Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] December 27
[edit] Image:Sharon_Alexander.jpg
Source is given as "Agency headshot", but it is unclear what, if any, connection the uploader has to the agency in question, or even what agency it is, so it's anyting but clear that the uploader is authorized to release this image under the GFDL/CC license indicated. Sherool (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chrisit_Shake_2004.jpg
While including an impressive amount of metadata it is far from clear that the uploader has any assosiation with the stated copyright holder or otherwise have the rights to release the image under the stated licenses. Sherool (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victor_in_2005.jpg
Last we heard from the uploader he said he got the image off his brother's facebook page. Where his brother got the image was not stated however. Sherool (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Taim Hasan Sand.jpg
Image tagged as {{PD-self}} but taken from copyright website (source). Unable to verify image's copyright status because the source website is not in English. Muchness (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was very unfamiliar with Wikipedia's copyright policies and thus I didn't know what to post this picture under especially that it does not qualify under US laws. However, I have changed the image tag and added the source to it in addition to labelling it as non-free fair use content and stated the reasons for the importance of using this image. I hope this is the right way to it. Many thanks! Nilerose (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kaiser headshot.jpg
Campaign photos typically aren't released into the public domain. I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- and you base that statement on what? Marylandstater (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason to doubt the uploader's claim. The photograph was taken outside, not on a set, and it was taken by an inexpensive consumer-grade digital camera. Furthermore, the user's ID is Arkaiser and the photograph is of Anne Kaiser, a local legislator in Maryland. All of this account's edits are to the Anne Kaiser article and photo. Since the user ID matches the name, the uploader may very well be the subject of the photograph. This could have been taken with a self-timer; or it may be a work for hire by one of Ms. Kaiser's assistants. *** Crotalus *** 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept per User:Crotalus horridus -Nv8200p talk 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rifle Automatic 7mm Number 9 Mark 1 EM2.jpg
Justification of acceptable use - no unfree images exist - is not reasonable. — ERcheck (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. You're welcome to delete this image (which I uploaded ages ago) if you can provide an equivalent 'free' image. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Noel1993
Look, I don't see the reason that this should be deleted. It was a flop as a rifle, and isn't reliable. Who would want to copy it? And what info can you get from one exterior pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel1993 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless no such rifles still exist, or the rifles are extremely rare (museum-piece level), it's replaceable fair use. The appropriate route is to find a collector or gun store that has such a rifle and ask to take a photo of it, which you can then released under GFDL, CC, PD, or some other acceptable license. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Toumba.jpg
No evidence that the source website has released its rights to this image and even if it did, we don't accept watermarked images. B (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BRANT&DonJose Josefa.jpg
I fail to see how this can be in the public domain. ViperSnake151 14:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Winfrey.JPG
While this photo of the statue has been released into the public domain, the statue itself is presumably copyrighted. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image should not be deleted if the photographer releases it to the public domain. The problem you are having is how to verify that the photograph is indeed taken by the person submitting it -- which you cannot do unless you email that person etc. That image of Ranson has appeared on the net in many contexts if you look on Google Image Search, so any of those images are within the PD at this point by release of the photographer as seen on Cyrano and Teleread (same image used for both which was the same one submitted here). ARe you saying it needs to be resubmitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique visitor (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rachel Avery.jpg
Judging by the professional quality of the photo and the low resolution, I doubt that the uploader is actually the copyright holder of this photo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rachel Avery.JPG
Judging by the professional quality of the photo and the low resolution, I doubt that the uploader is actually the copyright holder of this photo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AndreaDavis.jpg
Image was first used under fair use. Image was deleted and license has now changed to PD. An e-mail from source site to OTRS would be practical. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Its the same image from www.MrsPacificIslands.com that was listed in the first posting of the image. This is just a rehash of the same thing from September --Novadogg (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- A release in the Public Domain can only be made by the copyright holder, you did not create this image. Since the image can be also found at http://www.mrspacificislands.com wikipedia needs confirmation that the copyright holder releases the image in the Public Domain. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Do a Whois lookup of that domain owner and guess who you'll find? Me. --Novadogg (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ChicosTacos.jpg
Logo, not likely PD Garion96 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image turns out to be a photo of a sign in front of the restaurant. Still not public domain. At least not completely. Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
How is an image of the sign, located on the street, in front of the resturant, taken by a cell phone, released for public use, not good enough? --Novadogg (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because the logo is copyrighted/trademarked. Because the location where you took the photo is in the USA freedom of panorama does not apply. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
How does my photo of Chico's Tacos not apply but the photos of McDonalds do? Its the same thing.--Novadogg (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- These images (many of them have a trademarked tag) besides the logo also include other items. The restaurant itself for instance. This image only includes the logo of the restaurant. Garion96 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Edersant.jpg
Image appears to be taken from http://www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/biografias/ederfami.htm, the original article is dated 2004-12-08, making it unlikely that they borrowed the photo from Wikipedia. B (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This image is of my great great grandfather and belongs to my family. It was lent to the various on and off-line encycopedias that use it. The foto was taken in any case in 1915 to celebrate Santiago Eder's 50th birthday anniversary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanholanda (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Athens-future.gif
looks like a map, unknown sorce Randomtime (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RodWoodson.jpg
No evidence of PD at source or in description. 76.117.210.109 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
