Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 28 July 30 >

Contents

[edit] July 29

[edit] Image:Terrisummers.jpg

Users only two image contributions don't have source info. Summary for the file is "she's CRAZY HOT". Image appears to be a promo image. Most likely not released under the GNU FDL. Dismas|(talk) 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg

Licensed as both CC-by-SA and copyrighted. Photography is a derivative work of the original painting. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And is marked as such. It needs a fair-use rationale, but that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rscproclamation.jpg

Seems to be derivative work, no evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a picture of a thing. Do you have reason to doubt that Alkivar took this picture? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a picture of a copyrighted work, thus derivative. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a picture of a government document. How does New York handle copyright on government documents? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is federal. US Government works are exempt by a statute that does not apply to any other governments, so state government documents are automatically protected by copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Some states eschew that copyright, either for specific uses or for all uses, following the federal government's example. It would be prudent to check into NY's state government policy on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dsc04080.jpg

Derivative work, no evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a picture of a thing. What is it supposed to be a derivative work of? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The copyrighted artwork depicted as the central feature of the image. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's an incidental part of the whole; the image isn't there to illustrate the logo, but instead the object for which the logo is part. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Mike Godwin says that incidental inclusion of copyrighted/trademarked material in a photo is generall okay, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not incidental; it's the only reason for the photo. Where was it used? -- But|seriously|folks  18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It was used in an article on the T-shirt. It is a picture of the T-shirt, not focusing on or even clearly showing the logo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Milons_Secret_Castle_NES.jpg

Derivative work, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a picture of a thing. What is it supposed to be a derivative work of? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The copyrighted artwork. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a grey area. This picture seems to have been taken specifically to show off the copyrighted artwork, and may not be free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Counterfeit_software.jpg

Derivative of works by original copyright holders. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird case: it's a picture of copyright infringement, taken for the article warez. I don't see it as a derivative work of anything; if they were genuine, it would be a picture of the contents of a software package, not a picture of the packaging. The closest it comes is showing the partially-concealed cover of some counterfeit manuals.
I don't think that this is in any practical way a derivative work of any copyrighted work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Mike Godwin says that incidental inclusion of copyrighted/trademarked material in a photo is generall okay, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Algerian_civil_war.jpg

No evidence of PD-release by copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This was apparently a part of a collection of images released into the public domain on the personal homepage of the copyright owner, but that collection has since been taken down. Alkivar is going to contact the photographer, but I don't know what SOP is in situations like this if the photog is incommunicado. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is available from an archived copy of the original website at [1]. John254 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that the above archived page does not carry any PD release. -- But|seriously|folks  18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VNJ-3_PP2048.jpg

NO evidence of PD-release at given source. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is the work of a US soldier during wartime. It's pure PD-USgov. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dcbet07.JPG

Tagged as PD-self, but the uploader has uploaded several other images with the same tag that were actually from fansites, including one of Knowles at the very same event, indicating that the uploader was almost certainly not at the event. — 17Drew 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SIYankeeHomeJersey.gif

Marked as being released into the public domain, but the uploader doesn't have the rights to the jersey, and therefore doesn't have the rights to the recreation. --fuzzy510 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a close relationship with both the NY Yankees and the staten Island Yankees, the graphics are created by myself to represent the uniforms the team wears. I do have permission from the team to do so, and have had permission since I began desiging uniforms in 2002. Until recently all my uniform designs were present on my website, but I decided to remove them because the lack of new ideas. --rpimpsner 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clothing designs themselves aren't copyrightable. The logo is included, but I would consider that incidental. I'll mark the images with {{trademark}}. Calliopejen1 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SIYankeeRoadJersey.gif

Marked as being released under GFDL, but the uploader doesn't have the rights to the jersey, and therefore doesn't have the rights to the recreation. --fuzzy510 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a close relationship with both the NY Yankees and the staten Island Yankees, the graphics are created by myself to represent the uniforms the team wears. I do have permission from the team to do so, and have had permission since I began desiging uniforms in 2002. Until recently all my uniform designs were present on my website, but I decided to remove them because the lack of new ideas. --rpimpsner 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clothing designs themselves aren't copyrightable. The logo is included, but I would consider that incidental. I'll mark the images with {{trademark}}. Calliopejen1 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SIYankeeBPJersey.gif

Marked as being released into the public domain on the basis that the uploader created the uniform idea and passed it along to the owners of the team. There's no verification that any of that is true, and even if it is, I don't think that the uploader would be able to release the image without approval from the team as well. --fuzzy510 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a close relationship with both the NY Yankees and the staten Island Yankees, the graphics are created by myself to represent the uniforms the team wears. I do have permission from the team to do so, and have had permission since I began desiging uniforms in 2002. Until recently all my uniform designs were present on my website, but I decided to remove them because the lack of new ideas. --rpimpsner 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clothing designs themselves aren't copyrightable. The logo is included, but I would consider that incidental. I'll mark the images with {{trademark}}. Calliopejen1 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kmk.jpg

No rights reserved image sourced to commercial url ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Phnom Penh riots.jpg

Based on the uploader's history, I'm having severe doubt of the claim that's he's the professional photographer that took this image. Suredeath 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wiikey.jpg

Image is released into public domain but image seems to be on google search Wikidudeman (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Source is here, Some website selling gaming material [Site]. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a copyright infringement of the Wii design - could be valid under fair use though. Madmedea 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a free image on Commons, see Image:Wii Wiimotea.png --Iamunknown 05:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wii design is probably not protected by copyright, but it is nonetheless an infringement of the photo. Calliopejen1 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Octavian_and_Antony.jpg

This image does not appear to be the work of the uploader. I asked the uploader on his or her talk page about it last month , but received no reply. Iamunknown 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)