Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 6	August 8 >

1 August 7

[edit] August 7

[edit] Image:Richard_Barone2006_1.jpg

No evidence for GFDL license. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And the caption says the photo is by Mick Rock. Deleted. -- But|seriously|folks 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BeeghlyCenter.jpg

Listed as being released into the public domain, but there's no evidence of that on the website link provided in the description. --fuzzy510 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eva maria gonzalez.jpg

I very much doubt that this image is free. The extremely poor resolution and convex curvative of the image strongly suggest a low-quality screenshot from (copyrighted) television coverage. The same goes for the uncropped version. — Savidan 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Australia ErinMcNaught.JPG

[edit] Image:MapleStoryAwardlogo.png

This is the logo of Maplestory, which is copyrighted by Nexon. User:Anti-Maplestory only modified the logo a bit. JackLau 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MakiNomiya.jpg

No fair use rationale given. CardinalFangZERO 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Djcc_banner.jpg

No evidence of CC-by license for this logo. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MarissaMayerheadshot.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nantawanmap.gif

Watermarks indicate that uploader may not be copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Post499_alizee.jpg

Pro-quality publicity photo, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Message.jpg

This note should be copyrighted by its author, not public domain. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kumi.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Boacolorcj5.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Namiee5.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a known promotional image of the artist, and I doubt the uploader is the original artist. -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dorothy_300.jpg

According to the summary, the uploader scanned this image from a book, so he isn't the creator/copyright holder. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flame(Rapper).jpg

Source website does not support license claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ebcb5d995_o.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JohnThurmanAbove.PNG

Part of Google watermark is visible on right side. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Bridgeman_in_his_Studio.jpg

No support for GDFL claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Id_of_israel_WIKI.jpg

"GFDL assumed" isn't enough. Source at he.wiki seems to have been deleted. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a copy on the Yiddish Wiki as well: [1]. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ssbmgamewatch.jpg

No evidence that uploader holds copyright to this video game character. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now a non-free tag. -- But|seriously|folks 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hubbardmedal.gif

Vague source, no support for license. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LizzieMacDonald.jpg

Appears to be a screenshot. Uploader has apparent history of copyvio uploads. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hdhs.JPG

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder of this logo. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept - nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AshleyLeggat.jpg

No evidence that the uploader, who has an apparent history of copyvio uploads, is the copyright holder of this picture. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. I doubt the user was in the limo with the girls & taking this picture. On a second note. the wikipedia image does not really look like Ashley Leggat. Here is a publicity photo - Image of Ashley Leggat. They both look similar, but not similar enough to be the same person in my opinion. 71.252.85.53 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MalFletcher.GIF

Couldn't find support for license at source website. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nash91.jpg

Summary seems to contradict license tag. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Reh_studio_portrait.jpg

Summary contradicts license tag. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the summary, this photograph is in the public domain. It was taken in 1934 at the subject's paid request, and hence copyright belonged to the subject. The subject died on June 11, 1936. Under copyright law this photo had an initial copyright of 28 years, and copyright had to be renewed for copyright to remain in effect. The copyright term ran out in 1962 with no renewal being made by any party, thus releasing this photo in the public domain. Later laws extended the term of copyright from 28 years to 47 years, 75 years, and longer, but only for those items still under copyright protection at the time the laws were passed. As this photo had long been in the public domain when the first of these laws took effect in 1978, the new laws do not apply, and it is in the public domain.

Hence, please refrain from deleting the photo. Thank you. Leo Grin 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but wouldn't the duration of the copyright be measured from the death of the photographer, even if the copyright belonged to someone else? -- But|seriously|folks 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image kept. If the copyright was not renewed the date of death of photographer is irrelevant. -Nv8200p talk 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Radebe_lucas.jpg

Source does not support license tag. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:St_John's_YYT.jpg

Source (official website of Canadian airport) contradicts license (work of NOAA/U.S. federal goverment) Fritz S. (Talk) 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The_Magic_Numbers.jpg

Source does not support license claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Turgut_Ozal.jpg

Source does not support license tag. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added this photo to English Wikipedia from the Turkish Wikipedia. Turkish Wikipedia has the correct tag for the image but possibly I couldn't find the correct tag when I uploaded it. I offer to modify the license tag according to the original image’s tag. I don't see any other problems which can let us delete this one. Deliogul 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the tag to "fairuse". – Ilse @ 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Talkingboony.jpg

Not taken (as claimed) by uploader, but copied from Flickr[2]; See talk. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TrinityHS.jpg

Source website does not support license claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Whittingtonscat.jpg

No support for PD claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Draco_Mal.JPG

Looks like screenshot/promo photo, very unlikely to have been created by uploader. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a screenshot/promo photo, can we change the licensing to film screenshot and FU rationale for identifying Malfoy, and be done with it? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the licensing and removed the possibly unfree template. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:North_american_operatingplants.gif

As I wrote in the comments section of the image, the page the image was downloaded from implies a license. It specifically anticipates that the user will want to use the image on their own web page, and gives directions for how to download the image in order to do that.

