Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] September 30
[edit] Image:LEGO minifigs.jpg
Derivative work. John Vandenberg 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? it's an image of a product. If this image is derivative work, then any image of any product is derivative work too under the same theory, and especially just about every image in Commons:Category:LEGO (as well as a LOT of other categories as well) ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this is not incidental use, it is not fair use (it is an orphan from the main namespace perspective), and it is only used in user and user talk namespaces. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except for the minor problem that it is not actually a copyright violation. This is a depiction of a product. A useful product, and it is not a copyright violation to take a picture of it. Unless you are proposing to delete every image of every product we have? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:African Bush Elephant Mikumi.jpg
It claims to be PD-user, as does Image:Blixen_Museum.jpg uploaded by the same user, so I dont think that Rworsnop (talk · contribs) is both "Oliver Wright" and "Rob Worsnop". — John Vandenberg 02:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
- Oliver Wright and I shared a camera when we went backpacking 15 years ago. I listed Oliver as the photographer because, in the uncropped version (not on wikipedia), I am in the picture. Rworsnop 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently resolved, then? I have removed the PUI tag from the image. -- Infrogmation 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Blixen_Museum.jpg
I've no idea why this has a copyright tag on it. I'm listed as the photographer. Rworsnop 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently resolved, then? I have removed the PUI tag from the image. -- Infrogmation 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Droege.jpg
no reason given for this to be PD. if it is PD, on the other hand, it should be added to the picture-less wolfgang droege article Calliopejen1 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sulejman.jpg
says "official photo of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, public domain under Bosnian law" - is this true? Calliopejen1 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gifford-pinchot.jpg
state govt images are not PD, and it's probably not PD by age because he held office after 1923 Calliopejen1 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I presumed it was PD being from said site, I vaguely remember trying to check the terms. It's basically just for illustration in any case so is hardly critical to the project :-) Pinchot was a pretty noteworthy fellow, there's bound to be a pic of him that's absolutely definitely PD - David Gerard 09:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- And the PA Dept of the Environment website doesn't work properly either. Argh ... I'll keep looking - David Gerard 09:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hah. The same photo is on Commons - Commons:Image:Gifford Pinchot.jpg, from the same site ... - David Gerard 09:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- A 1921 photo from the LOC. There's a tiny JPG there, the full photo can be ordered. More photos, including one of Pinchot and Roosevelt! - David Gerard 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK, I've found a previous image from the Library of Congress that is from 1922. We can afford to lose this one and put it back at our convenience if it in fact turns out to be PD - David Gerard 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RCA1802_CPU.jpg
no PD release statement on source website Calliopejen1 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Winterbottom uploads
All uploads by Winterbottom (talk · contribs) (unless they have a verifiable source). Winterbottom apparently uploaded footballer photos scanned or photographed from old (but not old enough to be copyright expired) magazines and similar sources with bogus "self-GFDL" claims. The user was called out on a couple of them, which were deleted, and Winterbottom then stopped contributing. That was back in February, but it looks to me we still have a number of Winterbottom uploads that are equally dubuious: Image:Billystark.jpg, Image:John Collins.jpg, Image:Patsy Gallacher.jpg, Image:Pat Crerand.jpg, Image:Ayoungladnamedjohnthomson.jpg, Image:Williefernieceltic.jpg, Image:Celtslegends 001.jpg, Image:Cheeky Charlie.jpg to start with; there are many similar. -- Infrogmation 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: many of these images have been moved to Commons. Conscious 10:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think those that were transwikied have been deleted already on Commons; if you know of any that are still there, let me know. -- Infrogmation 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this probably stems from a misunderstanding on his part. He did create the photo or scan himself, but of course the subject of that was someone else's photo. Rockpocket 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Misunderstanding" through the user not reading policies nor the text he selected to put on his own uploads, rather than deliberate dishonesty? Possibly. Either way, the images are labeled with false information and we can't keep them. Please, let's not dignify pretending that one can claim to "create the photo" someone else took by making a copy of it. -- Infrogmation 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not "dignifying" any claim. I was simply assuming good faith of a editor for his misguided actions. Everyone is clearly not as au fait with the concept of copyright as you, Infrogmation, so there is no reason to believe this is anything other than a lack of understanding on his part. We don't need to vilify him here, simply rectify his errors (which I of course, support). Rockpocket 