Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 5 Friday, 6 July 2007 July 7 >

Contents

[edit] July 6

[edit] Image:KuhLedesamFilipinoJazSinger.jpg

derivative of Image:KuhLedesamFilipinoJazSingerBostonPoster.jpg which was uploaded with a "fair use" tag. bluemask (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Corrections made on image talk page. Citing basis of the derivative image. Are these sufficient enough? Advise will be appreciated. Dragonbite 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You cannot make a derivative of a copyrighted image and release it on public domain. The copyright of the derivative image is still owned by the copyright holder of the original. There must be an evidence that he or she (the copyright holder) release the image under a free license or public domain. --bluemask (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the suggested/proper tag for this? Tried to request from a Kuh Ledesma site permission for an image (a looooong time ago). No response... This one is irreplaceable. Dragonbite 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can't get permission the only option is to argue "fair use" - but as the picture is of a living person that is unlikely to swing it. The image is also currently an orphan and so again this would mean it can't class as fair use. Madmedea 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing it from the article. Dragonbite 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Source is indicated on the image's description page. Dragonbite 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KLA crimes.jpg

Warning: very graphic image. Uploader claims cc-by-2.5 but personal authorship is extremely unlikely given the subject matter. -- ChrisO 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Correctly tagged' SkierRMH (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ethel_Dixie01.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to a book, no evidence of claimed license.  But|seriously|folks  02:51, 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.


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

[edit] Image:Pachypodium_lealii.jpg

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Tagged as GFDL but attributed to a book, no evidence of claimed license.  But|seriously|folks  02:53, 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.


[edit] Image:Gillian_Condy12.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to a 1991 book, no evidence of claimed license.  But|seriously|folks  02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ellaphie_Ward-Hilhorst00.jpg

Tagged GFDL but attributed to a museum, no evidence of claimed license.  But|seriously|folks  03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dr_RA_Dyer_image02.jpg

Tagged GFDL but attributed to a museum, no evidence of claimed license.  But|seriously|folks  03:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dog.jpg

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It appears uploader modified a found image but does not give source or copyright status of original image.  But|seriously|folks  03:18, 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.

[edit] Image:Xia_Xiaowan00.jpg

Uploader asserts permissions forwarded to OTRS but no indication that permissions were satisfactory.  But|seriously|folks  03:19, 6 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:B&hcover.jpg

No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According Clawed-Agent, the creator is William Valle and the uploader is User:Wvfilms, leading me to suspect that it might be Mr Valle himself. I've contacted him via email to confirm. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Identify verified. Licensing is OK. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 3 August 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:B-300a1.jpg

No evidence uploader has the right to grant use of the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B.B._the_Bluefish.PNG

No evidence uploader has rights to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B105c160.jpg

No evidence uploader has rights to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:29, 6 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:BAEF_First_Boat_070430.jpg

No evidence uploader has rights to release image under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo was provided by Marie-Claude Hayoit secretary of the B.A.E.F., which organization owns the photo, on request (request by Peter Van Osta who wrote the BAEF article) on 30 april 2007 and an allowance was granted to use the image by email.

Contact information: Marie-Claude Hayoit, Egmontstraat 11 Rue d'Egmont, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, BAEF Pvosta 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please forward your email to OTRS. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy of eamil from BAEF (in Dutch):

Onderw: RE: Artikel BAEF op Wikipedia - foto? Datum: 30/04/2007 18:11:16 Romance (zomertijd) From: mail_nospam@baef.be (BAEF (mail)) To: Pvosta_nospam@cs.com

File: HEADFOOTNew.zip (1808195 bytes) DL Time (TCP/IP:): < 4 minutes


Geachte Mijnheer Van Osta,

Hartelijk dank voor u artikel over BAEF op de Wikipedia encyclopedie alhoewel u geen BAEF Alumni ben! Ik heb dit artikel aan onze voorzitter Prof. Dr. Emile Boulpaep toegestuurd maar hij is momenteel zo bezig dat hij nog geen tijd heeft gewonden om u toe te schrijven en te bedanken. Hij zal hier in Belgïe begint of Juni zijn. Tot dan kan ik u toch enkele photos toesturen, de BAEF logo, de eerste boot of beurzalen die in 1920 voor de VS vertrokken. en een photo van onze voorzitter Prof. Dr. Emile Boulpaep. Nogmals hartelijk dank voor uw moiete.. Met mijn vriendelijke groeten,

