Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 23	February 25 >

1 February 24

[edit] February 24

[edit] Image:Commander_Cemal_Gursel.jpg

Tagged pd self. Says in the summary "From the private family album". Whose private album. who took the image? Rettetast (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scot_Turk.jpg

same as above Rettetast (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Karabrock.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds the copyright to this image — PC78 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:T-Kaneshiro.jpg

Obvious publicity photo and unlikey to be a "self made" image — PC78 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Kevintaft.jpg

Description says it was released for "public use". There's no indication the copyright was released and it was put in public domain. No photographer is stated, so we have no way of verifying status. Rob (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very unlikely that it was released into the public domain, but I've contact the Alberta Liberal Party (which is technically distinct from the Liberal Caucus, which doesn't presently exist) for clarification. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To my surprise, I've been advised that the image is indeed in the public domain. I've forwarded this to permissions-en. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket logged. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jpagan09prue.JPG

Copyrighted Yamara ✉ 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Top of Empire State Building, at night.jpg

Tagged {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Summary says, "Uploaded by photographer, Mike Moore, attribution and notification of use required on all re-distribution". Does the "notification of use required" contradict the GFDL and/or make this image non-free? —Bkell (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep per WP:AGF. -Nv8200p talk 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GlennDonaire.jpg

It is doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder or the photographer. The image does not have metadata. bluemask ^(talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

When a user uploads an image and tags it his/her own work, we must assume first that that is so. We must never jump to conclusion in disproving it especially if there's isn't sufficient evidence. Just as no one could prove that the image is free, no one could disprove either. Because of this, I say the pic should stay until we or someone else comes up with better information. I also think that to add a PUI tag and list the picture here is without merrit. 210.4.100.146 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's anybody around who says this image is unfree, then I dare them to go look for an exact match of the pic on the web for evidence. If they can't, no way this is non-free.

Because this image appears to be the only one of it's kind and that the exact match can't be found anywhere on the net, this image is most definitely original and not copyvio. 210.4.122.54 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NonitoDonaire.jpg

It is doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder or the photographer. The image does not have metadata. bluemask ^(talk) 13:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What metadata you're talking about? Isn't that thing mentioned in the image's description page? What other proof do you have that the pic could be non-free? If it is copied from some where, then where exactly? If you can't, then there's no way this is non-free. 122.3.107.197 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly took this picture of Mr Donaire? Who is the photographer or who paid the photographer to take the picture. They are the copyright holder of this image. They are the only people who can release this image under GFDL. --bluemask ^(talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well as of now, that's an uncertainty. To make matters worse, the uploader has become inactive. But I assume that the one who uploaded it is the copyright holder. There are a number of photos of Nonito Donaire wearing similar outfit on the web. However, they're all taken from a different angle or Donaire in a different pose. 122.3.107.197 (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's anybody around who says this image is unfree, then I dare them to go look for an exact match of the pic on the web for evidence. If they can't, no way this is non-free. 210.4.122.54 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a proof otherwise? --bluemask ^(talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because an exact match of the image doesn't seem to be found in any website, most definitely the uploader is the copyright holder. There's no other pic similar to the one that user offered which makes it an original.210.4.122.54 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If only the uploader is here to discuss. I don't want to assume that he/she wants to share his/her photograph but did not upload the best resolution when it is available while uploading a reduced low quality version and exif metadata removed. --bluemask ^(talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When photographers decide to publish their works on the web, sometimes they reduce them in a way where it would feature mainly the person and not the unneccesary background. If they don't do this, then the person who's the subject of the article would get dwarfed.

Another possibility why the pic is small maybe because it might have been taken by a mobile phone and not a real camera. Pictures taken by mobile phones tend to be smaller and less clearer than those of cameras.

An image should not be considered as possibly unfree just because it's lacking that so-called metadata. As matter of fact, a lot free images here in Wikipedia don't have that. It's probably not that neccessary.

