Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 19	September 21 >

[edit] September 20

[edit] Image:Hazeldawn.jpg

undated photo. most likely before 1923, but we don't know. there is another free image of this actress already on wiki and several more at LOC. Calliopejen1 03:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PriDean.jpg

undated photo, actress lived 1896-1987. we already have one free (for sure) image on wiki, and there are two more at the LOC. Calliopejen1 03:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
UNSOLICITED COMMENT FROM A WIKIPEDIA NON-EDITOR The French really have some gall (Gaul?) to try and claim a copyright on an image that is 15,000 years old. The same goes for the British National Museum "copyrighting" lintels from the Maya site of Yaxchilan. These are educational materials, people. If I take pictures of the pages of the Saint James bible, with no surrounding scenery or context, and post them online, it would be difficult for me to claim some sort of "copyright" over those images. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.38.117 (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Elsie_Ferguson.jpg

undated image, subject lived 1883-1961. i would guess it's a free image, but we already have another free photo of the subject here and there are a few more at LOC. Calliopejen1 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Helenferguson.jpg

undated photo, subject lived 1900-1977. we already have another good free image of the same person Calliopejen1 04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FlorenceGilbert.jpg

she was born in 1904, and the magazine says she's 20 years old. that means this is a 1924 magazine and not PD. we already have another free pic of her anyways. Calliopejen1 05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Corinnegriffith.jpg

undated photo, subject lived 1895-1979, we have a new free photo anyways and there are two more at the LOC Calliopejen1 05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ocd.jpg

No record or evidence that this photo has been released into the public domain. Essentially, we need an e-mail from the copyright holder sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org with a statement such as "I assert that I am the copyright holder of 'Ocd.jpg' and I release it into the public domain." See WP:COPYREQ for more information. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, LEAVE it on the word of the uploader. Wikipedia is not a court of law, the standards of "evidence" here are very naive. (We can't realistically EVER independently prove that someone took a certain picture. In the end, it comes down to a person's word.) If we can't take the uploader's word that they have permission from the photographer to post the photo, then how can we take the word of someone e-mailing Wikipedia, asserting they are the photographer and formally giving up rights? Given enough deception, both can be easily faked, but the central question here is: where is the motive in lying about having permission to post pictures? I am thinking this is much ado about nothing. At least, that's what I'm hoping. LevelTubes (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Say

It's fine just leava it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.22.52 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Experts say that it's okay to leave the image there. Sakanagaijin 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:R1032.jpg

undated image, subject lived 1897-1948 Calliopejen1 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{db-author}}algae21

[edit] Image:Hope_Hampton.jpg

undated photo, subject lived 1897-1982 Calliopejen1 06:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HawleyW.jpg

undated photo, subject lived 1895-1963 Calliopejen1 06:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ayyash.jpg

Image was briefly used as illustration, not for commentary, on [[Yahya Ayyash]‎]. — Nimmo 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC) User removed notification from talk page, has not edited since then. Nimmo 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Slice bread.jpg

Nothing on the source page suggest that this is GFDL. Pekaje 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When I searched for the keyword Sliced Bread in Google with the license free to share, the image appeared. Troop350 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So other people violate copyright, and? It is up to you to prove that the license is free, and nothing in the source provided gives any indication of that. It seems to be from iStockphoto, and with a GFDL non-compatible license. Besides, it's a trivial picture to replace. I'd do it myself if I had a neutral background available. --Pekaje 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean that when I searched in Google for images of sliced bread with a license free to share the image appeared in the search term. Troop350 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood you the first time. However, this does not make it GFDL. --Pekaje 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then what under what license should I put the picture. Troop350 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-free one, though given the generic nature of the picture, it should actually be deleted under WP:NFCC#1. I listed it here because of the possibility that it might have been freely licensed. However, given what you have said so far, it seems pretty obvious that it's a copyright violation. In the future, please refrain from uploading images found on the net, without getting a confirmed permission from whoever can reasonably be assumed to be the copyright holder. --Pekaje 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lilibatikhusidut.ogg

recorded 1940, no evidence it is in public domain. (this is a sound file, but i don't know where else to list it.) Calliopejen1 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Voodoomacbeth.jpg

this is a depression-era performance so probably isn't PD by age. i searched the LOC image page and couldn't find the image anywhere. Calliopejen1 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chapay.jpg