Marie-Claude Hayoit B.A.E.F. Administrative Assistant Tel: +32 2 513 59 55 Fax: +32 2 672 53 81 mail_nospam@baef.be

Are you just posting this here, or have you in fact forwarded it to OTRS? howcheng {chat} 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The email is for the most part not related to the image. The sender thanks for the Wikipedia article and then states that she can "send a few photos, the BAEF logo, and the first boat that left to the US in 1920, and a photo of Prof. Dr. Emile Boulpaep". The email doesn't mention anything specific about any license like CC, GFDL or PD. In general when I request images I always ensure that I have specific permission to use an image under the GFDL, or I don't upload it. Let me know if that is not clear enough, I guess I could translate the entire email, but I'm too lazy right now :) JACOPLANE • 2007-08-1 18:49
That's good enough. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted for not being free. If you get a release under a free license (see WP:COPYREQ for help) then feel free to re-upload. howcheng {chat} 20:48, 1 August 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:BBC_BASIC_Component_Parts.jpg

No evidence uploader was granted permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You cannot copyright raw information, it should be a simple matter to redraw this flow chart and then simply credit the book as the source of the information if someone were up to the challenge. Might as well do it right and do it in svg if you're gonna do it from scratch. -N 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If kept per the discussion above, then the tag should be {{PD-ineligible}} not {{GFDL}}. -Nv8200p talk 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, but the image is still copyrighted. It would have to be redrawn to be kept. -N 13:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BBxRae3.jpg

Looks like a copyrighted work uploader is claimng as their own. Nv8200p talk 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment even if it isn't a screen capture from the animated show (I'd lay odds it is), the characters used and IDed by the uploader, the same editor who inserted it into Beast Boy, a held under copyright and trademark by DC Comics. It maybe a case that the uploader misunderstood the licensing material and though that he could release the cap file he made, regardless of its contents. - J Greb 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pierneef_Rustenburgkloof.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to an author "long deceased". In fact, author has only been dead for 50 years.  But|seriously|folks  04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pierneef_MajubaNatal.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to an artist who has been dead just 50 years.  But|seriously|folks  04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pierneef_LouisTrichard.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to an artist who has been dead just 50 years.  But|seriously|folks  04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pierneef_KnysnaHeads.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to an artist who has been dead just 50 years.  But|seriously|folks  04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pierneef_Stellenbosch.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to an artist who has been dead just 50 years.  But|seriously|folks  04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EE_Galpin.jpg

Tagged as PD because author has been dead for more than 100 years, but author is not identified, so there is no way to verify copyright status.  But|seriously|folks  04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Charles_Michell00.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but identified as "publicity photo".  But|seriously|folks  04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Herman_Charles_Bosman00.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to unidentified author "long deceased", subject of image lived until the 1950's.  But|seriously|folks  04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason09.jpg

Tagged as GFDL; Not self taken; Permission asserted but undocumented.  But|seriously|folks  04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason08.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason07.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason06.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason04.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason03.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason02.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judith_mason01.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else; no indication that uploader has ability to release under GFDL.  But|seriously|folks  04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Basil_schonland01.jpg

No indication that South African stamps are exempt from copyright protection.  But|seriously|folks  04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Basil_schonland00.jpg

No indication that South African stamps are excluded from copyright protection.l  But|seriously|folks  04:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Hutchinson03.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else who lived until the 1970's.  But|seriously|folks  04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Hutchinson02.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else who lived until the 1970's.  But|seriously|folks  04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Hutchinson00.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed as "Official Kew Photo".  But|seriously|folks  04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Saasveld01.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but attributed as promotional photo from press kit; this is a replaceable fair use image.  But|seriously|folks  04:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rosa_Hope03.jpg