Again, because this pic appears to be the only one of it's kind and that the exact match of it can't be found in any media, this pic is absolutely not copyvio. 210.4.100.146 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:DPG - Cali iz active screenshot.jpg

[edit] Image:ArabicAZERTY.jpg

Tagged {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|credit is given to Chris Cheng, the creator of the image, and the link back to the picture on Flickr is retained.}} The quoted FlickrMail exchange, however, seems to explicitly grant permission only to Wikipedia, and does not seem to grant permission to create derivative works. (See WP:COPYREQ.) —Bkell (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Center Methodist Church steeple.jpg

Confused licensing situation: it's tagged {{Attribution}}, but the GFDL is also mentioned. The Flickr source page [2] says it's licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic; the "Noncommercial" and "No Derivative Works" parts of that are not acceptable here. The justification for the permission described in the image description page is "From:mdumlao98 Subject:provincetown pic yes, you may use as long as you link it to my photo. thanks!". This does not seem to explicitly grant permission to release the image under the GFDL; nor does it seem to grant permission for anyone to use the photo, possibly for commercial purposes, nor for derivative works to be made. (See WP:COPYREQ.) —Bkell (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rue Herengracht, Amsterdam.jpg

[edit] Image:Herengracht.jpg

[edit] Image:Strandvägen.jpg

[edit] Image:TORONTO 2007 - THE BRIDLE PATH.jpg

[edit] Image:Louisburg Square.jpg

[edit] Image:Ipanema Beach .jpg

[edit] Image:Shopping Street!.jpg

[edit] Image:Via Montenapoleone.jpg

[edit] Image:Tverskaya street.jpg

[edit] Image:Cavill Avenue.jpg

[edit] Image:Breakbread 03lg.jpg

[edit] Image:Pentecost.jpg

[edit] Image:ArabicQWERTY.jpg

Tagged {{Attribution}}. The quoted FlickrMail exchange, however, seems to explicitly grant permission only to Wikipedia, and does not seem to grant permission to create derivative works. (See WP:COPYREQ.) —Bkell (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Garyside.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright. — PC78 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Cedric the Entertainer.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright — PC78 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Beacon Cover 1.gif

No evidence that the uploader holds the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RcRobertChua.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright. — PC78 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Jacki R Chan--Eyes.jpg

No evidence that the license is valid — PC78 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Milt Thompson.jpg

The person who owns the baseball card does not own the copyright. Mattingly23 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kunal Khemu.jpg

no copyright info given, looks professional Mattingly23 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amirkhan.JPG

Uploaded by User:Wateva695 with the following unconvincing licencing information: "Picture from his myspace page with rights obtained, free usage, no copyright on this picture, you can use it however many times you like" -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grumpy_doughboy.gif

Author-made image contains copyrighted image within. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Moria Casan.jpg

No evidence that the license is valid; source is given as "my camera" which may well be true, but it looks very much like a photo of another image rather than a photo of the actual person — PC78 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Gualberto Portrait.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright — PC78 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gual 2007.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright — PC78 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Commons showing througfh -Nv8200p talk 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Vince Chong

Image:Vince at lot 10---1.jpg
Image:Vince 7 month.jpg
Image:Image2a.jpg
Image:Fantasia3.jpg
Image:Aim11.jpg
Image:PDVD 094.jpg
Image:125837328WNawhr ph.jpg
Image:8218795l.jpg
Image:PC050380.JPG
Image:P1030607.jpg
Image:Vincea.jpg
Image:11be.jpg
Image:Particitcat.jpg
Image:VH3a.jpg

No evidence that the uploader holds copyright to this image farm — PC78 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:GetFirefox Orange.png

While the Firefox logo has loose restrictions placed on it by Mozilla, the image Firefox-logo.svg states: "Despite this, the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works, and therefore it may only be displayed in the main namespace in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content." Since this image is only being used on non-namespace pages, there is no reason to write a fair use rationale, so the image should be deleted. FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:American Stratocaster (Fender).jpg

Listed as licensed under CC, but clearly not the case (just a copyvio from the Fender website). Oli Filth^(talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Archived image and media for deletion discussions