Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 18	April 20 >

[edit] April 19

[edit] Image:LITTLE NATALI.jpg

No evidence that source has released photographs or that uploader was copyright holder. Shell ^babelfish 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ambermelody.jpg

Image description says "Photograph copyright to Manzella Personal Management, we grant permission for open web use including Wikipedia", but there is no indication that the uploader is affiliated with the management company. Mosmof (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LPJackson.jpg

Source website states that images may not be public domain and may be subject to copyright restrictions. [1] Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kneel_mark_III.jpg

source website given has copyright notice on main page, but likely from NASA originally and not source website given MECU≈talk 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:La county glag.gif

No indication that the design is in the public domain; also not being used in any articles. Shell ^babelfish 01:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Peakdale.JPG

satellite image the user took? What sateliite software did this really come from? MECU≈talk 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Abram_Ioffe.jpg

Dead source, no explanation for claimed PD status. Kelly ^hi! 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abram Ioffe was born in 1880; at the cut out date (1954) he was 74. The guy on the photo is clearily younger than that Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- But with no source, we don't know anything about the image. Was it drawn when he was alive, or after he died? We need details for a PD claim. Kelly ^hi! 03:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image is on Commons - cannot be dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Achi_Tryptichon.jpg

Image appears to have been deleted at German Wikipedia. No question that the object depicted is PD, but the photo of the object may not be, and no details are given. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adam_Ludwik_Czartoryski.jpg

Cannot verify PD status. To be PD in Poland, must have been published without a copyright notice prior to 1994. The given source is just a base URL with no details. Kelly ^hi! 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Posthuman Future.jpg

Image is the copywrited work of a artist. Claim as a cultural icon is dubious. Lemmey (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The fair use rationale has been changed. I opposed the deletion of this image. Will try to provide a better rationale if still necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure that rationale works -- as far as I can tell this isn't a famous work and isn't being used in any article which discusses it critically. In fact, it doesn't even appear to be mentioned in any of the three articles where it is currently the top image. I don't see any reason that this image would pass the WP:NFCC, specifically criteria 1 and 8. Shell ^babelfish 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Perhaps replacing with the image found at http://www.newspaperillustrations.com/images/graphics/gibbs_08.jpg might be better for all three articles but especially for the The Chronicle of Higher Education article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Holy Tech.jpg

Work is copywrted image. Uploading users claims that wired magazine article and wikipedia article where image is used talk about the same subject so that makes use OK. As image is abstract an non-specific to article subject, claim is unfounded. Lemmey (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines concerning the uploading of images. However, I'm not opposed to the deletion of this image. --Loremaster (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the guidelines for non-free images; they can only be used in the case that an image is completely irreplaceable by anything free and the article would be significantly less understandable without the image. They should never be used to decorate an article. Its also very important that the article discuss the actual image (not just the same topic) and provide critical commentary of that image. Shell ^babelfish 05:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  - It seems tagging this image as replaceable tag seems more appropriate than listing here, since the uploader is not claiming a free license (it's clearly unfree, so there's no point discussing it here). I'll place an {{rfu}} tag and remove the PUI tag. --Mosmof (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images from Nazarian's Gun's Recognition Guide

See also [2] Reasoning: We have a number of images sourced from Nazarian's Gun's Recognition Guide in commons. The site itself states that it is in the public domain however its source page states that the images are from photographers such as Ian Hogg who are frequently creditted in Jane's. It seems extremely unlikely that such photographers would release their images into the public domain. As such we can only regard images from the Nazarian page as copyvios. Megapixie (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:497 kiparis.jpg‎
Image:364 pf89 1.jpg‎
Image:362 type91 grenade35 2.jpg‎

I'm contacting Ian Hogg to see if he's granted permission for his images to be released.--Werdnanoslen^Talk 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless we are talking about a different Ian Hogg then that might prove difficult. Megapixie (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've tracked him down, and he's a main photographer for Jane's, which is where Nazarian's Guns images were from. I contacted support, and they said the following: "Unfortunately no Jane's images are available to be released to the public domain at present or under a free licence. We are however happy to consider individual requests for specific images but we would not be able to permit their use on Wikipedia." Therefore, Nazarian's Guns are probably allowed to use them, but the site's disclaimer misleadingly implies that ALL content is under public domain (images are not). I'm not sure if I should just request immediate deletion of these images on Wikipedia or what, so I'll let someone more Wiki-savvy to go for that unless you want to tell me :P.--Werdnanoslen^Talk 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:James Hughes.jpg

I can't find any indication at the source site that the image has been released to public domain. Mosmof (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Through an intermediary, I contacted James Hughes to confirm that the image had been released to public domain before uploading it. However, feel free to delete this image since I am not going to make an effort to legimitize its use. --Loremaster (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Time-differences-brz-us.png

If memory serves the image was contributed by User:Mouse on march, the developer of the website in question (Image:Time-differences-brz-us.png is now inaccessible, so I can't check). Mouse on march edited Daylight saving time in January and after some back and forth on the talk page ended up contributing the image. Does this suffice to confirm that the image is indeed free? If not, what else is needed?

The image was recently deleted by User:SkierRMH with the comment "I3: Improper license: see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 19 - without prejudice to restore if PD confirmed", and its use was commented out in Daylight saving time. With the above in mind, can these actions be reverted now? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored only for purposes of proving PD, which needs to be done through OTRS from the owner of the website/image in question. If not given in a reasonable time, the image needs to be deleted as non-free, as there is nothing proving that User:Mouse on march is the owner of the image. SkierRMH (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I pinged User:Mouse on march via talk page and email. That user hasn't contributed for a while so it's not clear we'll get a quick answer, but hope springs eternal. Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributor has verified that he is the copyright holder for the web site in question. Eubulides (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Still awaiting for an OTRS confirmation that Mouse on March's claim is proven. SkierRMH (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a clue what OTRS is, and after following that wikilink I'm still quite unclear on what the contributor is actually supposed to do. Can you please give self-contained instructions on what User:Mouse on march should do to clear up this matter? I am looking for directions like 'Please send email to <foo@bar.com> with Subject line "OTRS ticket #932342" saying "I am the copyright holder for Image FOO."' Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User User:Mouse on march or anyone that can prove that they are speaking on behalf of the (c) holder /website, sends an e-mail (normally from an address that can be linked to the site or image) with the picture attached, or in this case, a link to the picture on their website and the image name here;

They Email the photo to photosubmission

wikimedia.org

In that email, they must explicitly state:

That they own the copyright on the photo
What copyright license they want to release it under. Whatever license is chosen must allow the photo to be freely copied and modified by anyone (including third parties not affiliated with Wikipedia), for any purpose. Wikipedia recommends using the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

The people that answer the OTRS messages then give it a ticket number, and will place the ticket number on the image and remove the IfD template. Hope that helps a bit. SkierRMH (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a template for an e-mail license on the photo. Kelly ^hi! 07:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot; I have emailed User:Mouse on march with that info. Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Identity and release confirmed via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept Stifle (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Reidel2.jpg

No evidence of CC-license Rettetast (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tsvetnoy.jpg

permission claimed, but no OTRS MECU≈talk 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yauza2.jpg

permission claimed but no OTRS MECU≈talk 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Clean_ponds.jpg

permission claimed, but no OTRS MECU≈talk 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sretensky.jpg

permission claimed but no OTRS MECU≈talk 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Christmasboulevard.jpg