Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 3 July 5 >

Contents

[edit] July 4

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

Incorrect image SkierRMH (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:How I Learnt to Stop Worrying.jpg

this image is clearly an album cover, and I doubt it was released into the public domain. --Haemo 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The photgraph of Dwarkanath Ganguly was published in The Bethune School and College Centenary Volume, published in 1949 to commemorate the centenary of the institution. It did not have any copyright. I have a copy of the publication. Moreover, Dwarkanath Ganguly died in 1898, which was more than 100 years ago. - P.K.Niyogi 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • P.K.Niyogi appears to have commented on the wrong image. The correct image is listed below. -Nard 14:12, 24 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:Heliogracie.gif

no sign that the source website released this under the gfdl ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gracie_Family.jpg

no sign that the source website released this under the gfdl ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Hillcoat_(footballer).jpg

no evidence for GNU Bleh999 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Guildview.PNG

Webshots not automaticly PD ShakespeareFan00 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MCFCAirport.jpg

newspaper scan (C) - presumably with newspaper ShakespeareFan00 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Franco_offside.jpg

No source has been provided, outside of "self" in the GFDL-self tag. The uploader is 24 years old (per his user page) and the image was taken 28 years ago. Also the cropping and framing of the image suggests that the image was likely used on a webpage. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 11:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was taken three years ago, in a game for the 2005 Mexican semi-finals! It shows a player in offside position. It is outrageous to claim that the image was taken 28 years ago! Who came up with this, anyway? Hari Seldon 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The 28 years is an my extrapolation. I assumed that "Clásico 79" refered to 1979 - my apologies. I still question with the corner cropped off and the black frameing that this is still your own image and not used on a website. While I know its not a big issue here at PUI, the image was and still remains orphaned.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WWAeurobelt.jpg

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.

Claims GFDL, but I doubt the WWA have released the belt design... ShakespeareFan00 11:45, 4 July 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Image:4-9 v2.jpg

listed as being the property of the creator, but comments clearly show that it was copyrighted for a band, even if the uploader is the photographer --Haemo 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the uploader is the photographer he owns the copyright unless it was a 'work for hire', specifically defined in a contract before the photograph was taken, and not all countries recognize such a concept. Bleh999 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GFDL-OLD appears to apply, no proof otherwise. SkierRMH (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dwarkanath_Ganguly.jpg

Listed under GFDL, but source/copyright cannot be verified. Videmus Omnia 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Just because it was originally in dead tree format that doesn't mean it can't be verified. Uploader insists it's from 1898, we should accept that. -N 20:07, 15 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:507287_356x237.jpg

No evidence that rhapsody.com has released the image into the public domain, and given the history of the image, I'm not so sure about the licensing unless we can better verify it. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The uploader keeps deleting notices from the images and changing the license from PD self to GNU to copyrighted fair use, I think this image has already been deleted several times. Bleh999 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Paul-barresi2jpg.jpg

No source given, no verification of PD-release. Videmus Omnia 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Uploader says "provided by subject" but it is missing a OTRS ticket, maybe the uploader can provide it Bleh999 04:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Humus with hania.jpg

Clearly impossible for anyone to have taken this image freely unless they were there in person, which I doubt is possible given the circumstances of Johnston's kidnapping and release. This image is likely taken from a TV grab or press report. – Chacor 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have been told that the above image (that you tagged) is from here (see my talk page).

[edit] Image:Reflexz.gif

Webshot ShakespeareFan00 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Forest.ogg

[this listing not completed by User:ShakespeareFan00]

Hello,

I have uploaded this music sample on WP but it says it is unfree. I want to tell that this music sample has been made by me. It is my own work and it is only available for Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Sgt. Pepper's* | Talk with the Sergent | on 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-only is problematic, If it's your own work a CC-SA or GFDL type release would be preferable. ShakespeareFan00 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I will take a CC-SA licence, if it is correct. Sgt. Pepper's* | Talk with the Sergent | on 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Metallica lisbon2007.jpg

[this listing not completed by User:ShakespeareFan00]

