Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] November 21
[edit] Image:MIAMI SKYLINE 2007.jpg
File is too small to have been taken with a digital camera, and there is no camera information either. It's obviously stolen from a website. - Marc Averette (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- This user has ten photos in the Miami article already and hawks the page to make sure noone replaces them. The new photo is much clearer ... all he can say is that it's "obviously stolen off the internet" with absolutely no basis to back it up. He's just protecting his own image instead of looking out for the greater good of the page. 70.146.67.72 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It is beside the point whether it is a nicer image or not - anon, instead of making baseless and petty accusations, you should try to prove there is no copyright breach. Green Giant (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? You can easily resize digital photos and remove camera information. Just look at some of the images on your own user page, Averette. And Green Giant, you've provided no evidence that there's been a copyright breach, while it's not really possible for the uploader to prove that there hasn't been. How do we know Averette is the copyright holder of Image:Miamiskyline20071016.jpg? We don't; we assume good faith. As for quality concerns ... the new image shows up a little better when shrunk down to fit in the infobox, though Averette's version clearly shows us more when clicked on. Neither are great images, though; the new one is tiny, while Averette didn't have a very good camera to start off with. -- RG2 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Testing2.jpg
Uploader claims he made this "album" cover and released to the Public Domain. Maybe, but it's not used anyway. Most likely because the musical artist, let alone this album, is not notable [1]. No need to keep this around even if the license is legit (a waste of time to even check). Rocket000 (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NewcastleRacecourse.jpg
I can't find any information in the source that the image is released into public domain. That it is free to download does not make it PD. Rettetast (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact and in law, any person or institution who makes an image freely available for download (copying) without restriction is in fact by their action deemed to have placed it in the public domain. Handicapper (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not! The mere act of publishing anything on line makes it possible to copy. This is not mean the copyright holder has released all rights (including the right to edit or reproduce). Purgatorio (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kroushevopostcard.jpg
Uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder of this image, which looks like a photograph or painting from the 1960s or '70s — —Angr 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Youth for equality pamphlet.jpg
This photo is in essentially in the same position as a scan of the pamphlet - just because a pamphlet is distributed does not make its contents P.D. Purgatorio (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Juniorcert.jpg
In the case of a scanned document such as a certificate, the scanner of the document doesn't automatically obtain the right to release the image of the document under a free license. Purgatorio (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
