Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 14 February 16 >

Contents

[edit] February 15

[edit] Image:Lobo-official-logo.jpg

Claims to be self-made, but its FUR says it's from the ABS-CBN website Starczamora (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the licensing to fair-use poster--Lenticel (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Kept as fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CarriereHollierBrick.jpg

Copyright probably held by the company issuing the certificate -SCEhardT 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CarriereLeBlancBrick.jpg

Copyright probably held by the company issuing the certificate -SCEhardT 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dr_Kermit_E_Krantz.jpg

Claimed {{Attribution}} in the second upload, but better evidence may be needed to be sure. Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo, taken on film, no longer has a negative. It is owned by the family of Dr. Krantz, of which I am a member. The family has agreed to make the photo free for use and would prefer attribution. wes_huffstutter 28 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes huffstutter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Kept as {{Attribution}} - avoid copyright paranoia. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SongOfAmerica03.jpg and others

page says "ask for permission from simplon before using this picture on other sites"

also Image:NordicEmpress05.jpg, Image:SovereignoftheSeas.jpg, Image:EnchantmentOfTheSeas.jpg, Image:ExplorerOfTheSeas.jpg, Image:Jewel of the seas 2.jpg

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tramzone6.png

Marked "Public domain image, since it's a governement organism", but it is the work of Canadian local government, which would be under crown copyright Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is similar to Image:Cam-may-2005.jpg. Image:Cam-may-2005.jpg has been uploaded on Commons and the STM allows the AMT card to be used on its entire territory as it shares the revenues. Both of these organism are fully public. --Party!Talk to me! 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And both images on the Commons are slated for deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Battle_Isle_1_screenshot.png

Sourced from Abandonware site apparently Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So? It's no different if I were to take a screenshot myself. Fair use to illustrate the software, one way or another (only one screenshot from this software is used).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Piotrus - nothing wrong with claiming fair use here. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Police_quest_3_the_kindred.png

Sourced from Abandonware site Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As above. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Velba.jpg

Appears to be an WP:SPA using {{PD-self}} to illigitimately circumvent WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AR101907f49.jpg

Watermark indicating copyright holder is not uploader and no evidence of permission given to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the webmaster for Ashley Renee. I have uploaded her picture for her to her wiki page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmartin (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AylaSP1.JPG

No evidence permission was granted to release image the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NIU huskies ribbon.jpg

The NIU logo is probably not GFDL →AzaToth 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Deleted - it's a flagrant copyright violation. If anyone wants something for their user page, you can use Image:NIU ribbon.svg, but it obviously doesn't belong in an article. --B (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just had to delete it again. There are elements in this image that cannot be put under a free license, so there is no need to have an IFD or some arbitrary process. Just keep this image deleted and use the image B mentioned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AZ1CLAJOT.jpg

No evidence provided that permission was granted to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The uploader is the photographer. He was uploading low-res images to Wikipedia as self-promotion. Miami33139 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Kept on the assumption the above is true. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Srmn.JPG

This image appears to be an aerial shot of a large fire. So unless the user uploading it (Kwjdh1324) took it from a private helicopter, the user probably didn't take this picture. Judging by the image artifacts, it is probably a screen capture from a television broadcast. In any case, I don't believe the user that uploaded this picture is the copyright holder of this image. I am also disputing these images that have also been uploaded by the same user: Image:Collapsing2.JPG, Image:Collapsing3.JPG and Image:Collapsing.JPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtalledo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not aerial shots; they are from the ground. The eaves of the gate can be seen. The visible streams of water are also coming from hoses at ground level.217.43.168.194 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
These are obviously not aerial shots, as explained above, but they do look like TV captures. Cross-coloration (look at the streams of water, mostly), chroma noise, some color bleeding, and overmodulation (look to the right of edges where bright areas transition instantaneously to dark areas) are all visible in the image, indicating that this was either shot to video on magnetic tape or lifted from a television broadcast. tgies (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that there is no Metadata. 212.120.239.60 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Groundless objection. There's no evidence whatsoever that we should question the uploader's claim to copyright. Leave them. — Aldaron • T/C 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No evidence? A lack of Metadata, Cross-coloration etc. is evidence. Files with dubious claims of authorship may be deleted. So delete all. 212.120.239.60 (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(KEEP) They are neither aerial shots nor took from a helicopter. As for Image:Collapsing3.JPG, we can recognize Fire engines and its ladders[1].In another image, we can see the posts and beams, and also the roof and the roof tiles[2]. In addition, this is the point, we should remember how tall the gate was. Other references are here [3]. Obviously they are not taken from a helicopter. So I'd say, "Keep all". --Brionies (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they are not aerial photos has really no bearing on the discussion here. It is whether or not the uploader has the right to upload the images which is at question. tgies (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all I can say that they're all captured images due to the low quality, noises, angles. Non-free images and replaceable fair images all gotta go. Commons:Category:2008 Sungnyemun fire has very good images of the fire incident already.--Appletrees (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Appletrees. Otebig (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Abi_finley.jpg

Looks like a headshot and uploader is probably not the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Siobhan.jpg

Looks like a headshot and uploader is probably not the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Una Power.jpg

Not public domain, looks like a copyrighted screenshot. — Chwech 19:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Albalad.jpg

No supporting evidence that uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Albalad2004.jpg

No supporting evidence that uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lauraalbert2.jpg

No supporting evidence that uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I took this image. It is fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotokel (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Commons showing through. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mansun.jpg

Appears to be a promotional photo, no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. DWaterson (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Masdar City.jpg

While the site that the image was obtained from may have a CC license, the image itself is, I believe, created by the firm Foster + Partners. Another view of this render can be found at this PDF, the main web site of which indicates "All Rights Reserved". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The blog credits where they got the photos from, so the photos do not belong to the blog. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Image is probably rights reserved, but if this place doesn't yet physically exist then this image is fair use. Kelvinc (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, original uploader changed license from CC/GFDL to Fair-use. I was under the impression this was not allowed, even for improperly claimed free-use images. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Kept as fair use. Lara❤Love 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)