Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 27 September 29 >

Contents

[edit] September 28

[edit] Image:Jeancarrod.jpg

No evidence the the copyright holder has released rights. Source link doesn't exist Shell babelfish 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alicelake.jpg

subject lived 1895-1967, undated photo Calliopejen1 02:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stravinsky.jpg

almost certainly not PD, because of age of subject Calliopejen1 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HRE_crown.jpg

says it is from Richard Suchenwirth: German History, Leipzig 1934. but also says Copyright expired 1959. i'm not sure why this would be, normally such an image would still be copyrighted Calliopejen1 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Williamsrichardson.jpg

no reason given that it is PD, definitely not pre1923 Calliopejen1 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Roberto_prats.jpg

modern photo, no reason given that it's PD Calliopejen1 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jjelev.jpg

No evidence that this image is in the public domain. Shell babelfish 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Korean_Demonstration_agst_RK_riots.jpeg

modern photo, no real reason given it's PD besides it being distributed to the media Calliopejen1 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lipatti02.jpg

subject born 1917, no reason given for PD Calliopejen1 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lipatti05.jpg

subject born 1917, no reason given for PD Calliopejen1 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Honolulumayorlesterpetrie.jpg

no reason given this is public domain, beyond "hawaii state archives" Calliopejen1 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hawaiifiveobadge.jpg

dubious image, no source Calliopejen1 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Humuhumunukunukuapuaa.jpg

source is listed as "UC Berkeley", no reason given for it to be PD Calliopejen1 04:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PZL_P.11c.jpg

page says "the picture made by the officials of the German state during the World War II, under the Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG) copyright law of 1940, with a copyright term of 25 years since publication. Hence the copyright has expired by 1970" - is this correct? Calliopejen1 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kahuluiairportmap.jpg

doubt this is self-made, no source specified or reason for it to be PD Calliopejen1 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Unitedairlinesdisasterhonolulu.jpg

no reason for PD besides "hawaii state archives". 1988 photo. Calliopejen1 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Honoluluairportmap.jpg

doesn't look selfmade, no reason specified that it is PD (legacy upload) Calliopejen1 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mentha_spicata.jpg

can't find any copyright description on website, and description says "PD claimed here [1] (which also conflictingly claims noncommercial use only)." Calliopejen1 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Radio_moscow.jpeg

published in ussr in 1964, which description page says makes it PD. I don't think this is correct. Calliopejen1 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Honoluluharbornight.jpg

no reason to think this photo is PD, sourced to Hawaii DOT Calliopejen1 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChinaService.jpg

looks professional, no reason specified that it is pd, no source Calliopejen1 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Loyolachicagolouwolf.jpg

photo not by uploader, no reason specified it's pd Calliopejen1 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Santamariamaggiorenave.jpg

photographer is not uploader, no reason specified that it is PD Calliopejen1 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jp2presidents.jpg

what evidence is there that the Vatican released this into the public domain? Calliopejen1 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:14fukuda.jpg

The Japanese Prime Minister's Office does not recognize "fair use" of any of its copyrighted images on its website dated after December 31, 1956. They only permit "private use" of such images, but use on Wikipedia is not regarded as "private." This is likely copyright infringement and the image should be removed immediately. Insomniacpuppy 06:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not the only rationale. The Japanese government web site permits this use. See image talk page and Talk:Yasuo Fukuda. Fg2 07:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't. The Kantei specifically does not permit use of images on its website taken after December 31 1956 on Wikipedia. If you doubt, call/email Kantei, and they'll tell you exactly the same. Please read what I wrote on Talk:Yasuo Fukuda. Thank you. Insomniacpuppy 07:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what they wrote on their web site. If you doubt it, don't take my word or yours, but ask a Japanese person to translate it. Fg2 09:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am Japanese and I know what I'm talking about. Please also read this. Thank you.
Insomniacpuppy 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agre with Insomniacpuppy that it's probably best to have this discussion on the article talk page. -- Exitmoose 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jeremy.jpg

tv-screenshot Rettetast 09:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif

