Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 9 July 11 >

Contents

[edit] July 10

[edit] Image:BillOlnerHofC.gif

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Correct license & FUR added SkierRMH (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Billy_Bremner_Dave_Mackay.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to a legit. fair use claim. Closing as not to delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Bit-o-Honey_2.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bk-km_female.JPG

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bk-km_male.JPG

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wardbldg.jpg

This image is possibly unfree because the source (and direct link to imageshack) does not provide the copyright status of the image. Additionally, if the uploader were the copyright holder (making a source moot), I do not think that s/he would provide an imageshack link. Iamunknown 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Twim.jpg

According to the bottom of this page, these logos are not for commercial use, hence not suitable for Wikipedia unless fair use. Videmus Omnia 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:54603.jpg

The user also uploaded those: [1], [2], [3] for which I found sources of copyvio. For this one I can't find, but it is 99% copyvio — 78.0.68.194 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:60 000 people during Thompson's concert on Maksimir Stadium.jpg

See 54603.jpg — 78.0.68.194 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Young thompson fan.jpg

See 54603.jpg — 78.0.68.194 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images from www.aeronautics.ru (bulk listing)

The following images were uploaded from www.aeronautics.ru and tagged as public domain (no rights reserved), however the site open admits that the images were copied from books and other copyright source (see bottom). Uploader maintains that they are copyright free as a result. I, and I believe wikipedia policy disagree. Images are all copyvios, and are not usable under our WP:NFCC (no original source, no critical comment, replaceable). Megapixie 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Su25115.jpg
  • Image:Su25CZS.jpg
  • Image:Su25SLO.jpg
  • Image:Su25AFG.jpg
  • Image:Su-25UTG.jpg
  • Image:Su25AV.jpg
  • Image:Su25EN.jpg
  • Image:Su25Cockpit.jpg
  • Image:T8-2.jpg
  • Image:T8-1.jpg
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The aeronautics.ru site claims that these images are in fair use under public domain in accordance with the US copyright law. These claims should work on wikipedia as well. --Eurocopter tigre 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do they pass WP:NFCC - 1,2 and 10a ? Megapixie 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and please remove the Su-25UB image, as it wasn't from aeronuatic.ru, and its author releases it in public domain. --Eurocopter tigre 12:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted below for basically the same reason. Megapixie 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chriscrocker.jpg

There is not enough information here to prove that the uploaer is the copyright holder as he claims, the addition of a fair use rationale on this PD tagged image further makes me question the accuracy of the copyright info. Sherool (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I have consent from the person in the photo AND a message of gratitude from him to me thanking me for making his page on Wikipedia. "I really appreciate that," is the exact quote. If you're SO outraged he gave me permission, you can message him on his MySpace Chris Crocker Besides, I have a photo gallery of over thirty of his photos. Move on. --The Knowledge 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Consent from the person in the photo is not necessarily the same as consent from the copyright holder, which is usually the photographer. Nobody is denigrating your work here; we just want to confirm that the licensing of the photo is correct. So please have Mr. Crocker or whoever the copyright holder is write a declaration of consent to you via email, which you should then forward to OTRS. That will clear this all up. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mariahtrl.jpg

Supposedly a fan image, but there is insufficinet evidence that it has actualy been released to the public domain, and the fair use rationale on the page further confuse things. If it's not free licensed or PD it would most likely fail WP:NFCC as a replacable image too. Sherool (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"insufficinet"? Hmmm well, to me, there's insufficient evidence that you actaully know what you're talking about. The person that took the picture in question was present the day Mariah Carey visited TRL; she took the picture and sent it to me herself. This young woman's name is Jamie Duncan and she lives in New York City. I took the picture, cropped half the audience out and the arm of a VJ, and saved it. The picture in question belongs to me.--The Knowledge 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless Ms. Duncan released all rights to the photo, she is still the copyright holder of the work. Please have her write a declaration of consent to you via email, which you should then forward to OTRS. That will clear this all up. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You know what, you can get over yourself. I emailed her, a person i haven't talked to since last year, and SENT the email to OTRS of her--not only giving me the photo, but--giving me permission to use it however I wish. You anal rejects STILL removed it. It's MY picture, DEAL WITH THAT!--The Knowledge 07:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, calm down. All we're doing is asking for proof -- is that so much to ask? This isn't that much different than adding {{fact}} tags to articles. So what you should do here is contact one of the OTRS volunteers, state when you sent the email to OTRS and have them edit the image description page with the ticket number. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the user took the image from this website (http://www.mariahdaily.com/photogallery/2006/trl_ss/30.jpg), and removed the logo. So unless Jamie works for the website, we have a problem. Secondly, a free image, Image:Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg, already exists in the article. There is absolutely no need for this one. As a side note, The Knowledge, I hope that you learn a lesson from this. And your overly arrogant and discourteous behaviour towards me and almost everyone else with whom you have come into contact makes outing you all the more satisfying. Orane (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, when I click on that link, I get an error message, but when I leave out the "30.jpg", in other words, when I click on http://www.mariahdaily.com/photogallery/2006/trl_ss/ I can see that image (as number 30, when I scroll over them all with the mouse). Wanted to point that out in case anyone else has the same problem. ElinorD (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Twil.jpg

According to the bottome of this page, this logo is under a non-commercial share-alike license. Videmus Omnia 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Su-25UB.jpg

From http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits2-pages/mos2005_day02.html uploaded claims image has been released into the public domain but no evidence of that on the pages in fact on [4] the author asserts copyright. Megapixie 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Smeade.jpg

Uploader claims {{MPL}}. Source is given as [5] (no more specific URL given); at the bottom of this page it says "© 2004 Hale School". No evidence is given that the copyright holder has indeed licensed this image under the MPL. This image had been previously deleted as a duplicate image [6]; I seem to remember tagging this image (or, more likely, the other image of which this one was a duplicate) with a "replaceable non-free image" tag, but I cannot verify this (some administrator will have to take a look). If this is so, then it is possible that the uploader simply re-uploaded this image, this time with a "free" tag. —Bkell (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha—the other image was apparently Image:SMeade.jpg, which was also uploaded by Hellijr and was deleted [7] by Quadell on 5 July for not having an appropriate copyright tag. So apparently I did not tag it with a "replaceable non-free image" tag, but it was on track for deletion anyway. —Bkell (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The MPL tag has been deleted, and a fair-use rationale has been added. I have now tagged the image as being a replaceable non-free image. —Bkell (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Holbergbrittany.jpg

Licensed as "PD-USGov-DOJ", but is actually a product of the state of Texas. Videmus Omnia 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)