Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 17 February 19 >

Contents

[edit] February 18

[edit] Image:Dawson20.jpg

No FURL, no summary info, hardly doubtful that uploader is the owner. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ArleneHowellMissUSA.jpg

No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. No evidence that source page listed is the actual copyright holder of any of the images on the page. Nv8200p talk 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

License & fair use rationale updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.71.76 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Template added as well as fair use rationale stating that the photo depicts how Arlene looked in 1958 when crowned Miss USA, which is the main focus of the article. Her being crowned Miss USA in 1958 is her main claim to fame (notability). Sf46 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The photo is being used in the infobox, just to show what she looks like. According to her article, she is at least as notable for her work as an actress as for being Miss USA. As she is still alive, the image is replaceable with a free equivalent. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As previously stated, the photo is intended to show what she used to look like in 1958 as Miss USA, not how she looks now. If a current photo of the now 72 year old lady could be found, it would lend zero credence to the article, and would not accurately depict how she looked back in 1958 as Miss USA. Sf46 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But that's not how the photo is being used in the article. It's being used to show what she looks like in general. There's no critical commentary in the article about her appearance in 1958 that this photo is being used to support. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sf46. An image of her when she was crowned Miss USA is valuable to the article since it was 50+ years ago. Any free image we could create now since she is alive would not have the same effect. MECU≈talk 15:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But that's not how the photo is being used in the article. It's being used to show what she looks like in general. There's no critical commentary in the article about her appearance in 1958 that this photo is being used to support. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The caption under the photo states "Arlene Howell as she appeared upon being crowned Miss USA - 1958". What more do you want? Sf46 (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sourced, critical commentary discussing her 1958 appearance is required before the use of a non-free image is justified. The image also needs information on the real copyright holder. Right now it just says "(c)2003, Jimmy's Pagaent Page", but of course a photo taken in 1958 is hardly likely to be (c) 2003, and the copyright probably belongs to the photographer, not the copyright-violating webpage the image was lifted from. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 11:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is any Wikipedia policy requiring critical commentary in an article before non-free images can be used in that article. That may be one of the ever increasing hoops you would want some one to jump through due to your totalitarian view against non-free images, but I'd have to see the policy that supports that view to believe it. As far as the credits go, they are as stated on the source website. It might not be a good idea to make unfounded accusations of copyright violations unless one can back them up. We keep going round and round here, to no avail. Unless something new is brought to the table, I'd consider this discussion closed. Sf46 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. This image falls under "Other promotional material", which says clearly "For critical commentary". I'm not finding any information on who the photographer is at the source website, and certainly no reason to believe that Jimmy's Pageant Page actually owns the copyright to the photographs it uses. I do agree, however, that this discussion should be considered closed, since the image clearly violates at least WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#10, and possibly WP:NFCC#2 as well (depending on whether the real copyright holder still gets money from the image), so the image is ready to be deleted. —Angr 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per failing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Arno_Pijpers.jpg

No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Arnold1.jpg

No evidence uploader was granted permission to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SF Weekly.jpg

Photo of a copyrighted newspaper front page, so obviously NOT releasable as public-domain image. Calton | Talk 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Asteras_past.jpg

No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PatLee.jpg

Same uploader and rationale as Image:Slime creature.jpg, which was a copyvio — Nandesuka (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jim-lee2.jpg

Same uploader and rationale as Image:Slime creature.jpg, which was a copyvio — Nandesuka (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Image-Beagle Harrier.jpg

Image description says all rights reserved. URL link says "The Material contained herein may not be reproduced without the prior written approval of the author." Uploader had previous history of copyvio uploads: has improved but may still have some trouble. Kelvinc (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Map Canada political+geo.png

It appears to be covered by Crown Copyright. Superm401 - Talk 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SmileySpecial.gif

Appears to be common animated emoticon. Copyright unlikely held by uploader Kelvinc (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mohan.gif

Appears to be common animated emoticon. Copyright unlikely held by uploader Kelvinc (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mohan2.gif

Appears to be common animated emoticon. Copyright unlikely held by uploader Kelvinc (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aurel_kolnai.jpg

No evidence uploader was granted permission to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AustvsUru.jpg

Source listed as Getty Images. No evidence given that permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hong Kong Market Crash.jpg

Utterly no way this is fair use. It is illustrating a downturn in the stock exchange, the image itself is merely decorative and is NOT discussed in the article. Docg 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (For the record, this is not a criticism of the uploader since it was uploaded at a time our fair use policies were a lot weaker).--Docg 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gosfield-march1945.jpg

Original certainly Crown Copyright - Uncertainty as to photo date/source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AvioimpexCrash.jpg

No evidence that copyright holder granted permission to use the image under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:APEM_journal.jpg

Magazine cover - Clearly not PD-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aza_Raskin.jpg

No evidence that the image was placed in the public domain or licensed under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an email from the photographer stating the image has been released into the public domain.

