Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 13 December 15 >

Contents

[edit] December 14

[edit] Image:Meshuggah Band.jpg

Web source provides no true image origin or terms for usage. No permissions for use granted. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OUR HD-Users-kamardelosreyes-Desktop-Imdb shot.jpg

This may be me being paranoid, but this is a professional-quality photo taken by a user who started an account, uploaded this, then did nothing else. It also has IMDB in the filename and looks like a publicity shot. (But it's high-enough-res it's not like most things pulled from the internet.) The file name has the name of a male soap opera actor, so I don't know who this person is to try googling and looking for similar images. Can anyone ID the subject of the photo? Mangostar (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it's free, you may just want to take it to IFD. If we don't know who this person is, it isn't a very useful photo. --B (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's free it shouldn't be deleted - it should be moved to commons. It's a pretty high quality portrait of a beautiful woman and I think there could be other downstream uses for it. Mangostar (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Somali Askari..jpg

Does not look like a user-authored image - it appears to be a scan of an old photo/book B (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And the earth does not look like it goes round the sun. Your point? •Jim62sch• 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AbshirNPF.jpg

Photo comes from a UC Berkeley website and the copyright owner is not attributed on the source website. There is no reason to believe it is a US federal government photo. B (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cityofsomerset.jpg

Obviously not a user-authored image B (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Createimage.jpeg

Image appears on the city's website in the bottom right corner - http://www.cityofsomerset.com/ --B (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LtGovOfficialPhotoWeb.jpg

Official state portrait of Kentucky's Lt Governor - no reason to believe the CC license applies B (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So change it to a publicity shot license. Damn. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:L c3d386a8c4794a44aabcc4c08dc14782.jpg

Unlikely a user-authored image. From the filename, this came off of somebody's myspace page. B (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Napoleon A. Tuiteleleapaga in the early 1950's.jpg

Obviously scanned from a newspaper, description says it is from the early 1950s, so probably not PD. It's tagged as GFDL-self, which is definitely false. B (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Redeemer3.jpg

obviously non-free - an image from a comic book B (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2cvugo.jpg

First claimed PD-self then claimed copyrighted by uploader. PD-ineligible? Jusjih (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb and assuming it's supposed to be something other than a black box. It's probably a corrupt image ... but whatever it is supposed to be, the terms given on the description page are incompatible. --B (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Network_map.gif

From http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/139.aspx, the GFDL-self claim is questionable. Jusjih (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kamelia-MyWork-big.jpg

Uploader claimed self licensing. IP blanked it. Need comments to determine if the self licensing is credible. Jusjih (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Enkinintu.JPG

No reason to believe it is PD B (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? I'm sure the artist, who's been dead for millennia, will be suing us for copyright infringement. I truly feel sorry for you: getting your rocks off by deleting the efforts of other people and asking those people to prove a negative while knowing full-well you're just going to delete the image no matter what. How utterly pathetic. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The copyright problem isn't the rights of the sculptor, who, as you observed, has been dead for some time. The problem is with the rights of the photographer. We have no information who the photographer was or when the image was taken. A photograph of a 3D object (unlike a 2D object) is copyrightable. --B (talk)
Right. No point arguing. Delete and cream. •Jim62sch• 09:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Screwtopvessel.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. There is a false claim on the description page that the image is PD because the lighting isn't creative, but this is a photo of a 3D object, which is inherently creative. B (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete them all, all of them, delete them...the big o. •Jim62sch• 09:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Basalflangeturtlebird.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Codexplate.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Codexshaman.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Incisedserpant.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Trimamimfrom.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Regional-Chochola.jpg

No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Argentina.FdoDelaRua.01.jpg

Terms of use given on description page forbid commercial reuse - "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes ..." B (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is commercial? Don't tell the IRS, you'll fuck up out 501(c)(3) status. •Jim62sch• 09:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is non-commercial, however we only want images/media that are free for everyone, including commercial users. This is a clear case of WP:CSD#I3. Please read that for more information. MECU≈talk 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OAS.MainBuilding.WashDC.01.jpg

Source website terms of service forbid commercial use and derivative works. B (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Paraguay.NicanorDuarte.01.jpg

Source website terms of service forbid commercial reuse and derivative works B (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:L f7fa59d05a91d9d115551040a3148738.gif

This image rotates between logos of various sports teams. Those logos are copyrighted and/or trademarked, meaning this image cannot be considered to be free. B (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:L ff2d82419c09271474d727cbab3a0b39.jpg

Image sourced to band's myspace page - no reason to believe it is free B (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LennonNYC.jpg