LOC says "publication may be restricted." Published 1970 in russia (after PD cutoff of 1954 for govt images). Probably not ok under WP:NONFREE because there plenty of PD russian WWII propaganda images. this image is just commemorating WWII. Calliopejen1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1947Berryman.jpg

i cannot find this in the library of congress. it's a 1947 cartoon. Calliopejen1 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cole_Porter.jpg

from the ny world telegram & sun collection, which is not copyright-cleared by the loc (see image description page). there is no information available to tell its copyright status with certainty. Calliopejen1 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:22pistepirkko.jpg

public use and public domain is not the same thing Liftarn 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The public domain tag is probably wrong, it was a mistake on my part. As I remember it the guy who took the photo needs to be credited. If the image needs to be removed then I'm sorry if I made a mistake, it was uploaded in good faith. Alun 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RaymondGramSwing.jpg

undated image, from library of congress site but i can't find it in their image search. might be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 15:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wakeupfirstpage.jpg

2001 comic - not free simply by virtue of being reprinted at LOC website Calliopejen1 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

quote "Gift of the artists and DC Comics" as referenced in link provided and here repeated and described as " All contributers, as well as the suppliers, printers and distributers donated their work on this project" on another link provided and is but one page, the cover page, of a series of plates. As a gift I felt it "owned" by the LOC and thus free. But if not then it is also just one of a number of pages of the work and could be fair use. I've been in contact with one of the artists and he had no objection. Digging through the LOC website I did track this down - DC Comics Rights and Restrictions Information which in part says "Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted, subject to P&P policy on copying, which prohibits photocopying of the original drawings and digital prints." However the same page also notes "Publication and other forms of distribution: Restricted." and gives "(212) 636-5946 (Rights and Permissions Hotline)" - should I call and if I get an answer how does that get posted to Wikipedia? I'd appreciate assistance in doing the right thing which in my view includes referencing this line art drawing. --Smkolins 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The LOC "gift of" language is somewhat confusing, but I think it means that DC Comics and the artist gave the originals to the LOC, and not necessarily the copyright. The LOC record for these images is http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01906, which refers you to another page saying that "DC Comics has stipulated that artworks in this collection may not be published without permission."[1] Because of this, I would say these images are pretty definitely nonfree in the wikipedia sense of the word and must be allowed under the nonfree content policy, which is pretty restrictive (see WP:NONFREE). Right now the article has far too many nonfree images without any commentary. Maybe decide which two or so images you want to keep on the page, and write fair use rationales for them. Calliopejen1 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you're the artist's brother, could you take a photo of him to put on his page, or convince him to release a sample of his artwork (one that DC doesn't own the copyright to, obviously) under a free license (see WP:ICT#For image creators)? That would be the best option. Calliopejen1 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed his brother. I had originally put all the pictures into the article because it was 1) Comic book covers which had some rational for being allowed which I thought I posted, 2) since he's an artist it seemed clearly relavant to an article about him as his work is the reason to have an article about him, and 3) it represents some of the well known, diversity or unique qualities or contributions of his skill all of which also apply to the line art picture discussed here. These rationales on my part also have some relationship to the "(see WP:NONFREE)" sections on 1 Cover art (which almost all of them are) and 7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school which is also mentioned in the article in general (about his particular style vs others though I'll grant there isn't specific reference to the pictures in the article but to not be original work would require someone else to talk specifically about these covers for such commentary - a pretty high standard to meet for a comic artist.) I'll see about some art work he can post and maybe a good pose picture.--Smkolins 02:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:William_styron.jpg

1998 photo found on news page of LOC webpage. is there any way to determine whether this is PD-USGov? Calliopejen1 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Martin_Dies_1942_subversive_docs_LOC.jpg

image copyright status basically impossible to determine, according to LOC. Calliopejen1 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that could go under fair use. It's probably not very replaceable. 71.63.105.172 22:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NFG.jpg

Image taken by a professional photographer, linked website contains copyright notice of "all contents," no evidence of cc-license as tagged. No reply from uploader. — TeaDrinker 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Delta_phi_delta.jpg

The image is the logo of a fraternity, which are commonly non free CO₂ 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)