarding copyright, please tag it correctly. --dcabrilo 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had been a member of the Berne Convention since 1930.[1]. We don't know about the situation during German occupation and in Nedić's Serbia, but Germany in any case was a member of the Berne Convention, too. With the SFR Yugoslavia, a discontinuity occurred; the SFRY joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1966[2] and the Berne Convention entered in force in 1975.[3]. It appears that at that time, photographs were under copyright for 25 years since publication (compare e.g. the situation in Croatia, which took over the copyright law of the SFRY in 1991[4]; it's also the minimum term defined by the Berne Convention, §7(4)). The legal situation is a mess; however, {{PD-old}} is certainly wrong. Furthermore, dcabrilo argues based on current Serbian copyright law, which says in §13(1) that for anonymous works, the publisher holds the copyright, unless (§13(2)) it can be proven that the publication occurred illegally. §101(2) defines the copyright term for anonymous works as 70 years since publication. It may be an orphan work (copyrighted, but copyright holder unknown), but that's not PD. I think we should only make PD claims if we can show that a work is indeed PD. If not, make a fair use claim. Lupo 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it as fair use as it clearly qualifies for it. If it turns up that it's PD, feel free to change it's license. --Dijxtra 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rolled the tag to HistoricPhoto (fairuse) since it would seem to qualify and added a more detailed rationale. Definately an iconic image. Megapixie 21:27, 14 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.


October 13

October 14

October 15

In any case Image:Daruga-Earth-Time.jpeg can be speedy deleted as orphaned and redundant to Image:Diagura-Earth-Time.png /Lokal_Profil 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different file format, so it can't be speedied. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

October 17

Unless we hear from the uploader, we should delete them all. I was able to find some of the others on web sites too ([7], [8]), and doubt all of the images' -self tags. ×Meegs 08:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, I should also note that while Native Boy has neither replied to queries nor provided the requested license information, when OrphanBot removed the images in question from various articles, 66.138.6.34 added them back in ([9], [10], etc.) in under six hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Also: Image:Chadowens.jpg and Image:P1 lelie si.jpg are both also marked as fair use as promotional photos, but one is an AP photo and the other is from Sports Illustrated, neither of whose photos are by any means promotional. -Elmer Clark 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:ObouldManyArrows.jpg. This is a copyright image from Wizards.com; see also Wizards.com TOS. It has a detailed fair use rational, but I feel it may fall short of Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, because it is being used in a manner that may compete with and/or replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. The image was created for use in a commercial encyclopedic work about a fictional entity, and placed online solely to promote the sale of the encyclopedic work. Wikipedia is using an exact reproduction of the image for a free encyclopedia entry about the fictional entity. --Muchness 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree. Not fair use because the article is not about the image. Megapixie 06:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Nearly all articles about fictional characters (including featured articles) have small, non-free pictures of the character used under fair use. It would be impossible to create an image of the character that could be freely licensed. Why should Darth Vader or Jabba the Hutt have fair use images, but not this one? – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Darth Vader and Jabba the Hutt articles are illustrated by movie screenshots, whereas this article is illustrated by an exact reproduction of a copyright image that was published on the web for a specific commercial purpose. My main concern is that the image does not meet Wikipedia's second fair use criteria, and my understanding is that images must meet all criteria to qualify for fair use. Its usage here is potentially in conflict with the image's intended market role: we are not using the image to promote the sale of the book from which the image is taken, and we are providing a free alternative to the commercial encyclopedic work in which the image was originally published. --Muchness 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, images must indeed meet all fair use criteria, and if this image violates criterion #2 then it will have to be deleted. But I'm not sure it does. Afterall, parsing what you wrote above, a movie screenshot is an "exact reproduction of a copyright image that was published [in a movie theater] for a specific commercial purpose". Surely it doesn't matter whether it was published on the web or in a movie? Besides which, this image was published on the web, and for commercial purposes. I can't find any difference between the TOS for the Star Wars images (which are pretty consistently deemed acceptable in Wikipedia) and the TOS for Wizards of the Coast. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot is not an exact reproduction of the source media. Regarding the Star Wars concept art, the situations aren't analogous. The Wizards.com image was published on the web for the specific purpose of promoting the sale of a book, while the Jabba concept art was published in the context of a free encyclopedic entry, so the fair use rationale for the Jabba image doesn't apply to this image. The Wizards.com image's usage in the article may limit the copyright owner's ability to market or sell the book, since the image a) appears in the article in a non-promotional context, and b) provides a free substitute for content in the book. --Muchness 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not convinced, FWIW. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

