Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 27	April 29 >

1 April 28

[edit] April 28

[edit] Image:Sanangelostadium.jpg

Seems to be copied from [1] with new text added to block out the website's original watermark/label. In addition, the uploader has a history of uploading images with copyright problems. Dynamite Eleven (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Asustadium.jpg

Seems to be copied from [2] with new text added to block out the website's original watermark/label. In addition, the uploader has a history of uploading images with copyright problems. Dynamite Eleven (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - definitely a copy-vio. Well found - I'd looked for this image on-line and others by the same uploader as Id suspected it was a copy-vio, having deleted other by this user already. I'll raise the matter at the administrator's noticeboard. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Becas.jpg

No evidence the Creative Commons license is correct. Polly (Parrot) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cindypuccisema.jpg

Permission claimed, but OTRS permission missing. Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brsatellite.JPG

I don't know the copyright status of Microsoft Maps image grabs (I'm guessing it's not free), but I'm certain it is not {{USGov}}. Mosmof (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:William t williams north carolina governors award.jpg

While it would be an interesting art piece, it actually isn't one and is thus a copyrighted image of two living people. From the article, it's clearly not significantly necessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Application-8718-CSI.pdf

Tax records, So commercial confidential Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The document is part of the Church of Scientology International's application for tax-exempt status (501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporation). After the tax-exempt status has been granted in 1993, all the supporting documents by the CSI have been released by the IRS to the general public. This document and other documents were obtained at the IRS, more specifically at the IRS-office in Washington, DC in early 1999. They are consequently documents obtained from the U.S. government and are in fact in the public domain as it is the case for other organizations that tax-exempted under the section 501 (c) (3). Geo1967 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the FOIA request? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the the discussion here. It is a similar document and it is the same problem. I have given you more info about the issue. Greetings. Geo1967 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kept. PD. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ncoxeta.jpg

No evidence to support GFDL claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M_042b4b7b7129e72101cc8133daeca9ad.jpg

Album/EP Cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alicia_Keys1.jpg

Promo image - No evidence to support PD-Self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Blatant copyright violation [3]

6th Annual Tribeca Film Festival - "We Are Together" Premiere - Afterparty Alicia Keys at the Tribeca Grand Hotel in New York City, New York (Photo by Jemal Countess/WireImage)

[edit] Image:Application-8718-SMI.pdf

Tax records - Commerical Confidential Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you read and respond to my entry on the other similar document. Thank you.Geo1967 (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the FOIA request? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no FOIA request and this has not really something to do with the FOI Act, as all these documents are public record, after the IRS has granted the Church of Scientology tax-exempt status.

Again, I have designated these documents with the following source-information:

Office for 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporations, IRS Office Washington, D.C., Public Record of Church of Scientology International's Application for Tax-Exempt Status

i. e. they were obtained directly from the IRS office in Washington. The IRS has an office for the records of organizations tax-exempt under the 501 (c) (3) code. The documents which these organizations had submitted to the IRS as part of the application process become public record after the IRS grants them tax-exempt status.

What you have to do to get these documents? You have to physically go the reading room of the IRS in Washington and request the documents for reading and copying. And this is exactly how I obtained them - through someone who went to Washington and copied them.

It is the same way that you obtain documents from a federal court. You go to the clerk and request court files for copying.

Should the above info in the summary section not sufficient enough, I propose to include the appropriate paragraph of the IRS ruling that makes these documents public record. Would that be ok for you?

I don't want to get every time in a hassle, when I am uploading these documents, nor would I like to get them deleted, as I have put a lot of work into some of the Scientology-related articles recently. I have many more documents to come and I would like to get this resolved, so I don't have to worry anymore. Thanks for your help.Geo1967 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to include the full leagal ruling in the summary. BTW For court paperwork, the English Wikisource may be a more appropriate location for uploading them :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Great. I will include the legal paragraph into the summary of this document within the next two days and I will get back to you. If you'll give me then the green light, I will include it also in the summaries of the other IRS records. Cheers. Geo1967 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it anyway :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found the appropriate paragraph on the IRS website:

What tax documents must an exempt organization make available for public inspection and copying?

An exempt organization must make available for public inspection its exemption application. An exemption application includes the Form 1023 (for organizations recognized as exempt under § 501(c)(3)), Form 1024 (for organizations recognized as exempt under most other paragraphs of § 501(c)), or the letter submitted under the paragraphs for which no form is prescribed, together with supporting documents and any letter or document issued by the IRS concerning the application. A political organization exempt from taxation under § 527(a) must make available for public inspection and copying its notice of status, Form 8871.