Since author's date of death is unknown, PD licensing is inappropriate — 41.208.252.4 09:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Public domain - 41.208.252.4, have you even tried looking for the author information? The "date of death unknown" applies when we know the author. When we don't know who the author is, then the requirements are less stringent. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#Uncertain copyright for historical images, and in particular: "anything prior to 1937 (70 years ago) that was published without disclosure of authorship [...] is in the public domain.". Case closed. This image is public domain unless there is a published claim of authorship. Carcharoth 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that the photograph was taken in 1879. This is truly ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC).
    • It tends to be a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in copyright terms. People learn about the "death of author + 100 years" thing, and then go around hypothesising 12-year-old people behind the camera who lived until they were 90 (this is around 1950), and then claim that the photo would be in copyright until 2050. This ignores the 1923 benchmark for material published before 1923, and fails to see the difference between a known author and an unknown author. Having said that, you do have the case of Mr Smith (all names made up) digging out great-grandfather's box of glass negatives from the attic, finding they've somehow survived the years since 1879, and publishing it for the first time in 2007. I think in that case the copyright clock starts in 2007, despite the photo being taken in 1879. The provenance of this photo is probably clearer, though it would be nice to have a source. eg. Did Giano scan it from a book, and if so, which one? That would then start the process (if anyone can be bothered) of finding out where they got it from, and so on. Many of these searches end up in old archives, many of which have been sold to commercial photo agencies. You then get people going into hysterics because those commercial photo agencies have put a copyright sign on said old picture, even if it is plainly public domain. There's lots more, but that will have to wait until another time. Carcharoth 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"anything prior to 1937 (70 years ago) that was published without disclosure of authorship [...] is in the public domain." Well, very nice, but has anyone shown that it was published without disclosure of authorship when the source itself is not listed - I think not. As for the tart remarks about a little knowledge, the user above simply pointed out that since the author's date of death is unknown, licensing the image as being in the public domain under the 100 years requirement, was inappropriate. In other words find a tag which is appropriate and doesn't break down under close scrutiny. If the author lived for just 28 years after taking the photo, the 100 year requirement would not be met - one does not need to postulate a 12-year old photographer. So please try to look at the underlying reason for the objection instead of dazzling all with your expertise. 41.208.206.9 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I for one am dazzled by it. And I don't in fact understand the "underlying reason" for such a crusade to have a 128-year old photo deleted. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC).
All relevant information and the correct tag is now here [1]. Giano 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That the photographer is dead, has never been disputed - the question is "has he been dead for more than 100 years?" - this has been glossed over. Having been published in various books and articles, does not automatically place the image in the public domain - they may have obtained special permission to do so or may have violated copyright themselves. Please do not remove the disputed tag until the issue has been resolved. 41.208.217.35 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please cease this behaviour now. I have reverted you here [2] Please do not remove valuable information concerning this image again. Please take your crusade elsewhere, i'm sure there must be at least a million others images from this era deserving of your attentions. Giano 07:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My "behaviour" is a perfectly legitimate objection to a patently incorrect attempt at labelling the above image as public domain. Either fix the problem or place the issue on the administrator's noticeboard. 41.208.217.170 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to post there. I look forward to reading the responses to your problem. Giano 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 41.208.xx, please consider creating an account so that people can at least contact you on your usertalk. It's extremely inconvenient to try to discuss anything with a wildly dynamic IP. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep the image as public domain, close the thread, and investigate the IP for sockpuppetry. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Current public-domain tagging looks good to me. --Carnildo 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PerryB.jpg

Uploader claims GFDL for the image, but the image is from the website of The Cure. Although I can't read the site, I doubt it's really GFDL.–RHolton≡– 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HK MX JoeyYung.jpg

I call baloney on this user's claim to have created this obviously professional promo shot. —Chowbok ☠ 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CalatUSC.jpg

No evidence permissin was granted to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I own the site, I own the image, and I took the photograph. I release the use of the image under the GFDL. Cgb78 talk 13:53, 30 September 2007

Image kept -Nv8200p talk 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CalatWSU.jpg

No evidence permissin was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I own the site, I own the image, and I took the photograph. I release the use of the image under the GFDL. Cgb78 talk 13:53, 30 September 2007

Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CalledhimDave.jpg

No evidence permission was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Camilla_2.jpg

No evidence permission was granted to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cano.jpeg

Portrait. No eveidence permission was granted for release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carol_yes_magazine.jpg

No evidence permission was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SSM4.jpg

image sourced to deanguitars.com, whcih claims copyright on all of the material on their pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VMNT limited.jpg

image sourced to deanguitars.com, which claims copyright on all of the material on their pages. Corvus cornix 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:McGuireKa.jpg

undated photo, subject born 1903 Calliopejen1 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PatMiller.jpg

undated photo, subject born 1904 Calliopejen1 23:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Minter01.jpg

undated photo, subject born 1902 Calliopejen1 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This photo is PD. She was born in 1902. She is clearly under 18 (likely about 14 or 15 but maybe younger) in this professional publicity photo and her career was over by 1924. Gwen Gale 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can be sure enough that this photo was not taken in 1923 or 1924. It is possible that she is 21 in the photo. We have a photo that we know is PD instead, which we should be using rather than this one. Calliopejen1 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
She's clearly older and heavier in the photo which supposedly can be dated. Either way, that's no 20 year old. The photo is PD and the 1917 date is reasonable enough that I most strongly assert that this photo must not be deleted unless it has been firmly established that we cannot date it as pre-1923. Meanwhile, I will make further efforts to do so. Thanks. Gwen Gale 05:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some folks can never be convinced that they're wrong, so I don't know why I'm even trying but here goes. That's a 1917 publicity photo of Mary from Flying A Studios. If you look closely at the bottom right corner of the same photo here: http://mary-miles-minter.com/2b.html you can make out the basic outline of the Flying A "winged" embossment. Mary had left Flying A Studios at the end of 1918 for a new contract with Paramount, thus no Flying "A" photo of Mary dates later than 1918. I would only add that the image is considered to be the best publicity photo of Mary ever issued during her career and it would be a shame to replace it with some LOC garbage.algae21

I'd say that settles it. This image is unambiguously PD by date. Having seen dozens of MMM photos I was sure I had it within a year either way, but I'm happy I was spot on. I also agree this is likely the most fit pic ever released of her. Gwen Gale 11:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Absent futher comment, I've removed the notice from the image page and consider this closed. Gwen Gale 11:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:30thML.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dean from hell.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DimeMLFlame-01a.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VMNT.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MSv.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MSflamev.jpg

Websource, www.deanguitars.com, states no image can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)