That website says 'Media Capital Radio - (C) All Rights Reserved as well" :( ShakespeareFan00 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So we need to know if the photographer owns the rights to the photos or if he was commissioned by Media Capital Radio whether they own the rights - as the current situation is contradictory. Madmedea 10:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HM.jpg

no source, no proof that uploader owns copyright ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bibigaytanbikini.jpg

likely copyvio After Midnight 0001 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bibigaytancollage.JPG

copyvio collage of multiple images After Midnight 0001 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gerard_Way_in_2006.jpg

Uploader says he took the picture himself, but it's quite obviously scanned from a magazine article (Entertainment weekly 37 if you check the lower right corner). Sherool (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kodak-style CAP code on film edge.jpg

Copyright holder unclear, see talk page. Current license is for Wikipedia use only. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BMW 803.jpg

Used by permission only, replaceable. The object is available at the Deutsches Museum, and photography is allowed within the museum. See [1], which states "The use of cameras (still and video) is permitted for private purposes." —Remember the dot (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not used by permission, permission granted to use as we see fit. Why did you believe otherwise? Maury 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no indication that the permission to use this image extends to 3rd parties. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of indication, it's freely distributable. All of the images on the AESH site, at least the ones I have seen, are free to distributed. But don't believe me, just ask Richard, there's a mailto on the site here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
If that is the case why is there a big "Copyright © 2002-2007 Aircraft Engine Historical Society" at the bottom of every page? If the images have been released by the copyright holder (and clear evidence isn't provided on their source site as in this case) then permission needs to be sent from the copyright holder to release them under a Wiki compatible license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). It is the uploader's responsibility to secure this permission! Madmedea 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG! I did secure the permission, that's what I posted on the page. Do you really expect 3rd parties to be aware of the precise wording required by the wikilawyers? Even if you spell it out exactly, as I do, you get back something like "yeah, sure". If you don't think the e-mail is good enough, feel free to contact him for a better one. Maury 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The email is not sufficient for at least two reasons: 1) it has not been submitted to the OTRS system and therefore there is no official record of it 2) The contents of the email is highly ambiguous and does not come close to fulfilling a declaration to release the image under a wiki compatible license. The copyright holder released the image for use in that article - but did he release it for 3rd party and commercial use? Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives a clear template for what is required from a copyright holder in terms of a declaration. Again, meeting these requirements is the uploader's responsibility, not other editors. Madmedea 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which would be great advice, except both claims post-date the image in question. The image was uploaded in March 2005. The RCP was nothing more than a boilerplate letter until February 2006, and only included the new policy starting on 30 June 2006. OTRS was created in 2006, and as far as I am aware, has nothing to do with what you claim it does. In any case, I can hardly be expected to follow rules that didn't even exist at the time.

Let me quote from the version that was in effect earlier on 30 June 2006: "You should, however, basically assume good faith and judge for yourself whether a claim made appears credible or indeed does warrant following up with an attempt to have it confirmed." Even if it's not in force today, is it too much to ask to be given the benefit of the doubt? I feel my credibility is being impugned by retroactively applying rules that don't even seem to fully understood. That's not very much in keeping with AGF.

Maury 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that this was a "grandfather" image and so yes, different terms did apply at the time it was uploaded. I don't think anyone has implied that you did not upload the image in good faith. However, in the long run all wikipedia images need to be brought into line with the current guidelines and ultimately I'm not aware of the concept of "good faith" holding weight in copyright law. Using my personal judgment (as above): an image sourced from a page which clearly claims copyright over its contents for me to accept it needs explicit, confirmed evidence that the owner has released it into the public domain/free license. I don't think this is unreasonable, but please no offence is intended. Madmedea 14:35, 7 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.

Commons imageSkierRMH (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fusor running.jpg

Used only by permission, does not qualify as fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • We know that the image is un-free; it should be listed at WP:IFD. --Iamunknown 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I am in the process of getting a CC on this. Thanks BTW, you've all really helped out tremendously on this effort. I just *love* having to track down e-mail addresses from years ago in order to satisfy the anal-retentive interpretations of wiki rules and worst-case interpretations of every tag in order to satisfy anonymous "editors" who can't be bothered to try doing any of this on their own. It just makes my day. Maury 14:02, 6 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.