Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 8 July 10 >

Contents

[edit] July 9

[edit] Image:Andsilva.jpg

PD claimed, but the image is taken from a place where only contracted photographers would be allowed. Also, scan lines and artificating suggest it's from an SDTV broadcast. east.718 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bevameter.jpg

No evidence uploader had authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bevan_Dufty.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bg1te.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bg2te.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bg3te.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BhadraKali_Temple.gif

No evidence uploader has permission to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Screenshot_Claude_Jade_Jean-Pierre_Léaud_Balthus_Domicile_conjugal.jpg

Listed as GFDL, but no evidence of this, and seems to be screenshot of copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frederick_Stafford_Claude_Jade_Topaz.jpg

Listed as GFDL, but no evidence that source has so licensed it (and source is not verifiable.) Videmus Omnia 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Claudejadetv_047.jpg

Licensed as GFDL, but seems to be screenshot of copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Claudejadetv_059.jpg

Listed as self-made, but appears to be a screenshot. I think this just needs some kind of verification from the uploader. Videmus Omnia 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

OTRS ticket confirmed SkierRMH (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BigGameAxe.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) I took the original photograph and own the image. I release it for it use.

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.

OTRS ticket confirmed SkierRMH (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BigGameCrowd.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) I took the original photograph and own the image. I release it for it use.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:TMI1.JPG

TV screenshot licensed by self-licensed by uploader pablo ::  ... talk ... 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TMI2.JPG

TV screeenshot self-licensed by uploader pablo ::  ... talk ... 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GuyanaFlag.gif

Claimed public domain. However, the source given is [1], and the site policy page [2] lists some restrictions on their use, including "They may not be distributed as, or part of, a collection - free or for profit" (surely Wikipedia is a collection) and "They may not be included in any type of software, free or for profit" (commercial use must be allowed). Therefore this image is not only not in the public domain; it seems to be not even freely licensed, by Wikipedia standards. —Bkell (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Erdelyi.jpeg

Unverifiable source and licensing information. Videmus Omnia 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DDM Dragoneye.jpg

Originally claimed as GFDL, but when source questioned, changed by an anon IP to be all of PD, GFDL and GFDL with disclaimers at once. The claimed author's page (if you get past the compulsory registration) makes no mention of the creation of this image, and the vast majority of the other similar images used on Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game are noted as being (c) Wizards of the Coast. — Pak21 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

made by whkeeler@comcast.net
look here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776833

[edit] Image:DDM Harbringer.jpg

Essentially as above. This one has been noted by the anon as being both (c) Wizards of the Coast and PD-self at the same time, from being previously tagged as just (c) Wizards of the Coast. — Pak21 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

made by whkeeler@comcast.net just ask him
look here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776833
Without an actual assertion from the author (see "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia" at WP:CV), there is no evidence these images are in the public domain. --Pak21 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
you just can't let it go can you? Yes, there is "evidence" what more do you need, we have the "Source" the frist posting and the mans email. what would make you happy?
This may being out of hand. This should be on the image talk page ~LG~
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image replaced SkierRMH (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NewWembleyStadium.jpg

Uploader asserted PD-self, but image is slight variant (compare imagery on the side of the stadium) of Image:Newwembleystadium.jpg; both CG images likely by the developers/architects. — AUTiger » talk 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Any evidence? -Tszkin2004 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was able to find it this time; here's the image in BusinessWeek Online [3] credited to the architects, HOK Sports. AUTiger » talk 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe BusinessWeek Online uses it from Wikipedia.--Tszkin2004 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume you missed the part where I said BusinessWeek Online credited the image (as they used it in a slideshow) to New Wembley Stadium's architects - HOK Sports. Also, the slideshow and image was used on BWOL in Feb. 2006, predating the image upload here by almost a year and a half. AUTiger » talk 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A new image (which is completely different) now seems to have been uploaded using the same name, so does this debate still apply? ChrisTheDude 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.. I guess, but it kinda creates an even messier situation since the license attached to that image was asserted by a different uploader. I don't think allowing duplicate image uploads by someone other than the original uploader is such a good idea. AUTiger » talk 17:16, 26 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.