Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 10 September 12 >

Contents

[edit] September 11

[edit] Image:Raven04ky0.jpg

User talk:Ravenfan4ever uploaded 3 images Image:05356.jpg, Image:Raven04ky0.jpg‎ and Image:Raven03xu7.jpg. In each of these the user asserted ownership of the image and gave permission for use in Wikipedia. The first image of the three, now deleted as a blatant copyright violation, had extended image data that indicated the copyright is held by http://www.wireimage.com/ so the assertion of ownership of the image by the user was provably a fabrication. Suspect this image is also not owned by the user as the veracity of the user is suspect based on the first image. NrDg 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Raven03xu7.jpg

User talk:Ravenfan4ever uploaded 3 images Image:05356.jpg, Image:Raven04ky0.jpg‎ and Image:Raven03xu7.jpg. In each of these the user asserted ownership of the image and gave permission for use in Wikipedia. The first image of the three, now deleted as a blatant copyright violation, had extended image data that indicated the copyright is held by http://www.wireimage.com/ so the assertion of ownership of the image by the user was provably a fabrication. Suspect this image is also not owned by the user as the veracity of the user is suspect based on the first image. NrDg 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FernandoAmorsoloPaintingSignatureSpecimen.JPG

I don't believe we can claim a painters signature is ineligible for copyright because it is not an original work. Each person's signature is unique and, well, "designed" by them. Shell babelfish 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Signature, signatures are ineligible for copyright. The source cited isn't terribly explicit though. Calliopejen1 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cliffjumper-movie.jpg

No evidence of GFDL license by copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This image was taken by a person I know, as I wasn't around. He said I could have it. What proof can I provide? I could have said GFDL-self, but that would be lying. Mathewignash 13:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alyson.jpg

Also: Image:Alyson111a.jpg

No evidence that uploader is actually Alyson Hau. I've had the username blocked for now and am attempting to sort out by e-mail. If I don't post here again, then assume it was an impostor. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright holder's identity verified by e-mail. I'm going to clean up the image pages and move them to Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Antennen-galaxies2.jpg

Credit is not NASA, it is the "Digital Sky Survey", which clearly disallows commercial usage: [1] The Evil Spartan 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AnttlersM81M82.jpg

User has uploaded a glutton of professional looking images, claiming he is the author. I am deeply skeptical that an image of NASA quality can be taken with a camera which is in the range of $1000, if that: [2]. Let me clarify that the very best multi-million dollar telescopes in the world are barely producing images of this kind of quality. Also:

Keep. I see no reason to doubt that these are amateur images. For comparable images of e.g. M101 and NGC 2903 see here and here. The HST's picture of M101, on the other hand, shows a great deal more detail even in a low-resolution format (the full image is over 15K x 12K pixels.) Spacepotato 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)I don't think they look beyond the bounds of possibility for amateur astronomical cameras with a decent telescope in the slightest. You "clarify" that the best telescopes are barely producing images of this quality.
Here is a Hubble image of Messier 101, the same galaxy as in Image:Anttlers101.jpg (although the image is rotated in the latter). There is a considerable quality difference there - and Hubble isn't even a big telescope compared to the some Earth based ones with adaptive optics.
Also, take a look at Image:AnttlersNGC2903 copy.jpg and contrast with the hubble version - a massive difference.
With the Image:AnttlersNewM45.jpg, I don't think most professional obvservatories could get the entire Pleaides in the same field of view. It has to have been done by a relatively small scope in my opinion.
In conclusion, I think they're pretty good, but compared to the "very best" professional operations, there is still a way to go yet. Richard B 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the NASA astronomy pictures of the day are often take by amateurs (with proper citation, of course). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tiffany.jpg

Appears to be a film screenshot; failing WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shirer.jpg

This image was taken from the State Department website (click on "Photo Gallery" on the left and go to 11), but a "© AP/WWP Photo" was apparently unnoticed. Does it qualify for faire use? — Keriluamox 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free only per this page. -- But|seriously|folks  17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)