Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 5	December 7 >

[edit] December 6

[edit] Image:Jaslene.jpg

The image is from a photo taken on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8 and was previously on the CW website though I don't know if it's still there. The uploader claims to be the copyright holder to this and many other ANTM related photographs but I have doubts about that. Eatcacti (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The image can be found here on the CW website. Obviously a copyright violation (along with most of the pictures that were uploaded). Phydend (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UltiClubNationals05Layout.jpg

Need evidence of PD-release. Jusjih (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vogue_200.jpg

Unsure if uploader did make the image while challenged by IP user. Jusjih (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nathans_blueberryhill_orig_tagged.jpg

The claimed permission should better be proved through OTRS. Jusjih (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yusuf_Islam_(Cat_Stevens)_&_Prince_Charles.gif

Challenged PD-self claim. Jusjih (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no license. Delete. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wettlaufer_Ward.jpg

Source site shows no free use. Jusjih (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Robert Hawkins.png

Source is the school yearbook. Is the yearbook released under a cc-by-sa-2.5 license? If so, then please feel free to delete this dispute. — kmccoy (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wheres the yearbook from, who's is it? And since his pictures all over the news now, i think it'd be fair use to ilustrate the point.--Cody6 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Its from the Papillion-La Vista High School yearbook. In the absence of another free picture, I think that this qualifies as fair use. The yearbook does not indicate any copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeOneFive (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it's fair use, though. Those are professional photographs and as such the copyright reverts back to the photographer, as anyone who's held a proof knows. Surely someone in this Myspace-world has a photograph of him they could crop out and share. Calwatch (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The cc-by-sa-2.5 license should be removed or this picture should be deleted. Also, this can't be the only picture of Hawkins available and it's of low enough quality that it doesn't significantly contribute to the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The image now says it's non-free, which it is. (This news source states that it's a yearbook photo.) Since it's no longer a possibly unfree image (it's a certifiably unfree image), I don't think this entry belongs at PUI anymore. You could nominate it for deletion at WP:IFD, but I think it passes NFCC#1 -- the subject is obviously dead, and we usually keep portraits of deceased individuals unless a free replacement is known to exist. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If this image were instead retrieved from one of the many news sources which has been displaying it, would that still be in violation of copyright? These regulations clearly don't apply to news sources. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the PUI and other deletion tags from the image description page without addressing the issues. After falsely being claimed as cc, someone has tagged it as PD because "high school yearbooks are typically not copyrighted" which is dubious at best and does not actually address the issue of the photograph. There is no evidence that the High School Yearbook photo is PD, automatically or specifically, or that the Yearbook owned the photo, which may be the copyright of the photographer or the family. There is no evidence on who actually owns the photograph. Delete because its unfree, and delete because we have zero information on who even owns it. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The no-source and no-license tags (which do not apply) have been removed, leaving the {{pui}} tag which correctly points here, where the issues you mention are being discussed. --MCB (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for any unwiki-like conduct; specifically, my failing in attempts to put the correct license for this image. Personally, I think it's a crapy...well, let's just say it's not a suitable representation. How did one fellow wikipedian put it? "..not in line with the image use policy and does not adequately portray the image's subject." This feels like it may be a dumb question, but how can the average Joe Q Wikipedian actually fix this situation? I'm tempted to take a photo of my TV screen or something. Maybe scan a newspaper? One more dumb question, if I may. How exactly do the news media "get away with it?" - NGC6254 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I just answered my own question by following the link in my own statement. Gotta love Wikipedia! - NGC6254 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a better photo with fair use rationale and licensing. I hope everything's kosher. - NGC6254 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This image still exists on the Wikimedia Commons, but here was deleted by Nehrams2020. I've therefore tagged it for speedy deletion there because it's not released under free license. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also provided my own reasons there. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted on the Wikimedia Commons, too. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hipercor.jpg

Need evidence of PD-release. Edub (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tale.png

Tagged as promotional image when uploaded but changed to attribution when fair use was disputed. Evidence of license must be sent to OTRS for confirmation. Rettetast (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maipid.png

[edit] Image:Villaromanjr.png

[edit] Image:Yamamoto.png

[edit] Image:Ponte.png

[edit] Image:Arguelles.png

[edit] Image:Lyntaboo.JPG

Tagged {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} but the source image is copyrighted matt br 15:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thenocturnes.JPG

Tagged {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} but the source image is copyrighted. matt br 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:New Seekers.JPG

Tagged {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} but the source image is copyrighted. matt br 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TubeMapZ1 TFL.png

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.

It says it has no free alternative. I disagree. I think that a geographically correct map of Zone 1 would work. It also says it is little use as a map but I can use it easily. --91.84.86.19 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The point is that the map is geographically incorrect. There is no other way to illustrate the difference. If you think the resolution is too high, upload a lower resolution one. Also, there is a difference between being "barely readable" and useful. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as above. The Tube map is world famous for deviating from chartographic accuracy; it is a Tube map used in an article about the Tube map. I would think the fair use rational is clear. Odedee (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image kept per 2 editor fair-use rule. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Image:Sapphire0.jpg

Seems to be from a game and such screenshots usually aren't GFDL -- Menti fisto 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Voodoopad.png

Mac OS X UI is copyrighted, odds of Voodoopad being Public Domain are slim to none. ViperSnake151 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Voodoopad is not in the public domain. However screen shots of non free software are not nonfree. The content inside the page is mine so there is no violation there. I think a specific aspect of the copyright (whose copyright and on what) needs to be cited. jbolden1517^Talk 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, screen shots of non-free software are non-free themselves, just like a picture of a copyrighted sculpture can be non-free. Deleted. Shell ^babelfish 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Connectedtext-tree.jpg

non-free image, cannot be GFDL, copyrighted UI ViperSnake151 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the developer of ConnectedText and I uploaded the image granting free rights of distribution. ConnectedText 23:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some things you have to note though, you "may" have released the screenshot under a "free" license, when you're technically not allowed to since the Windows XP UI widgets make it a derivative work, so it has to be changed to being a non-free screenshot. ViperSnake151 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- I'm not sure the Windows UI is copyrighted (it is patented and trademarked however). But even if it were Microsoft allows non competitive derived works. Again no violation. jbolden1517^Talk 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted - looks to have been tagged as fair use, although I would have even left it as free based on ConnectedText's statement . --B (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Masthead1.JPG

There has been a question raised at Wiki Project Oregon that this log may not be free and was incorrectly tagged Awotter (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)