Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] September 25
[edit] Image:Halideedip.jpg
Licence is fake. The source does not state public domain anywhere, instead, the main page of the website clearly states "Copyright © 2007 ÜSKÜDAR AMERİKAN LİSESİ" — Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
- Actually, the website is most likely not the copyright holder anyway, so its copyright notice is not very relevant. Given the apparent age of the picture (probably 1900-1910) public domain is not unlikely, but we can't know without an exact source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:HalideEdipAdivar-1-.jpg
The description and the licence is fake. The website is in French and doesn't state public domain anywhere. The uploader is banned — Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:WernervonBülowsWorldRuneClock.JPG
It's been here for 8 months and the copyright status is still undetermined. But|seriously|folks 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has a non free rationale listed on the page. I'm assuming it's non free content. It's currently orphaned, so tagged and if that gets it deleted, then so be it. CO2 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't know why it has been tagged as "information on copyright status disputed" because there's no dispute. The copyright status is simply, at the present time, unknowable. It's got a fair use rationale which I added only recently (although I'm not the creator) and I thought that gave sufficient reason for retaining it. Some bot removed it from the Werner von Bülow article but I intend using it in Germanic mysticism instead as soon as I expand a section to fit it in.
-
- In the absence of any further participation from the image's creator (who, to be fair, is probably snowed under with image deletions), I've provided as much information as I've been able to dig out and (being myself no expert) now it's over to other people to follow it up and determine its status.
-
- Given the fair use rationale (which you haven't suggested is invalid), the low quality of the image, the obscurity of the subject and the lack of alternative sources, I can't see why the undetermined copyright status should still be an issue. Anyway, the source is evidently a 1930 book whose illustrations were taken from previously-published works of scholarship, so the original publication date is unknown and there's a good chance Bülow (whose ideas were already formed by 1925) could have published his design before 1923. Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 reproduction says nothing about permission, which probably means he didn't need any. Really, if there's any uncertainty, images this old and so close to the PD borderline have got to be innocent until proven guilty.
-
- I'm going to remove the template per CAT:ORFU because it will take time to expand the article so that the layout permits inclusion. I would request removal of the 'possibly unfree' notice also. Since the image is allowed under a fair use claim and the information has already been provided, I cannot understand why this should have been added. Gnostrat 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Let's be exact. The image originally is from a book whose author died in 1930, but is has been reproduced from another book that was first printed in 1985. Technically Goodrick-Clarke could have committed a copyright violation (1985-1930=55<70), but since 2000 the Copyright should really have expired. Zara1709 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If the Copyright was not at the side of Gorsleben but of Bülow, this wouldn't actually change much. I'm not confindent enough on this to move the image to the commons, but in any case we can use it as illustriation in Ariosophy, similar to Goodrick-Clarke who uses is to illustrate the importance of the Runes in the Ariosophie/Rune occultism. Zara1709 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Image:LISTDeutsch-MythologischeLandschaftsbilder.jpg
It might be the uploader's own image, but the copyright in the text on the book covers has not been addressed. But|seriously|folks 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- This book was published in 1891, it's in the public domain by now. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Portriat.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Arangetram.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ssi.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chembai.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mdr.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kvn.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yorkstud.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Presawardts.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Choodamani.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vilayat.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nexus.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gamelan.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SubaSankaran.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Valley2cityhpsp.jpg
This image appears to be a non free image from the tv show South Park. No source is listed to check. CO2 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AF.jpg
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Talena_Atfield.JPG
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fukuda yasuo.jpg
Unfortunately the image is copyrighted and not free as claimed (it is an official portrait of Chief Cabinet Secretary back when Fukuda was holding the office: [1]). It should be removed immediately. Insomniacpuppy 04:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:09_tahu_matheson_story.jpg
Without some additional information, and going by the users past uploads I'm not convinced he is the copyright holder of this image as he claims. Sherool (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1130constellation1th.jpg
Image was taken from http://www.sg.hu/cikkek/13685/adattarolasi_revolucio_a_kozeljovoben and only edited by the uploader. Can't see any info that would indicate the uploader has permission to release this under the GFDL. Sherool (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:New_Kryah_2.jpg
Tagged as all rights released by user, but summary says "copyright by Micheal Williams", wich does not seem to be the uploader. Sherool (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Marshall01.jpg
Problem uploader. No evidence of public domain Rettetast 11:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Voneinem14.jpg
source link says all rights reserved Rettetast 11:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fulton01.jpg
No evidence of GFDL. problem uploader Rettetast 11:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fabolous in Brooklyn.jpg
Likely unfree image from an uploader with a questionable history. For example, the uploader claims to have taken Image:Mac in houston all star.jpg despite "Getty Images" being credited on the picture. — Spellcast 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Mac in houston all star.jpg
Same reason as above. — Spellcast 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:NewGodCave_WaterDrippingThroughStone.jpg
no evidence of gfdl. source say: All rights reserved Rettetast 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NewGodCave_CarpSpoutingTreasures.jpg
same as above Rettetast 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NewGodCave_StoneCurtainHanging.jpg
same as above Rettetast 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NewGodCave_RimstoneDam.jpg
same as above Rettetast 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NewGodCave_Entry.jpg
same Rettetast 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Weishui_Lake.jpg
same Rettetast 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Songzi_Weishui_Sat_Map.JPG
no evidence of gfdl. source say: Copyright © Falling Rain Genomics Rettetast 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SongziMap01.jpg
source say:Copyright (c) www.z365.net. All Rights Reserved. Rettetast 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Songzi_Sat_Map.JPG
see above Rettetast 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bea_and_Piolo.JPG
Promo photo, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:St Margaret.jpg
Tagged {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}, however the work of art portrayed was created by Douglas Strachan (1875-1950) in 1934 and the copyright has not yet expired. Given that it is an imagined depiction, albeit the finest of these (IMO), other imaginings now in the public domain might be used instead and {{fairusein}} is not possible either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I recently came back to the US after touring Scotland. I went to this chapel in Edinburgh, Scotland, took this same image as well as purchased a booklet regarding the chapel. In which this picture was also shown, there is no copyright attached to it at all even though there are several others in the booklet that are.
So I see no problem with using this beautiful image to associate with this article. If you need even more information regarding this chapel, the chapel guild/fellowship or this historical figure you can visit their website at www.stmargaretschapelguild.com or email address is daisy@stmargaretschapel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reminden (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As a great-granddaughter of Margaret's, I would hate to see this image removed. The photo of the window is in a public chapel and there are no copyrights attached to its use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.140.176 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:M-76.jpg
Given source (base URL) has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SantoDVD.JPG
Derivative work of DVD cover. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Low pixel, low quality photograph of DVD I own personally. Meets criteria for free use. Wjmummert 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can't release parts of copyrighted works as you own. Rettetast 21:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ud-screen1.png
No evidence this is free software. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not "software" of any kind. It is a malicious, and unfortunately very common virus. I saved the pic after I was personally infected by it. Follow this link to see examples. Wjmummert 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leeneville003.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
