Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 16 August 18 >

Contents

[edit] August 17

[edit] Image:Bagotville-aerien.jpg

Procedural listing of declined speedy. Reason given was: "Copyright violation; the original page has since been removed from the web, but the image is still cached on Google as the fifth result here, with the exact same height, width and file size." Although when I click on that link, it's the first result. But|seriously|folks  02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frank_welker_pd.gif

Despite being tagged as {{PD}}, the source url says: "©2000 Animation World Network" and the image description page says: "Photo by John Findlater. Courtesy of Frank Welker." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thor, information is correct and photo may be used courtesy of Frank Welker. August 27 2007 "Greenskeeper" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenskeeper (talk • contribs) 04:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I just left a message at Greenskeeper's page asking him to get Frank Welker to write to permissions@wikimedia.org. Calliopejen1 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This image can be undeleted if permission is obtained. It's been listed for over a month. -- But|seriously|folks  07:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RichardLooyoung.jpg

No evidence of publication prior to 1923. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maricel111.jpg

uploader by User:Soulskeeps13 apparently is the same as User:Bagong buhay who was previously been warned of uploading copyvio images. bluemask (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PA190099.jpg

Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character, and the statue copyrighted Alx 91 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A statue which is displayed in a public place (even if in itself copyrighted) may be photographed without infringement of the original copyright (though the trade mark is still protected) under the UK law. This picture was taken at a Disney shop in London - the statue was displayed at the window - and thus can be photographed as it is displayed in a public place. Furthermore, this is a commercial product - produced in moltitueds and sold in Disney shops - therefore it is not entitled to copy right - and only to a trade mark protection (same as taken a picture of a street in which there is a guy walking in a Mickey mouse costume - a parctice incuraged by the Disney company even within Disneyland and Disneyworld. Deror 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Commercial products are certainly entitled to copyright. Books, posters, paintings, calendars, figurines, etc. are all regularly copyrighted, despite their being mass-produced and commercially sold. —Bkell (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The book itself is copyrighted and so is the statue, but an image of it displayed in public place may be produced (such as a pile of Harry potter books in a book store may be photographed). Deror 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama, 'nuff said. Axem Titanium 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a close up of a work of (popular) art, not a panaroma, which means Deror's argument (backed by Axem Titanium) doesn't apply. The 'separate' elements seem to be one object. – Ilse@ 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you ment by "The 'separate' elements" - an image displayed in a public place may be photographed - it does not infringe the original copyright of the three dimentional object nor the trade mark. Being a derivative work of art of a differant nature is usually protected, however, as the picture is taken in a public place, this is allowed. Deror 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
With 'separate' elements I meant the Mickey Mouse figure, the chair, the paint, etc. – Ilse@ 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection - the image was taken at a Disney shop in London (I think it was in Covent Garden, but I am not sure. It has been several years ago. The UK has freedom of Panorama, therefore even a commercial element may be photographed in a public place. The "panorma" is relevent for all works of art displayed in a Public place. (see [1] Deror 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The incidental inclusion of copyrighted material in an image is acceptable, per Mike Godwin. An image that focuses on a copyrighted work of art is not permitted, even if it is publicly displayed. This can only be used persuant to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Since it is not currently used in the mainspace, it has to be deleted. -- But|seriously|folks  07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Note also that it was previously deleted at commons as a derivative work. [2] -- But|seriously|folks  07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scan001eq5.jpg

This is a scan of a magazine article. Jesse Viviano 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:34130926.jpg

Logo uploaded for use on the speedy deleted article Guards of hindustan; same uploader as Image:Scan001eq5.jpg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Goldendisktoys.jpg

Unlikely to be GFDL. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Kept - and retagged as copyrighted. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 03:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)