Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 11 July 13 >

Contents

[edit] July 12

[edit] Image:DSCN3309.JPG

description admits that it wasn't uploader's original work but something found in random bathroom yet they claim to license it — Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gallery-Oasis.jpg

I believe the uploaders claim that the copyright to this image belongs to the spesified fan website is misguided, and even if true the sites terms of use quite obvuisly does not mention anyting beeing released under the GFDL, quite the opposite in fact. Sherool (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Same deal with Image:Gallery pic176.jpg, Image:Gallery pic284.jpg, Image:Gallery pic470.jpg and Image:Gallery pic5901.jpg. --Sherool (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Acdclineup1994-now.jpg

Image is uploaded to commons with the comment that the author has released all rights. But the source of the image is listed as being from inside a CD-reissue booklet from the image subject, AC/DC. There is no attached correspondence with the original photographer or the album label showing that the image is truly free-use. Likely a copyvio. 156.34.216.32 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Oklahoma_City_Union_Station.jpg

Also:

No evidence to support {{PD-release}}. Videmus Omnia 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.

[edit] Image:IE_intercity_logo.JPG

Appears to be a photograph of a logo that the photographer has marked as {{PD-release}}. However, I don't believe he owns the copyright to the logo. Videmus Omnia 04:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tag has been corrected and clarified [Dawgz]

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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Image:American union logo.JPG

Tagged as GFDL-self, but appears to be a copyrighted logo. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AlIttihad_LOGO.gif

Logo - Uploader claims PD-self ShakespeareFan00 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GHC.jpg

Information in summary would seem to imply CC-BY terms over GFDL. ShakespeareFan00 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

File qualifies as fair-use, as the author of the image states that "if you are using any sort of information on this website, please give proper credit to the website," and credit is given with the link. If the licensing isn't right, then simply correct it instead of lobbying for its deletion; it's very petty to lobby for its deletion just because the incorrect tag was placed on it... and if you know it, then correct it! - Parsonsburg
First, PUI is not IFD. Deletion is not imminent. You have two weeks to confirm the licensing before deletion may happen. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the web site where this was downloaded from is the originator of the image (but I could be wrong), so they don't really have the authority to distribute the image anyway. Lastly, the quote is "any sort of information" (emphasis mine) which doesn't necessarily mean the images. So here's how you "lobby" for us to keep it -- get a declaration of consent from the web site operator stating that he is the photographer and copyright holder and forward it to OTRS. On the other hand, if he happened to copy the image from somewhere, then I'm afraid it will have to go. howcheng {chat} 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Waterfalls_by_road_attapady.jpg

Uploader in a response to an enquiry stated academic use only - [1] which would not be compatibel with GFDL? ShakespeareFan00 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Golfcourselongyard.jpg

[2] Does not allow for commerical use ShakespeareFan00 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AJPWTCC.jpg

Terms in summary seem to imply CC-BY over GFDL ShakespeareFan00 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

File qualifies as fair-use, as the author of the image states that "if you are using any sort of information on this website, please give proper credit to the website," and credit is given with the link. If the licensing isn't right, then simply correct it instead of lobbying for its deletion; it's very petty to lobby for its deletion just because the incorrect tag was placed on it... and if you know it, then correct it! - Parsonsburg

[edit] Image:XPWLOGO.jpg

terms seem to be CC-BY not GFDL ShakespeareFan00 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

File qualifies as fair-use, as the author of the image states that "if you are using any sort of information on this website, please give proper credit to the website," and credit is given with the link. If the licensing isn't right, then simply correct it instead of lobbying for its deletion; it's very petty to lobby for its deletion just because the incorrect tag was placed on it... and if you know it, then correct it! - Parsonsburg

[edit] Image:453px-OOlov.jpg

Likiley Porn shot - No mention photographer is the uploader... ShakespeareFan00 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AndersonNewCourthouse.jpg

Source site says " Copyright 2006 Anderson Area Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved." ShakespeareFan00 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kayvannovak.jpg

Claims fair use, but no fair use rationale given. High quality image, instead of low quality, actor is still alive so the image is replaceabe, no source as to where the image came from. Corvus cornix 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

OTRS confirmed SkierRMH (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Simon_neil.jpg

No info on source site that image is released under the GFDL. Garion96 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Author was contacted by myself about permission to use the image, to which she replied, "If you want to use it I've attached a cropped version. Hope that's ok." Not sure if the GFDL licence is the right tag to use or not. Daisy-berkowitz 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you'll need an explicit GFDL agreement. See WP:ERP for some examples on how to get this. Should be easy if you have his e-mail address and he's willing to contribute an image, I've been doing this a lot lately. Videmus Omnia 01:11, 13 July 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 following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Replaced with .svg image SkierRMH (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nyasaland flag.jpg

Contacted the owner of the website listed as source about what he thought about having his images on Wikipedia, and got the reply: "I generally don't mind as long as a link back to my site is included somewhere nearby and it is for non-profit purposes." The last clause is AFAIK not compatible with Wikipedia policy. — Himasaram 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)