Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] September 29
[edit] Image:SchenkerBrothersV.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ExplosionRazorback.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZZTopspinningfur.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DeanZ.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:30thV.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DimebagDarrell.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SSM1.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SSM2.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SSM3.jpg
Websource, www.deanguitars.com, state no content can be used without written consent. 156.34.209.197 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dburrowes.gif
The source website is CC-BY-NC-ND, not CC-BY-SA –RHolton≡– 00:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source (Enfield Southgate Conservative Association,of which I am a member) confirms to me that it is OK to use this image on Wikipedia --Smerus 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is not sufficient. Is it ok to use for commercial purposes? May it be modified by downstream users? If the answer is "no" to either of these, then it is not acceptable. It could probably be justified as fair use, but then it needs to be specifically labeled as such, and specific justification written for its fair use. –RHolton≡– 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, wait a few days, everyone who could give permission is off at conservative conference at the moment, then next week I will give details of full permissions. In the meantime I will consider fair use parameters.Smerus 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is not sufficient. Is it ok to use for commercial purposes? May it be modified by downstream users? If the answer is "no" to either of these, then it is not acceptable. It could probably be justified as fair use, but then it needs to be specifically labeled as such, and specific justification written for its fair use. –RHolton≡– 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alexz.jpeg
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nathaniel_Street-West_in_2006.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the uploader account is a shared account being used by a business from a question they asked on WP:MCQ. [1] They were warned this is against policy. - cohesion 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ParisHilton.jpg
Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I took this picture while I was traveling to NY last year :). John Biancato talk 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting that you were right in front. Why doesn't the image have any metadata from the camera used? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strangely, the photo can also be found here, where it is used on this page.. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting that you were right in front. Why doesn't the image have any metadata from the camera used? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Thenetwork25.jpg
Has copyright statement in addition to GFDL license. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tblogo.png
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BenassiBennyAlle.jpg
Uploader claims self taken, but image is all over the internet, and it was used as album cover art so it is probably not even owned by the photographer. But|seriously|folks 06:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mo camara.jpg
Image from tv.co.nz. Conditions of use do not suggest that this is a GFDL-license imaged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alexz_01.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder - this photo has been previously uploaded as a copyright violation. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response: Alexz Johnson Photo
The uploader claims to have taken the picture. I have asked for further information and clarification. Let's give the uploader a bit of time to put this together. I'll send any reminders that may be necessary.
The original source of the photo is at www.Alexz-Johnson.net which is a fan site. There, the photo is one of the few to be marked with the Alex-Johnson.net logo, which is unlikely to have been placed there unless it was taken by someone at the site. If the copyright holder were someone else, they would have had every opportunity to spot it at the site, which has had 13 million hits.
The photo was taken in Toronto, at the 32nd. annual Toronto International Film Festival.
I havn't seen the photo anywhere else. For the time being - unless I see evidence to the contrary - I am inclined to believe that the uploader was also the photographer. Failing any evidence to the contrary, I think the photo should stay up on Wikipedia.
But due diligence is also in order. If I don't hear back from the uploader soon, I will contact CTV to make sure that it's not one of their photos, noting that the background is CTV eTalk.
JD Fan 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Paris_Hilton_parody.jpg
Derivative work. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Narwhal.jpg, Image:Narwhal2.jpg & Image:Narwhal3.jpg
lanephotography.com sells photos. Nothing suggests they're under the Free Art license. --Platonides 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Poncho -------.jpg
Clearly a photo from Ugly Betty, but not self made. The Evil Spartan 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RHCP Sign.jpg
Derivative work, if it was indeed created by this person The Evil Spartan 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Profileoneowl.jpg
No indication that this is released under cc. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:KhaiTamManual.jpg
derivative work The Evil Spartan 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Kevin McNulty I am the author of both the article and the book itself. The picture is a publicity still we took of the book to market it in Intergalactic Trading Company's catalog. --Slartibartfast4142 05:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DSc-Certificate.JPG
Uploader may have scanned it but the underlying design and logos belong to somebody else and may be protected by copyright. But|seriously|folks 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image deleted. The degree is copyrighted by the institution who issued it. It cannot be tagged as GFDL-self. -Nv8200p talk 01:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:2002 07 MStag.jpg
derivative work The Evil Spartan 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Response:
This license plate came off of my personal car and was scanned and uploaded by me. This is definitely an original image. I actually put the tag in my scanner and scanned the image. Firecruise 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Clay car tag.JPG
derivative work The Evil Spartan 18:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Response:
This license plate was given to me by a family member, and was scanned and uploaded by me. This is definitely an original image. Firecruise 16:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kelly album.jpg
doubtfully self-taken; looks professional The Evil Spartan 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Geno.jpg
whatever this is a picture of, I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder. We have no source, so we can't verify its status. The Evil Spartan 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Betarecords1.jpg
Doubtful this is released under PD: Beta Records. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GC Header.png
Appears to be a banner; no indication uploader is creator of the banner The Evil Spartan 18:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WikiLOGO.jpg
see above The Evil Spartan 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Skull TG.jpg
doesn't appear self-made; uploader has had other pd-self problems. The Evil Spartan 18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gruevski3.jpg
official picture; clearly not self-shot. The Evil Spartan 18:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gruevski2.jpg
see above The Evil Spartan 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sloairlineroutes.jpg
derivative work: screenshot The Evil Spartan 18:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Deepthroat.jpg
(NSFW!) doubtfully self-taken. The Evil Spartan 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ajith2.jpg
summary clearly states it's from a movie. The Evil Spartan 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
who cares? this is disgusting and does not belong on wikipedia!!! it's clearly pornographic material which needs to be removed ASAP, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.239.184 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Priyamani8.jpg
see above The Evil Spartan 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oswaldwest.jpg
PD claimed for invalid reason - may be PD by age, but we should be able to find a for-sure-PD image of this subject Calliopejen1 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Messerschmidt_me_264.jpg
tagged pd, but is of a WWII-era plane and says "I think it's copyrighted. " maybe this is a fair use case Calliopejen1 23:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cardinalstritch.jpg
this guy was a cardinal from 1940-1958, which is presumably when this picture was taken. no reason given for PD claim Calliopejen1 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