From: Peishan Tan <_______________>

Date: Feb 19, 2008 6:30 AM

Subject: RE: Public Domain

To: ______________


Hey:

I've placed the picture I took of Aza Raskin in the public domain.

Peishan Tan Equity Research

Romanpoet (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please forward the e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org per WP:COPYREQ. Rettetast (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons showing through. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 13:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AzadiyeStadium.png

No evidence permisssion was granted to release the image under the GFDL. See WP:COPYREQ. Nv8200p talk 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AzamAli.jpg

No evidence that copyright holder gave permission to release the image under the GFDL. (See WP:COPYREQ). Nv8200p talk 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aznil_Nawawi.jpg

No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. (See WP:COPYREQ. Nv8200p talk 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dean collins.jpg

No evidence this was released under the GFDL. — —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • SAVE Fair Use? it's from promo pics @ imdb, & we don't have a free-use substitute, far as i know... anyone who's got a free use image, or knows where to find one, speak now?  :) Lx 121 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • well, if anyone has another, free image to replace it with, by all means do so; absent that, replacing it with nothing seems unsatisfactory. the image is clearly intended for distribution, press release, promotional purposes, etc. & in the absence of a suitable free image WP allows fair use in such cases Lx 121 (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nickbolleabookingimage.jpg

No evidence the Pinella County Sheriff's Department releases its mugshots into the public domain. — —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • SAVE i hate to do this twice in a row with the same other wikiuser, but the image was all over the place in the press, mugshots of celebrities (or other people) are commonly realeased, & as the sherif's office is a branch of the government, there must be some relevant policy for such things which allows their use in this manner (US gov't therefore copyright free?). Lx 121 (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Failing that, i'd argue fair use, as the image was all over the place in the press, & is not replaceable with a substitute. Lx 121 (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "All over the place in the press" does not mean the image is public domain. The U.S. Federal Government releases its works automatically into the public domain, but most state, county, and municipal governments don't, so while FBI mugshots are public domain, mugshots from other levels of government are not necessarily. Since Nick Hogan is a living person and has been released from jail, there is no reason to use a non-free image to identify him. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • same issue as before; there isn't a fair use image anywhere to replace it with, & until one turns up, this seems better than nothing. also being arrested is a significant part of what he is currently notable for. finally, US law enforcement clearly seems to have some kind of general policy regarding the publication of mugshots (possibly freedom of information/public interest?), which either puts the images in the public domain, or allows their free use; such pictures always turn up in the press, whenever it's a person of interest, & there is never an issue of leaks, or usage rights. this is not the case in some other countries, but for the USA it seems to be the norm. perhaps wikipedia should develop a specific policy for this? unless it already falls under us gov pub dom... Lx 121 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • "there isn't a fair use image anywhere to replace it with, & until one turns up, this seems better than nothing". Sorry, that's not the point. A nonfree image is replaceable if a free image could be created, even if one has not yet been found. And again, making an image widely available is not the same thing as putting it in the public domain. And Pinella County is not the U.S. Federal Government. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • WP allows the use of non-free images where a free one is not available; until someone provides a free image, a fair use one is permissable; technically there's very little fair use that you could not replace with a free image "in theory"; in practice it just doesn't work that way. also the mug shot is relevant in this case, as a large part of the subject's notability is based on his being hulk hogan's son, & getting into legal trouble.
Does the public domain rule apply only to the US federal gov't? i suspect there must be some legal provision about mug shots being made publicly available (public interest? free speech?) in the USA, or there would be endless legal fights over releasing them, not only with regards to the photographer/law enforcement, but also with regard to the subjects of said photographs. the fact that lawyers, even for high profile celebrities, make no significant protests about the release of mus shots (or at least no successful ones), suggests very strongly that there is some element of american law involved, allowing for their release. Lx 121 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Um, no, it doesn't. WP allows the use of nonfree images where free images could never be created. It quite explicitly does not allow the use of a nonfree image to show what a non-incarcerated living person looks like "until someone provides a free image". —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BANDPHOTO.jpg

No evidence uploader is the copyright holder for this image as claimed. Nv8200p talk 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No evidence the uploader is not the copyright holder. Claims to be in the band; it's plaisible. good faith? Lx 121 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:D Adair setup.jpg

This user doesn't own this image, but claims to. It is merely a copy of this image, and also manipulated to remove the Sabian logos (look carefully and you can see some gold blotches where the logos used to be). The uploader also has a record of uploading similar images which also have been deleted (see user's talk page). --AAA! (AAAA) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Akpo Sodje.jpg

Appears to have been taken from the goal line, therefore must have been taken by an affiliated press photographer. The photo is also low resolution, leading me to believe that it has been taken from the internet. No metadata is provided. — Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is also a breach of copyright to take photographs during Football League matches without a valid press license. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BARRAS_Sid_1985.jpg

Notationa at source site does not say that it is copyright free or released under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MichelleYe.jpg

No source information. Looks promotional. Kelvinc (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)