Tagged GFDL but attributed to somebody else. No indication that uploader is authorized to license work.  But|seriously|folks  05:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rosa_Hope02.jpg

Tagged GFDL but attributed to somebody else. No indication that uploader is authorized to license work.  But|seriously|folks  05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Claim was "self" not another - no indication of proof otherwise. SkierRMH (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rosa_Hope00.JPG

Tagged GFDL but attributed to somebody else. No indication that uploader is authorized to license work.  But|seriously|folks  05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This one is claimed to be an own photo. howcheng {chat} 18:19, 1 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:Phyllis_McCarthy04.jpg

Tagged GFDL but attributed to somebody else. No indication that uploader is authorized to license work.  But|seriously|folks  06:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Phyllis_McCarthy01.jpg

Tagged GFDL but appears to be a studio photo. No indication that uploader is authorized to license work.  But|seriously|folks  06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:26011907.jpg

Image seems to be a press image and the lack of licensing and source add to the fact it's likely copyrighted. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Clevis.png

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to catalog of fasteners with "no copyright restrictions".  But|seriously|folks  06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cathy_O'Dowd00.JPG

Tagged as GFDL but attributed to someone else. Use "by arrangement" with another is asserted, but no details are provided as to the extent of the allegedly permissible use.  But|seriously|folks  06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Percy_Amoils00.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, attributed to subject as donor, no indication that uploader has authority to license and no confirmation of permission.  But|seriously|folks  06:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Swedishbitters02.jpg

Claimed to be uploader's "own image", but looks suspiciously like a photo of someone else's work.  But|seriously|folks  06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This looks to be {{PD-ineligible}}, although I don't really see the point of having an image of this. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 1 August 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:Fuzigish.jpg

Tagged as GFDL but appears to be promo photo; this uploader has been misusing GFDL tag.  But|seriously|folks  06:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Ampie Omo, a member of Fuzigish (the band) and the official Wikipedia editor for the Fuzigish page. All images uploaded for Fuzigish (especially the group photo suspected of being copyrighted) by user:Paul venter are owned by Fuzigish and user:Paul venter is authorised by me and the band to upload these images. I would appreciate it if you could clear his name and IP ASAP to enable him to continue exploring and adding legitimate information to Wikipedia, thus enriching and sharing information with other serious wikipedia users. Ampie Omo 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of the copyright issue if you've been editing the page of a band of which you are a member you a breaking Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding conflict of interest (WP:COI)and you need to stop.Madmedea 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 3 August 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:Skaife2a.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, attributed to a magazine, permission is asserted but not confirmed  But|seriously|folks  06:37, 6 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:Bpi01.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, attributed to an organization, permission is asserted but not documented.  But|seriously|folks  06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See copy of email to permissions and their reply below - comment would be superfluous...... Roxithro 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bpi00.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, attributed to an organization, permission is asserted but not documented.  But|seriously|folks  06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: [Ticket#2006112110004121] Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research Inbox

Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Permissions to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Permissions to me

show details 11/21/06 Dear paul venter,

Thank you for your mail.

"paul venter" <paulvent@gmail.com> wrote:

