Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 15	November 17 >

[edit] November 16

[edit] Image:051706lm12.jpg

Watermarked, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the uploader is copyright holder, but the permission tag may need changing because of the watermark. I had initially thought this was a run of the mill new account stealing a pro's photo from some website. To try to find the image it was a copyvio of, I googled the watermark name and lovemakers, but I found what appears to be the copyright holder's myspace, flickr, and resume, which all use a similar or identical username. Admittedly, the watermark would lead me to want the tag changed to attribution non-derivatives or something similar and crossposted on flickr for verification. Also a move to a more suitable name would be preferable. - Optigan13 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jota-028452_2.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:060151Avw.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - I see no reason to doubt it. The photo doesn't look extremely professional, and the uploader has a long history of editing the said article on the man, showing an interest possibly as a result of close connection to him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. We need confirmation for this: Image talk:Copy of 060151Avw.jpg. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Frey is my cousin and I have been helping him with publicity. I took the photos at a rehearsal. I also have taken photographs of him in concert. I think I have saved him a lot of money in professional photography costs! Robert Lauren

[edit] Image:060507_peterogersincharge_dm.jpg

Permission missing, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:07-MoretField.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:10-14poster.jpg

Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Correct tag & FUR have been added. SkierRMH (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:10341.jpg

Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. correct fair use added for album cover. SkierRMH (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Summerball.JPG

Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1121823958_l.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anaffairtoremember Kerr.png

Not being used on a page about the film. -- Snowman (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Commons image. SkierRMH (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg

This image appears to be a hand drawn version of a copyrighted logo from an animated series. It is at best a derivative work of the original and cannot be released under a free license. Therefore it needs a non-free tag and a non-free use rationale. — -- teb728 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And needs to be used in an appropriate way; having the image on each character's page is inappropriate. 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is used on only one page. You are thinking of two other images. --teb728 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I remember removing a bunch of Gundam SeeD logos from infoboxes, and misremembered this as the same situation. Are there other images being misused in this way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The images you were remembering are probably Image:Zaft2.jpeg and Image:Rengo2.jpeg. --teb728 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy-paste the statement I put on the image's talk page. These comments were directed at the sockpuppet anonymous user GundamsRus (talk · contribs), so please don't infer any offense:

"Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to you, I'll just paste over the relevant bits and you can choose to either abide by them, or continue being your usual disruptive self:

"Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram, however, does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work." <emphasis added>

This is an original work that is claimed to be a synthesis of existing designs, not a "re-tracing" as the policy has phrased, and until such a time as it can be proven that this is, in fact, a "re-tracing", we must assume good faith on the part of the uploader that it is, in fact, a synthesis of existing designs. Of course you've never assumed good faith on the parts of anyone except A Man In Black, so this doesn't come as a particular surprise to me. I have not seen the media in question, and I doubt you have as well. If you'd like to make a case that this is a "re-tracing" as defined in the policy, then by all means. Until then, we'll just keep quietly reverting you for disruption. Oh, one more thing. Since the report of "vandalism" on the part of Jtrainor and I was dismissed by the administration, you continually calling our edits "vandalism" is a rather striking breach of civility, an official policy."

That's all I have to say on the matter. MalikCarr (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is as you claim, a completely original creation, and not an image covered under the media franchise's copyright for the designs from their series, then the image has no place in the article at all - because it is simply a piece of unrelated fan art.GundamsRus (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already responded to this claim on the image's talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I do assume good faith on the part of the uploader: He says, “the previous one i made is crappy. so here's the final version feel free to use it :D i finally managed to replicate the pic in PhotoShop from the screenshot in Destiny.” He acknowledges that his work is derivative. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works. --teb728 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

*grumble* Apparently you can't release an image under a GNU license if you've branded it, as this user has, so it's fair use now no matter how you slice it.

That said, there is no "official" image of FAITH's logo as far as I know - I've looked rather exhaustively. The closest thing I can find are photographs of fashion accessories bearing the logo, which while it could be quite easily a free image (ask the photographer to Creative Commons it), doesn't really do a very good job of showing off the logo in clear detail. How irritating. MalikCarr (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if he had not placed his mark on the image it wouldnt matter. If it is a straight on shot created from angled images from the films, _HE_ cannot release it under any license because it is NOT HIS to release. The angled images it is based on are under the copyright of the filmaker, and his conglomeration is too. If he created it completely on his own and it is not in anyway under the copyright of the filmakers, then it has no place in the article as it is simply fan art. Your options for this image are either 1) insert 'fair use' language and comply with Wikipedia policies on copyright images if it is created from copyright images or 2) remove from the article because it is not covered under the copyright and therefore has no basis to be used in the article. GundamsRus (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, instead of trying to do something constructive with my findings, you just choose to keep rambling off the same ridiculous accusations as you've been doing the entire time. You wonder why you just get reverted all the time? See above.

That said, of course it matters. A branded image can't be released under a GNU license; it explicitly says so. I'm beginning to think you're not as familiar with policy as you keep claiming... MalikCarr (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Give me a clue: which section of the GFDL says that a branded image can't be released under the GFDL? --teb728 t c 09:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:IUP:

"Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page."

Now as far as I knew, this was a use of the term "should" in the "Jimbo" format, e.g. "this is the way it's supposed to be". I could be wrong, however, so if that's just a guideline and not a binding term, then disregard my above statements. MalikCarr 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frederick_Hart.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, but the source does not confirm this. Rette tast 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2009-lexus_rx.jpg

Watermarked proffersional image. Unlikely that the uploader is the copyrightholder Rette tast 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rudedudeentlogo2.jpg

OR. logo Rette tast 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Japanesebeauties002.jpg

Tagged PD-self. Proffesional photo. Unlikely that the uploader is copyright holder. Rette tast 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lexus_Interior.jpg

Tagges GFDL-self. Unlikeky that the uploader is copyright holder Rette tast 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:3rd_generation_lexus-rx.jpg

Tagged GFDL-self. Proffesional photo. Unlikely that the uploader is copyright holder. Rette tast 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lexus_Exterior.jpg

Tagged PD-self. Proffesional photo. Unlikely that the uploader is copyright holder. Rette tast 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Concierge_-_Mount_Washington_Hotel.jpg

License in source only allow non commercial use of the image. Rette tast 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Was fairly sure this didn't have a noncommercial tag when I uploaded it. I've asked the copyright holder if he will remove the noncommercial tag, so I'd ask for a few days for him to respond befoe this is deleted. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. PUIs can't be closed before 14 days has passed, so should have plenty of time. Rette tast 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The commercial tag has now been removed on Flickr. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yabbut the Flickr license is {{cc-by-nd-2.0}}, and not {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} as the image page is tagged. Still a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The non-commercial tag has not been removed from the image. Delete. The Evil Spartan 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anna-inspi-nana-rose-cd.jpg

Unlikely that the uploader is copyright holder. Rette tast 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:School125 02.jpg

Uploaded with a CC license, but the school's website indicates all material is copyrighted. In addition, the building still exists, so a free replacement could easily be made. -- Esrever (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hinsdale central library.jpg

Uploaded with a CC license, but the school's website indicates all material is copyrighted. In addition, the building still exists, so a free replacement could easily be made. Esrever (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)