Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 8 August 10 >

Contents

[edit] August 9

[edit] Image:Wonbintn8.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright; this image seems to be a fairly obvious publicity photo. PC78 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Huskie Stadium.jpg

Can't find the actual image anywhere, but on this link, the banner photo seems to come from the center of the image uploaded here. --fuzzy510 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct - they are the same image. Additionally, a zoom in proves that NIU didn't take it from Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ConvocationCenter.jpg

Image has a clear copyright watermark on the right-hand side which links to a site which sells these photos. No release is given whatsoever. Uploader has had issues in the past with Ohio University-related images. --fuzzy510 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Image is now at commons. Up for deletion there. The Evil Spartan 04:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TheOZONE.jpg

Image has a clear copyright watermark on the right-hand side which links to a site which sells these photos. No release is given whatsoever. Uploader has had issues in the past with Ohio University-related images. --fuzzy510 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Escapethemepark.jpg

Theme park logo which is listed as being released into the public domain as the copyright holder, which I find highly questionable. User has had image problems in the past. --fuzzy510 04:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed to {{non-free logo}}. Calliopejen1 12:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RUFUS_BOBCATS.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CRAWLEY.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SOLICH.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OUWrenStadium.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OhioSoftball.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TIMOSHEA.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PRUITTFIELD.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AQUATICCENTER1.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PRUITTFIELD1.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NEE.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LARRYHUNTER.jpg

All of this user's are tagged with GFDL, but appear to be copied from websites. Many have already been deleted. B 05:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pic09.jpg

No mention of GFDL at mentioned source or evidence that the uploader can realese the image under GFDL. --bluemask (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Piolo_pascual_filipino.jpg

The stated source did not mention anything about GFDL. There is no evidence that the uploader can release this image under GFDL. bluemask (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eircom new.png

Company logo marked as PD

Changed to {{non-free logo}}, which seems most likely. Calliopejen1 12:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aria.jpg

Uploader claims to be Holly Randall, the photographer who took the image. I sent a message to snbill@dhdmedia.com (contact point for author's site) on July 30th to confirm status of this image, and another one listed below. It's now been over a week, and I've not had a response back. The image is obviously professional, obviously taken from http://www.hollyrandall.com/ (see watermark on [1]. Without the copyright holder confirming the status of the image, the release of it is in doubt and could very well be just someone taking something from a website. Uploader has less than 10 edits, to a narrow area of work. --Durin 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - We are required to WP:AGF which means trusting contributors even if we can't verify them. If there is a legal copyright infringement claim in the future, the project is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DCMA; if that were not the case this would be a more serious issue. ←BenB4 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - assuming good faith is important, but when it comes to copyrights, it's the opposite- the onus is on the contributor, not vice versa. This image is quite obviously professional, and I doubt that we have office confirmation for it. The Evil Spartan 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aimeesweet.jpg

See rationale for Aria.jpg above. Same situation, same uploader. --Durin 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kenbarb.JPG

License tag contradicts source website's terms and conditions[2]. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Serie2002.JPG

License tag contradicts source website's terms and conditions[3]. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Regine_3.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SherwoodandBush.jpg

A US government image from the Washington Post? This license seems fishy. 61.63.58.87 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Passionatpalazoad Page 1ad.jpg

Tagged {{Attribution}}, but source information is insufficient to verify this, and it seems highly unlikely that an advertisement would be so released. —Angr 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The advert is very old, and was in numerous magazines and newspapers. The goal, as an avert, was to have it seen as far and wide as possible. It has been in the article now for a while, and no complaints. Not sure how best to handle this, or even if it's necessary. Maybe a contact with the company itself might be in order. Is that done? Munatobe7 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course the goal of an advertisement is to be seen as much as possible, but that doesn't mean the creator has released all rights to it except that of attribution; do you really think they wouldn't mind if someone else used it for commercial purposes? And even if they don't, we have to have proof of it. —Angr 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg

Possibly public domain, but currently tagged as fair use. More source information is needed to confirm public domain status. If it cannot be confirmed, then this image will have to be deleted per WP:NFCC #8 (significance). —Remember the dot (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I dunno, looks pretty significant to me. -Nard 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)