I am not an expert in copyright, and will not become one soon, and am not following the political machinations of wikipedia. If you want to gut the wiki to gain some sense of purity, go for it. But my uploading of this image sure seems like fair use to me.

Delete. Image is clearly copyrighted, and as a map is easily replaceable. —Angr 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The "implied license" does not necessarily include derivative images and all other possible uses by all possible users. Calliopejen1 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sbtvd test.jpg

This is a screenshot of a broadcast image, and therefore under its broadcaster's copyright. However, a good fair use case can be made. Jesse Viviano 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Switched to {{Non-free television screenshot}}. -- But|seriously|folks 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:THIS_IS_my_own_work.jpg

Apparently a derivative work of copyrighted publicity photos. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Noob999 at it again.

Repeat offender at it again, uploading more screenshots and promotional pictures falsely under a GFDL license. Here's the newest ones:

Image:Crittershelen.jpg
Image:Critters2model.jpg
Image:Critters3leo.gif
Image:Critterskrite.jpg
Image:EricAngle.jpg

Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bruce-campbell.jpg

Preciously deleted fair-use image; uploader now claims it's creative commons but provides no evidence. There are no Google hits for "Designer Portrait Studios", the alleged source.—Chowbok ☠ 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true: [3] [4]

~~Not only that, Chowbok has not informed the uploader too!~~--18jahremädchen 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Retreated after reading history. Sorry.--18jahremädchen 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant that I can find no reference on Google to a company called "Designer Protrait Studios". You haven't either. "Hudson Designer Portrait Studios" doesn't count.—Chowbok ☠ 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Appear_headquarters_stockholm.jpg

Watermarked image, no evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Easily replaceable by free image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lloyd Banks Chain.PNG

It's easy to tell the difference between a free and unfree image the second you look at it. Seems like a copyvio of http://www.g-unitgallery.com/details.php?image_id=2349. — Spellcast 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

There is no copyright status on the image. It has no restriction etc. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A photo is automatically copyrighted to the person who took the image, unless he/she explicitly states otherwise. Spellcast 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. I understand now. If it gets deleted ill upload another picure which has been previously taken and whose license would be acceptable. --The-G-Unit-Boss 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just make the sure the person who took the picture actually released it under a copyleft license. Otherwise, it will be speedied. Spellcast 06:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I prove that they have. What if I know that they have but I cant prove it? (Please reply on my talk page as I may forget to check back here) Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Torment-caligula.jpg

Tagged {{PD-Sweden}}, but the tag says artistic works have to have been created before January 1, 1944, and the description of this image says it was made in March 1944. — —Angr 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is repeated on a regular basis for those who don't understand Swedish copyright law. The image is legally not an artistic work, but a so called "photographic image" created before 1969 and therefore in the public domain. --Odengatan 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Films aren't considered artistic works in Sweden? How very sad. Is anything? —Angr 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the desription you'll notice that it is not a question of a screen shot of a movie, but a photo taken during the rehearsal of the filming, for the promotion of the film - and therfore, according to the Swedish law (which you don't seem to know) not a de jure artistic photo, but a photografic image - A PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE! --Odengatan 22:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that promotional photos are not considered artistic under Swedish law. In other countries with similar distinctions (Germany, Italy) between creative photographs and simple photographic works, only things like passport photos that require no creativity whatsoever are considered simple photographic works. Swedish law may well be different; has this been decided in a court case in Sweden already? Or is it merely your interpretation of Swedish law? —Angr 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture is obviously one of several stage photos from the rehersal of the film, not a screen shot. The picture has later been used as a press photo in promoting the film. Unlike the director of the film, the annonymous photographer didn't direct the actors or set the light. It therefore hardly takes much creativity from the photographer's point of view to take such a photo. --Bondkaka 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, e.g. Germany, even having the freedom of deciding where to stand when taking the picture is enough creativity to make it a creative work rather than a simple photograph. (When I took this picture, all I did was aim the camera and press the button; yet the fact that I chose to stand where I was rather than a meter to the left or right is sufficient that the photograph would be copyrighted for the longer term appropriate to a photographic work, if I hadn't already released it into the public domain.) Sweden may well have a higher threshold, but I'd like to see some evidence it does. —Angr 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The threshold might be higher in Sweden, a country which pre 1995 had very little protection for photos. However, I don't think the photographer here had much freedom when he took the photo - he was probably just brought in to the studio, told where to stand and asked to make a quick snapshot of this scene. Director Alf Sjöberg was probably standing impatiently behind his back waiting to continue his artistic work. --Camptown 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. A promotional photo from the Filmstaden film studios. The image is in the public domain (according to the transitional provision for Swedish works created before 1969) and could be compared to old snapshots of Picasso paintings. --Camptown 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds? No one has presented any evidence the photo is public domain. —An gr 22:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FindX.jpg

This URL listed on the page isn't the original source image, because you can find higher resolution versions easily on Google. Even if UC was the source, the image still would not be a work of the federal government, and wouldn't be in public domain. — Foobaz·o< 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)