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon, I did not mean to vilify anyone. Do you agree that these images seem to be improperly sourced and tagged? -- Infrogmation 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. That does seem to be the case. I don't know for sure that those are not reproductions of his grandfather's personal photos, but they are much more likely to be copies of published works. As the uploader is no longer around to correct us one way or the other, I think there is little we can do but delete them. Rockpocket 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon, I did not mean to vilify anyone. Do you agree that these images seem to be improperly sourced and tagged? -- Infrogmation 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not "dignifying" any claim. I was simply assuming good faith of a editor for his misguided actions. Everyone is clearly not as au fait with the concept of copyright as you, Infrogmation, so there is no reason to believe this is anything other than a lack of understanding on his part. We don't need to vilify him here, simply rectify his errors (which I of course, support). Rockpocket 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Misunderstanding" through the user not reading policies nor the text he selected to put on his own uploads, rather than deliberate dishonesty? Possibly. Either way, the images are labeled with false information and we can't keep them. Please, let's not dignify pretending that one can claim to "create the photo" someone else took by making a copy of it. -- Infrogmation 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this probably stems from a misunderstanding on his part. He did create the photo or scan himself, but of course the subject of that was someone else's photo. Rockpocket 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think those that were transwikied have been deleted already on Commons; if you know of any that are still there, let me know. -- Infrogmation 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ca-041 nb exit 128 01.jpg
The image description page says "West Coast Roads", which could mean http://www.westcoastroads.com/ in which it is "AARoads © 1997-07" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Messi w reprze.jpg
Tagged as pd-self but the claim is dubious/unverifiable; the image is taken from a blog that displays no image copyright info. The image's title, "lionel_messi_5_the_associated_press.jpg", suggests it's an Associated Press image. Muchness 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(Roger - Out) 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Puyolek.jpg
Tagged as pd-self but the claim is dubious/unverifiable; the image is taken from a fansite that displays no copyright or source info. Muchness 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Xavier w reprze.jpg
Tagged as pd-self but looks like a press photo. Uploader has provided no details to substantiate claim of PD. Muchness 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Españas.JPG
Claimed to be PD, but at least one of the images making it up is probably not PD. The image of Infanta Leonor of Spain is a cropped version of this image, which appears to be from EFE, a Spanish news agency. They state on their website that "© The redistribution and rebroadcasting of all or part of the content of EFE services is strictly prohibited without the prior expressed consent of EFE, S.A."/. I haven't investigated the other images of the more recent people on the family tree, but would guess that since several do not have images on their Wikipedia pages, these are also not free images. — Evil Monkey - Hello 04:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The images of Infante Felipe[1] and Infanta Cristina[2] are from the Royal Household website. The copyright notice of the site states that "The permission of the copyright holder is required for the reproduction...". Evil Monkey - Hello 04:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Khaled_Hosseini.jpg
No evidence image is work of US Gov't. Appears to be a promo image that merely appeared on the LOC website. But|seriously|folks 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to the copyright rules of LOC website, the Library does not own this image (see http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html#copyright). So the image is possible copyvio, unless proper source with license is provided.--PurppleGrape 06:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - author or owner of this image is Charmain reading Book buzz - By Bob Minzesheimer and Jacqueline Blais, USA TODAY Uploader Beh-nam probably knows that this image has a wrong license and tries to remove the deleted tag I placed.--PurppleGrape 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Man savina.jpg
samll size and black boader suggest originaly taken from web. Geni 14:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PaulManta.jpg
already deleted twice as a with permission image, user reuploaded as GFDL-self. Highly likely that it is still nonfree. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Raina_Kabaivanska.jpg
looks like a publicity photo, no reason given to make it PD Calliopejen1 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Black_fox_in_den.jpg
says "Royalty-free image from Corel." - is this plausible? Calliopejen1 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grom_Wiesław_Sierociński.jpg
documentation of permission is needed (this image is orphaned anyways) Calliopejen1 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:HirambinghamIV.jpg
probably not PD by age, no good reason for PD claim (comes from state archives), maybe a case for fair use. Calliopejen1 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Warren.jpg
Same image previously deleted "Image:Warren-Iwatake.jpg" (Nobuaki "Warren" Iwatake Iwatake gave a verbal agreement his image may be used for education purposes.) Fred-J 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