All the documents that I have uploaded fall under the Form 1023 category, except the recognition letters by the IRS, which are also in the public domain, according to the above paragraph.

If I copy the above ruling into the summary of the uploaded documents (and any future documents from the Scientology tax-exempt application), can I then consider this issue as solved? Geo1967 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly :), I would strongly suggest you template the 'boiler-plate', that way if

other IRS 501's filings get uploaded, they can be suitably tagged as well :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added the IRS ruling to the permission section of the document and the two other disputed documents. Can I now remove the "nasty" "Possibly unfree Image" sign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo1967 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kept. PD. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AbbeyPubShow.JPG

No evidence to support PD-Self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Briere-1.jpg

There is a very similar image at http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2007/10/04/nhl_salary_100707/ . While they are not identical, they seem to be taken from the same vantage point within seconds of one another. Unless this user takes photos for Getty, this is lifted from somewhere. The user apparently has a history of dubious uploads; I would err on the side of caution and delete. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, uploader changed the summary today to indicate the image was non-free. If the similarity is there, I'm going to delete under the improper-indication-of-license criterion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:01622200.JPG

Moved from March 21 for more time for more discussion -Nv8200p talk 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Since the image was taken in 1937 it seems very unlikely it was taken by the wikipedian who uploaded it — Million_Moments (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Which copyright law applies? The picture was taken in Munkatch, which was then in Czechoslovakia (which no longer exists), and is now in the Ukraine. Do the laws of Czechoslovakia's successor states apply (and what if they differ?), or is the applicable law that of the country now ruling Munkatch? Does an image's copyright status change if the place where it was taken moves from one country to another?

Then again, I have no idea where the newspaper in which the picture first appeared was published. Perhaps the place where it was published is now in the Czech Republic. Unless the original uploader is still around and can tell us which newspaper he scanned it from, we may never know that.

In any case, if it is Ukraine law that matters, then PD-Ukraine should apply, since the creator is not known. If Czech or Slovak law, then it's Anonymous-EU. Either way it's PD.

And don't discount the possibility that the uploader may in fact be the copyright holder, just as he claims. He could be the original photographer, now in his 90s, or he could be the photographer's heir. -- Zsero (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Munkacs benes.jpg

Moved from March 21 for more time for more discussion -Nv8200p talk 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Image taken to long ago for uploaded to be copyright holder — Million_Moments (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

As above, except that the picture may not even have been taken in Munkatch. Did Benes visit Munkach, or did the Minchas Elozor go to Prague to see him? -- Zsero (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:041002223500 the bulb of science world at night.jpg

No evidence of the Creative Commons license on the source page listed. Polly (Parrot) 14:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have personal permission by the photographer of this image as discussed on our facebook group. Mkdw ^talk 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you link that to the page and file a permission with the OTRS queue please ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(To file a permission, it should be emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Alternatively details of the license can be placed on the source page.) Stifle (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:20amps085.jpg

No evidence of the Creative Commons license on the source page listed. Polly (Parrot) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CWC schmidt hammer lassen2.jpg

Deleted earlier today for invalid license, and strong possibility that this is a fake license Stifle (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Machinedrum.jpg

GFDL claimed and permission claimed to have been lodged with OTRS, but no ticket number or other verification Stifle (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We got an OTRS ticket number (2008041110026206), which says that the image is available under "permission" to use on Wikipedia, so it has been speedied. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fraga, as president of AP.jpg

No evidence that the Creative Commons license is correct. The source page has no such license. Polly (Parrot) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frankie fredericks.jpg

Most likely an invalid CC license. Flickr uploaders past history here would indicate that all the images uploaded that day were not theirs to license, one even has the AFP logo still on it. That combined with the small image size and lack of camera data indicates a copyright violation. Polly (Parrot) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Garmin276c.jpg

No evidence from the source page that the image is under a Creative Commons license. Polly (Parrot) 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Arteta_throw_in_portsmouth_home_may_07.jpg

Sports Image - No evidence to suppot PD-Self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The image has motion blur, the angle of the picture is such that it could have been taken from the crowd and with metadata - nothing here suggests that it isn't self taken.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept. No meaningful conflicts. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brandywell.jpg

While it's claimed that this image has been released under the GFDL there is no evidence of this. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hiscobeccus capax.jpg

[edit] Image:Avocetinterior.jpg

unbuilt aircraft Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC) hey jerk jewishes!!! get lost! freak! (Fghkmnby000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fghkmnby000 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept, no meaningful conflicts here. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)