Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 11 April 13 >

Contents

[edit] April 12

[edit] Image:Pre.jpg

Most likely taken from a copyrighted website due to image size and lack of metadata. No good reason to suppose the uploader holds copyright. Polly (Parrot) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Edsim clitoral glans innervation.jpg

Sdrtirs (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image should not be removed from page because we own the copyright to the image and grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. If image is listed under wrong "Free Documentation License", please contact so we can change.

--BioSim (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: If the user BioSim (talk) is really the copyright holder as is credit by the image and then licensing as GFDL image, then the image is free. Anyway, the watermark should be removed. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your response. We have removed "All rights reserved" from the image, which is what I hope you were referring to when you said "the watermark should be removed." I also have a question regarding what license to use for the image. Like I stated before, permission has been granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image but also would like credit for it, it it is used. What Free Image license would this fall under? If you could let me know I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks

--BioSim (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


You may release it in Creative Commons Attribution using {{cc-by-3.0}} and, like you have the ownership, may use the template {{self}} like this {{self|cc-by-3.0}}. See more on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --Sdrtirs (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear --Sdrtirs,

Thanks for the clarification, hope we got it right this time.

--BioSim (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We changed the copyright/license for the image caption. We also removed the "warning" on the image's internal page. Just to clarify, were we supposed to remove these "flags," or is that left for an administrator after the 14-day period? Please let us know, and thank you again for your assistance in this manner. --BioSim (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gavel.jpg

As per commons:Image:Gavel.jpg. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tom Rush in 2008..jpg

publicity photo unlikely to have been released under a free license Genisock2 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:27976536.RMillenium07.12.JPG

No evidence of CC-license in the source Rettetast (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Also: Image:36802010.Hala9.jpg. Rettetast (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The uploader removed this nomination and said he provded evidence. But I still cant find any mention of the CC license. Rettetast (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Surtsey6.jpg

Image tagged with GFDL license but apparently taken from a commercially published work of 1972. Do not see how this can be correctly tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rex AllenAtuographedit.jpg

Uploader unlikely to hold the copyright on a promotional photograph. Polly (Parrot) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now tagged fair use. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LarryLinvilleautograph.jpg

Uploader unlikely to hold the copyright on a promotional photograph. Polly (Parrot) 18:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DavidDoyleatuographeditd.jpg

Uploader unlikely to hold the copyright on a promotional photograph. Polly (Parrot) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The 4400 animation.gif

Orphaned animation of opening for The 4400. Copyright probably belongs to the film company anyway so it cannot be GFDL'd. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rebenque Argentino.jpg

No source, license given is clearly nonsense, user has history of uploading unfree images Simon Speed (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:51022033.jpg

I followed source link & found indication of only unfree license Simon Speed (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:India Sex.jpg

I checked source & found Flickr user had uploaded many other images which were wrongly licensed CC-by so this 1 may well be too Simon Speed (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source says that it is by him and he has licensed it under cc by so there shouldnt be a problem. I think this is unlikely because all his images of this temple were taken on the same day. Nikkul (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This image may be OK. But if you look at the other images the user has added, you'll see that many are both clearly copyrighted by other people and licensed CC-by, without permission, by this user. Therefore the CC-by license given by this user isn't worth the the paper it's written on (& it ain't written on any paper). --Simon Speed (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)