Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 25	December 27 >

[edit] December 26

[edit] Image:027(5494).jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Oldfashioned.jpg

The uploader claims public domain, but there is a (c) and TM watermark. I e-mailed the domain listed on the image and am awaiting a reply. WODUP 06:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now confirmed that the image is in the public domain and forwarded the confirmation e-mail to the Communications Committee OTRS. WODUP 07:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Djukic.jpg

Copiright violation. -- Bojan 10:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Various images uploaded by banned user

Mathewignash was recently banned from Wikipedia for repeated violations of the copyright policy regarding image use. However, a substantial number of potentially infringing images uploaded by him have still not been deleted.

The Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works makes it clear that photographs of copyrighted toys are derivative. Mathew Ignash uploaded a large number of photographs of Transformers toys, which are (as far as I know) all still under restrictive copyright. These photographs could be used on Wikipedia only under claims of fair use, which are not provided for any of them. They are currently inaccurately listed under free licenses.

His uploads can be found here. There are hundreds of them, so I'm not going to copy/paste each title in this section. An administrator should go through and delete them all. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Block status uncertain. I couldn't find anything in the logs and User:Mathewignash#Blocked says unblocked. MECU≈talk 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, we should decide if these are derivative works or not. Even if they are, that would make them fair use non-replaceable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Images with problems needed to be identified, tagged and listed separately. --Nv8200p talk 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Mikey Palmice.jpg

Non-free screenshot / TV capture Chris.B (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

License changed to screenshot. -Nv8200p talk 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pgh17.jpg

The source says that the image is from "gocarlo.com". The photography on that website is copyrighten; however this user releases it in the public domain, when I don't believe he make the work himself. In July I made a comment on his user talk page asking if it was his work, and there was no reply. — Weatherman1126 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kou_shibasaki.JPG

The source website seems to just be a fan-blog. No indication that they own the copyright to this image, or that they distribute GFDL/CC-AT-SA licensed material. Sherool (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Normal_058.jpg

Based on the text in the image this seems to have simply been grabbed from the official website. Sherool (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KDMH.jpg

this is a screenshot; does not belong to uploader, unless he represents the studios. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ektakapoor.jpg

album cover, doesn't belong to uploader The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MZB.jpg

looks like a google image; uploader has other PD "mine" issues. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kit.jpg

belongs to Sony, not uploader The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BlackmailStill.jpg

Alfred Hitchcock died in 1980, not 50 years ago. However, it may be in the public domain if it was first filmed the in the US, and the copyright was not renewed (quite likely) The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Under UK copyright law, copyright on films last for seventy years after the film's release--the identity of the director and that person's life or death is not pertinent in the case of commercial motion pictures. Blackmail was released in 1929 and so is now in the public domain. See our article Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the sources cited therein for confirmation and more detail. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the British Film Institute web site in regards to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: "The provisions of the Act have been amended by EU harmonisation provisions contained in Directive 93/98 extending the term of copyright protection for films, to a period equal to the duration to the lifetime of the last to die of the persons responsible for the making of the film, plus 70 years calculated from 31 December in the relevant year of decrease." That would put Blackmail under copyright until at least 2050. Davepattern (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The harmonisation provisions appear to be nonretroactive. As the film had already gone out of copyright when the Act was emended, it remains so. Specific evidence in support of this conclusion comes via the widespread distribution of a DVD edition of Blackmail issued by a public domain packager (Westlake Entertainment) in 2005 ([1]). Several other editions from PD packagers have also been issued in the past decade.—DCGeist (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Copyright restoration section: "The new copyright terms applied also to works which were already in existence when it came into force ... even if they had previously entered the public domain." The Westlake DVD (like many other US DVD releases of the film) is unlicensed and (probably) based on low quality video transfers from the period when the film was deemed to be in the Public Domain in the USA. Copyright was restored to the film in the USA in the mid 1990s (see Federal Register: August 22, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 163) for further details). The current European rights holder for the film is Canal+ UK, as attested to by this article from D-Lib Magazine. Davepattern (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The evidence you've provided is convincing. The image appears to be non-free and I'll change the licensing tag and rationale to reflect that. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image kept -Nv8200p talk 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Closeup.JPG

Image source says "edited by me" That is not the same as created by me. Garion96 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vanessaperetti_small.jpg

Image source says "edited by me" That is not the same as created by me. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dayanacolmenares1111.jpg

Image source says "edited by me" That is not the same as created by me. Garion96 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SilvanaSantaella07.jpg

Image source says "edited by me" That is not the same as created by me. Garion96 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Claudiasuarez_face.jpg

Image source says "edited by me" That is not the same as created by me. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Claudiasuarez_small.jpg