Permission claimed, but no OTRS ticket. Someone check the OTRS queues, if nothing found, delete; if found and ok, add the ticket number. Lupo 09:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, but if the terms of use exclude moving it to Commons, that's not a free image regardless of what OTRS finds. --B (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time. I got permission from Bob Gruen to use the Lennon NYC T-shirt photo on November 12th. I forwarded his consent to en-permissions@wiki, and it was fine until someone decided to bring it into Wikicommons. it was only intended for use on the John Lennon page. I will forward Gruen's consent to AN EMAIL ADDRESS YOU PROVIDE, not a wiki code. I also do not want it part of Wikicommons, thank you very much. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hotcop2, thank you for your work in this matter. Unfortunately, Wikipedia only accepts images that are released under the terms of a license that permits others to use and adapt the media. Wikipedia does not accept images licensed to "Wikipedia only", for "educational use only", or for "non-commercial use only". The terms of the GNU Free documentation license, under which this image is ostensibly licensed, permit anyone to use this image, as long as they, in turn, release their resulting work under the GFDL. Wikimedia Commons complies with the terms of the GFDL and thus any image uploaded to Wikipedia under the GFDL can be moved to Commons. Any terms restricting that move or restricting any GFDL-compliant use are incompatible with the GFDL. --B (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"Only on the John Lennon page" is not free at all. The image could at best be kept here at the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - OTRS ticket 2007121410018321 closed unsuccessfully. --B (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You were unsuccessful in closing the ticket? •Jim62sch• 09:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dharmendra.jpg

Uploader claims this is public domain in India because the image was published at least 60 years ago. This Dharmendra was born in 1935. Does he look like he's 12 in this image to you? Highly, highly doubtful. --Durin (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Admrl willis.jpg

"Used by permission exclusive to Wiki" — now what does that mean? Where's the permission? OTRS ticket? We don't allow "wikipedia-only" releases. Lupo 16:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We? The image is released for public consumption. These images were cleared and discussed with admin. Seems that you are following Hotcop2 around. Mister ricochet (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but when there's some problem with an upload by someone, I take the liberty to look at the other uploads of that person, too. I'll look at your uploads next. Lupo 13:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As with the previous image, if the terms of use restrict the image to Wikipedia, it is not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Please see my note above. --B (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How many retards does it take to screw in a lightbulb? I spend more time answering quesions about these photos, including one I took and posted. All these photos have been cleared. Check with Administrator Gustafson. it appears that the left Wiki doesn't know what the right one's doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's personal attacks policy. The problem is that the image description pages contain contradictory information. EITHER the image has been released under the terms of the GFDL -or- they have been released for use on Wikipedia only. If you can clarify which of those two contradictory licenses is correct and forward a letter of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, then we can all move on with life. --B (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The images can be used freely. I only stated I didn't want them in "Commons" because, after someone decided to bring them into "Commons" all this nonsense started up. The three photos I uploaded can be used freely WITH ATTRIBUTION. if I tagged them wrong, go ahead and tag them right. We have full permission to use the Winfield, Willis and Lennon photos. i added the "Wikipedia" only, if that was wrong, take it off. no big deal. as far as "personal attack," i was merely asking a philosophical question. i've re-re-sent the permissions to permissions-en. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Special:Undelete/Image:Admrlwillis.jpg... the image was deleted twice before as a copyvio. So, where is that permission, who is it from, what does it say, and what's the OTRS ticket number? Lupo 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Stating "I don't want these images on Commons" is a restriction we cannot and will not guarantee. When you license an image freely, you give up the restriction(s) of how and where it can be used (short of the license agreement, in this case, attribution). Unless you are willing to just license it with "attribution", we will not accept this image. MECU≈talk 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Isla_Fisher_(actress).jpg

I suspect this image is copyvio at the Filckr source...this Flickr user licenses everything under CC attribution, even obviously copyrighted material like magazine scans and screencaps. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Myleene_Klass_(Hyde_Park,_2007).jpg

Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jamie_oliver_and_jools.jpg

Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jamie_oliver.jpg

Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DeSean Jackson.jpg

The flickr image from which this is derived is tagged as "sampled from SF Chronicle" and has a caption "Chronicle / Lance Iversen" B (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zem.jpg

looks like a screenshot. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:544782502a545391759b737809253l.jpg

copyright tag on image. Unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. Rettetast (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UCD_fans_in_Turner's_Cross_30-6-06.jpg

see above Rettetast (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Daren_Quigley.jpg

see above Rettetast (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)