> Herewith permission from BPI to use their material in articles. > cheers > Paul Venter > paulvent@gmail.com > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mike Raath <raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > Date: Nov 20, 2006 9:25 PM > Subject: Wikipedia piece on James Kitching > To: paulvent@gmail.com > > > Hello Paul, > > Appended below is an exchange between me and Bruce Rubidge, in which he > says you can go ahead with the material you asked for. Is this > sufficient for the Wikipedia people? > > Mike > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on James Kitching > Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:19:26 +0200 > From: Bruce Rubidge <rubidgeb@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > To: <raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > References: <4561D585.4030602@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > > > > Dear Mike > > I am happy that they go ahead - it is always nice if they simply say Source > is BPI Palaeontology. Will see you at tea time > > Bruce > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Raath" <raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > To: "Prof Bruce Rubidge" <rubidgeb@geosciences.wits.ac.za> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:19 PM > Subject: Wikipedia article on James Kitching > > > > Bruce, > > > > Some time ago a man called Paul Venter contacted me to ask if he could > > use one of the photos of the dinosaur eggs and embryos in a piece he was > > doing on James Kitching for the 'Wikipedia' website. I told him that since > > it was already in the public domain, as long as he properly acknowledged > > it, it was OK. He has subsequently come back to ask if he might use other > > material that is on the BPI website for the same purpose. Initially I told > > him the same -- acknowledge it, and you can use it. He has now come back > > to say that the Wikipedia owners want an email from us confirming that we > > don't mind, and also confirming that once it is on their site, anyone can > > use it without copyright problems. I asked Paul to let me know just what > > material he was wanting to use, and that I would then put it to you as > > Director of the BPI. > > > > He has replied to say it is the material dealing with James that is on the > > BPI website, specifically what is in the 'History' page, as well as > > 'Research' and 'Journal'. My feeling is to say 'go ahead', but it really > > is up to you. What do you think? > > > > Mike > > -- > ------------------------ > Dr Mike Raath > University Collections Curator > c/o BPI (Pal), Wits University > email: raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za > Phone: +27-11 717-6683 > Fax: +27-11 403-1423 > ------------------------ > > <html><body>This > communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and > destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this > communication without the permission of the University. Only authorized > signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the > University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message > may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal > views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and > opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All > agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African > Law unless the University agrees in writing to the > contrary.</body></html> >

Thank you. I will restore the page and add the appropriate notices.

Yours sincerely, Robert Thompson

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.

OTRS ticket information added. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 3 August 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:Hungarian_telephone_token_obverse.jpg

Offical token - (Not) Currency ShakespeareFan00 09:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anglesea.jpg

Looks like an offical crest ShakespeareFan00 09:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hungarian_telephone_token_reverse.jpg

Offical token (but not currency) ShakespeareFan00 10:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like a utilitarian article, and the art on it looks like a trademark maybe. Trademark but not copyright is my guess. -N 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anna123.jpeg

Looks like a publicty shot ShakespeareFan00 10:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Audreycorrie.jpg

Screenshot or publicty photo most likley copyright to ITV ShakespeareFan00 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Parrs_wood_school_campus.jpg

Areial shot - No indcation uploader is photgrpaher ShakespeareFan00 12:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Seal2007.gif

uploader has uploaded many album covers under {{PD-self}}. I tend to doubt that this portrait of Seal (musician) is his to release BigrTex 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nogalbomb.png

According to the link given, the image is not credited to the NSF, but to "Mete Sozen and Julio Ramirez, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering" Hux 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: just fix the credit and change to fair use. --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Found their email addresses online and sent them a message requesting a free content license release. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Danielclark.jpg

Contradictory statement "I own the copyroght to this image, and i uploaded it from google." —Remember the dot (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional images with the same problem:
--Carnildo 22:01, 6 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:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg

It is a detail from a work of art for an artist that died only ~37 years ago. Doesn't seem like the uploader can release the image into the public domain. — Andrew c [talk] 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Derivative image, since it is an artwork, can be saved perhaps by the Free Art License tag.Dragonbite 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Provided three other sources using similar image; replaced by perhaps the better or proper tag for this derivative image. Dragonbite 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Other 3 sources mentioned seemed to be promotional in nature. Dragonbite 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: Despite of the current tags, I sent OTRS an email indicating that I still wish to release this derivative image under the GFDL/Creative Commons/with Attribution license. That is, once this discussion is settled. Or whichever comes first. Just FYI. Dragonbite 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot issue a new license to a derivative of a copyrighted work. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 2 August 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.


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:Arlen Siu.png

It is with heavy heart I nominate this image. The actual license is by-nc-nd 2.0. Since this individual is deceased it may be possible to use it under fair use. — -N 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Flickr user has committed a copyvio. According to [1] the photo was scanned from a book. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to a fair use tag. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 3 August 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:Geoffrey Richman-1950.jpg

Claimed to be PD-self as creator, which would only apply if the person who created it is the photographer. This looks like a professionally staged photo, not a candid, and thus PD-self would only apply if the person who took the photo is releasing it. Corvus cornix 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)