Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 4 December 6 >

Contents

[edit] December 5

[edit] Image:HEART-10202007.jpg

Need OTRS confirmation. Jusjih (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I already emailed the copyright holder's written permission to Wikimedia or the OTRS system (at permissions-en@wikimedia.org) last November 23, 2007. That was exactly two weeks ago. Do I need to email them again? Baliws —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMGportugal.jpg

OTRS confirmation, please? Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMGfascism74.jpg

OTRS confirmation, please? Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMGeurope.jpg

OTRS confirmation, please? Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMGcowley.jpg

OTRS confirmation, please? Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brian David Josephson.jpg

Uploader claims it is from his own private collection and released under GFDL. Based on this user's other uploads, I suspect this may not be the case. kmccoy (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest replacement with the image found at [1]. It shouldn't be hard to get permission. --Jhskulk (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian sent me an email a while back suggesting that we use the image on his website. What do we need to confirm? Dreadstar † 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wish to comment on the statement by User:Kmccoy. This editor should feel ashamed of so blatantly slandering me by stating "Based on this user's other uploads, I suspect this may not be the case." Which "other uploads"? To Kmccoy: Name one of my uploads that accords with your deceitful qualification! I left Wikipedia because of your zealotry, and now that I have left, you do not hesitate to slander me in my back? Don't you have any principles, any sense of honour? I wrote to you that I personally know Brian Josephson for the past 20 years, and now you are even accusing me of lying? Why this pettiness? Write to Josephson as ask him about me! Use my Wikipedia username, and he will recognse me. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and your abhorrent behaviour! Truly, shame on you! --BF 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ds12.png

No evidence the author have been dead for more than 100 years. Actually quite unlikley for a 1930s picture. Liftarn (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stjamesfront.JPG

Wikipedia only i not PD. Rettetast (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Not deleted - author has modified licensing terms to be acceptable. --B (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StJamesExeterEntrance.jpg

No evidence of GFDL in the source Rettetast (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:87009.jpg

tagged with both free and non-free tags After Midnight 0001 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:66016.jpg

tagged with both free and non-free tags After Midnight 0001 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:51291320.jpg

I think the caption bar kinda gives it away that this image is not free and thus not GFDL licensed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


I created this image myself, of myself, in Photoshop. I created it, and I own it. Please don't delete it. Thanks Pinkmermaid (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Microsoft USD 523021.JPG

It strongly appears that Microsoft owns the copyright and not the US Patent Office. The image would not be public domain, but rather fair-use. —Midnightcomm talk 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Midnightcomm, Thanks for your interest. This is an actual image from US design patent D523021. See [2].--Nowa (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Icons are not copyrightable, because they are in their common forms not works, but design (just in the same way as typefaces, for example), which is exactly why it makes sense to register them as a design patents. (Who would register design patents for which I have to pay regularily and which last only a couple of years if I'd already have an automatic, free copyright lasting basically forever? Just think about it for a second.) That said, design patents place similar restrictions as copyright. Does fair use apply to design patents in the same way it applies to copyright? --rtc (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, the icon cannot be under copyright. This should not be deleted on the basis of copyright. According to the Patent infringement article, patent violation can occur by making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into the US any patented invention... I do not believe this use of the icon is any of these things. If we were incorporating it into software as a notification icon, we would doubtless be violating the patent. --Matthew K (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The tag is wrong in any case, the government did not create the image, its just on the paperwork submitted to the government. Also, the discussion on the copyright-ability of logos [[3] might help. For now I'm deleting since the tag is clearly inappropriate and I don't believe a fair-use case can be made for the usage. Shell babelfish 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MarcbioDD.jpg

I'm not buying that this is really a public domain image. It appears to be an official photo, and therefore, the copyright would be owned by Nickelodeon. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:New fez1.jpg

This image appears to be professionally done, thus making it unlikely a work of the uploader. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I created this photograph myself. I own this image, please don't delete it.Thank You,

best regards, Thomas Krych

I wonder why there's an assumption here that professional-looking photos couldn't possibly be owned by Wikipedia contributers? --Omeomi (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Austin.brown.jpg

source does not mention PD Garion96 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AUSTIN_GUITAR.jpg

Source has no mention of PD Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Austin_clapper.jpg

Source has no mention of PD Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Auggie_Interscope.jpg

Source has no mention of PD Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Austinbrown.jpg

Source has no mention of PD Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Michaeljacksonblack.jpg

Source has no mention of PD Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png

Basis work is stil (C) - and possibly has design rights Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The tube map is of course copyright but I believe this image (originally created by User:McDRye and modified by me) is free-use for the following reasons:
  1. It is an original creation, made from scratch by McDRye and myself and has not been assembled from any existing tube map.
  2. It does not reproduce part of the actual tube map but is speculative and interprets the map to show how the map might have looked if history had been different.
  3. Although the proposed line illustrated did appear on versions of the tube map in the 1930s and 1940s when it was planned it was shown in a different style and has never appeared on the modern maps or in the modern style.
  4. Whilst the principals of the tube map design may be copyrightable and/or actually copyrighted by Transport for London, pastiches or homages of the map such as this are very common - one is currently running on the tube for a cold remedy which uses tube map style lines to represent a head with hair.
  5. Showing the proposed line in the familiar style enables users to see where the stations would have been in context - a fair-use rational.
--DavidCane (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not deleted per above. Shell babelfish 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M 3d7a9d1f5bc213d0ac873f703e1733f3.jpg

I seriously doubt this uploader is the copyright holder of this image. It looks far too professional. Also I've found the image was on a forum (this is the google image search for it since the actual link is in the spam blacklist) a month before it was here on wikipedia. Uploader seems to have only been active for a week and gone. Also this image name is absurd. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)