Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 15 July 17 >

Contents

[edit] July 16

[edit] Image:Sandhya2.jpg

The image has been mentioned as own creation but even the logo in the Picture says www.behindwoods.com a film a movie a clear copyright violation. Earlier the user uploaded the same under a different licence and it got deletedTamerhinoroars 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

OTRS on file. SkierRMH (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BrandonMebane.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:26, 16 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.

[edit] Image:El_salvadormarcapais.JPG

Tagged as GFDL but appears to be copyrighted logo that would not have been made by this user.  But|seriously|folks  01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedied under WP:CSD#I4. ElinorD (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brdlnd.jpg

No evidence that copyright holder has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bitoy07.JPG

No evidence that the uploader is the subject of the image or is the copyright holder. bluemask (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Public domain - 1917 SkierRMH (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Robles-hurtado.jpg

No evidence that this image of an individual who died in 1927 was produced, let alone published, before the January 1, 1923 date needed for the Public Domain claim made by uploader. --Allen3 talk 12:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Painting is dated as having been created in 1911. Kept. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:12, 28 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:KurdzmanChurchofChrist.jpg

I do not believe that image is really free (its a logo). ) -- Cat chi? 14:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

GFDL highly probable, nothing to prove otherwise. SkierRMH (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nikki_Sanderson.jpg

This appears to be a screenshot, not a live photo. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like an image taken on a camera phone. The current image has been cleaned up, check the original if you haven't already. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think User:AnemoneProjectors is right about the photograph being posibly from a camera phone. Doesn't look like a screenshot when you look at the previous version. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 08:28, 8 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:Foundingfathers.jpg

No reason to believe this is PD. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chimp.JPG

Meant for hoax article. I think the original photo behind that oh-so-clever Photoshop is Peter Frampton, though, and in copyright. Charlene 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amorth2meusv.jpg

Possibly unfree. Googe Image search [1] finds this at a number of other websites. We need more proof that the uploader is the creator. — Gordonofcartoon 23:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC).