Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image:Richard_Archer_Arrival_BRITs.PNG
no evidence that this image is PD Rettetast 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MichaelJohnAnderson.jpg
License does not extend to Scott County, only the Federal government. Scott County does not allow such photographs to be copied, only publicly available. This is a red light lawsuit if its not deleted now. — .:DavuMaya:. 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fritz Todt.jpg
no evidence that this image is PD --194.137.112.36 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:48420010.jpg
"Scan" is given as source. Upload log says "Image by Kendal Koppe on exclusive licence to Mother and the Addicts". Have Kendal Koppe released the image? "exclusive licence"? Liftarn 09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Inspector Grim.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rudolph Walker.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Inspector Raymond C. Fowler.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Serena Evans.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mark Addy.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:James in TBL.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mina Anwar.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from The Thin Blue Line. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Judith Scott.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from Jake 2.0. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cody Arens.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from D-War. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Robert Forster.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from D-War. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Amanda Brooks.jpg
User asserts copyright but clearly screenshot from D-War. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aoi Miyazaki.jpg
User asserts copyright but admits it is screenshot. Gr1st 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TellStar.png
Is the software free? Liftarn 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mid img makati.jpg
Image appears to have watermark in upper right corner. No metadata with image. Likely that this was not a photograph taken by the uploader as claimed - this uploader has had many other image problems. Shell babelfish 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- All of this uploader's images should probably be deleted (well, the few left). I just deleted Image:Makati night.jpg, which was taken from here. Chick Bowen 02:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- image swiped from: http://www.condopremier.com/centurycity/makati.html --Thespian 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- And Image:Makati-skylilne.jpg was from here--this isn't hard, he doesn't change the filenames. Chick Bowen 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rsv2k2ann 2.jpg
A tightly cropped photograph of a book cover is a derivative work and thus just as nonfree as a scan would be. —Angr 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eagle Creek silence.JPG
There is a free version of the same subject, already in use in the article: Image:Punchbowlfalls.jpg. The unfree image provides no essential information not available in other images. Chick Bowen 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is this the right venue? It's not a "possibly unfree image"; it's definitely an unfree image. I'd tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and give the reason you dispute the fair-use rationale as the parameter. —Angr 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. It's not to illustrate the falls as such. It's to illustrate that the falls were used in a poster, which statement had been slapped with a "fact" tag way back when. How are you going to avoid the "fact" tag without showing a picture of the poster (which, by the way, is a sufficiently poor picture that it should meet "low-res" standards)? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You create an external link to it, or to a page that discusses it. As for the venue, PUI has been a home to such debates before, and it's as good a home as any. Chick Bowen 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- PUI is a good way to put it. I don't know how to make an external link to my own PC, which is turned off half the time anyway. And this is from like 1970, so you're only likely to see it on somebody's weblog, if anywhere, and then you'll say "that's not a reliable source." PUI to you deletionists. PUI, I say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- So you uploaded a non-free image to support original research? —Angr 09:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is not original research. The poster was sold publicly. Just not recently. It's from like 1970. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have found a number of references to it on Google, but no illustrations, mostly people trying to find a copy. Apparently it's hard to find. That's because it was published ca. 1970! Shazam! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is not original research. The poster was sold publicly. Just not recently. It's from like 1970. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- So you uploaded a non-free image to support original research? —Angr 09:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- PUI is a good way to put it. I don't know how to make an external link to my own PC, which is turned off half the time anyway. And this is from like 1970, so you're only likely to see it on somebody's weblog, if anywhere, and then you'll say "that's not a reliable source." PUI to you deletionists. PUI, I say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You create an external link to it, or to a page that discusses it. As for the venue, PUI has been a home to such debates before, and it's as good a home as any. Chick Bowen 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. It's not to illustrate the falls as such. It's to illustrate that the falls were used in a poster, which statement had been slapped with a "fact" tag way back when. How are you going to avoid the "fact" tag without showing a picture of the poster (which, by the way, is a sufficiently poor picture that it should meet "low-res" standards)? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