  • Image:Tim chokes.jpg is tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but the image clearly says "Illinois Department of Public Health", a STATE agency. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Der ewige jude.jpg claims the following: This item was created in 1937 by the defunct Nazi Government of Germany, case study shows that images from this era have been sucessfully used without concideration for copyright. As such, is can be universally considered public domain. --- but I have never heard about case studies (in court) showing this. It could probably be used for a wide variety of fair use purposes though. / Fred-Chess 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legal successor to the Nazi Government is the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. Re-tagged {{politicalposter}}, but we ought to know the archive where it is kept. Dr Zak 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the image: The bottom text says: "A large political exhibition in the library building of the German Museum in Munchen. From November 8, 1937. Open 10am-9pm every day." For now, I am removing both the PUIdisputed tag (otherwise the image may be deleted by a bot or an overzealous user) and the PD claim. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

October 22

Dr Zak, stop following me around trying to delete my images and articles. These are perfectly well attributed. I've asked you before: if you want to question my images, ask a neutral editor to do it. It's not acceptable for you to misuse the image policies to harass people. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of turning this into a personal battle, can we get back to establishing the provenance of the image, please! A proper paper trail consists of photographer, copyright holder or archive collection, not of where they were found on the web. It has been pointed out to you before that some of your image uploads are poorly attributed; it would be appropiate if you made a good-faith effort to fix them instad of continually insisting that people stap back. Dr Zak 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

October 24

October 25

The image has definitely been used to promoter her website, if that makes any difference. MightyAtom 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for Image:Ootp25.jpg as well. -Elmer Clark 05:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, out of curiosity, is there a tag for chapter title illustrations, and if not, what is the fair use problem with the use of them? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they qualify as fair use. There are free alternatives to illustrate Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort (see their pages). Also, I believe fair use would only allow this to be used to illustrate the book itself. -Elmer Clark 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a template doesn't work for a particular image doesn't mean that the image isn't fair use. It just means that a more accurate template is needed. Try checking for a better one at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If there is one, use it. If not — and if the usage seems to be reasonably fair use, as is the case here — then make a new template (with consensus there). I created a brief sample to use, now shown on Image:Ootp36.jpg. -- kenb215 talk 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrations from the books shouldn't be used for Harry Potter articles anyway. They are only in the American editions and are not considered cannon. There's a discussion on this somewhere in the Albus Dumbledore Talk page. --Phnx2ashes 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are probably not "fair use". They are not being used in a critical or transformative way — they are being used to illustrate aspects of a story which are summarized next to them, not too differently from their original context. I think a court would also rule that they do compete with the originals. As creative expressions they would also have a strong claim to copyright. I think these should be deleted. --Fastfission 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

Image:Cora-sox.JPG makes the same claim, but is copyrighted by Getty Images and very unlikely to be promotional. -Elmer Clark 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Roads and cars are not protected by copyright. Many buildings are not also—and in most cases that they are, publication of photographs is allowed under 'freedom of panorama' laws. —JeremyA 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Statue}} would be fine except that we already have two similar photos being claimed fair use—my understanding of Wikipedia's fair use rules is that we need to keep the number of fair use images limited to the minimum necessary to illustrate the articles. —JeremyA 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I use 1 minute of a Beatles song in my new hollywood movie without permission, will they sue? I think yes. —JeremyA 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

October 29

October 30

Image:Dynabee.jpg tagged as GFDL-self but copy found at Dynabee web site which is copyrighted. -Nv8200p talk 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that image is simply miss-taged it just needs {{albumcover}} and its fine --Dan027 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it is an actually cover, the title layout looks pretty self-made to me.... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=84881509"