Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 20 January 22 >

Contents

[edit] January 21

[edit] Image:Luka Magnotta.jpg

Claims to be public domain, but looks suspiciously like it was scanned from a magazine or similar source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mom.jpg

Claims to be user created, but looks like a movie screenshot or similar. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Main1874.jpg

Claimed {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Watermark in image says "Photos courtesy of Eastern Kentucky University", and the source given is "(Phi Kappa Phi website)". There is no other source information and no clear information about who holds the copyright on this image, nor is there any evidence given that this image has been released under the GFDL by the copyright holder. In any case, this is an easily replaceable image, so it should probably be replaced by an indisputably free image anyway. —Bkell (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EKUunivbuilding.jpg

Claimed {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Source is given as "(Eastern Kentucky University Math Department)". No evidence is given that the image has been released under the GFDL by the copyright holder. See also previous listing. —Bkell (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EKUarial.jpg

Claimed {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Source is given as "(EKU Track, http://www.track.eku.edu/about.htm)"; this page seems to have no copyright information, and Google doesn't know of any mentions of the GFDL on that site [1]. No evidence is given that the image has been released under the GFDL by the copyright holder. See also previous two listings. —Bkell (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Simplemanipulate.jpg

Claimed {{GFDL-self}}, but this is a screenshot of copyrighted software. Are there enough copyrighted interface elements here to make the screenshot non-free? —Bkell (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no copyright violation in this screenshot. The graphical representation is bog standard, the copyright is in the process that rendered it. If users were not permitted to publish images generated by the application in their work it would render the application useless. Ex nihil (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the above comment by Ex nihil seems to be correct, does the notation of pending deletion need to remain on the image? --T3thys::ben (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ex nihil's comment makes sense; I think I could believe that this image is free. On the other hand, Rohan2kool has replaced this image with Image:Simple-manip-mathematica-png.png, which is a cleaner image in the PNG format. It also contains only the Mathematica commands and output, without the window around it, which reduces the number of possibly copyrighted interface elements in the image. Really Image:Simple-manip-mathematica-png.png is a superior image in several ways, and I would suggest that we make an attempt to keep it. Unfortunately, Rohan2kool has tagged it as a non-free software screenshot, rather than a freely licensed image. I think either both of these images are non-free software screenshots, or else they are both eligible to be freely licensed (currently I'm leaning toward the latter). What's the consensus? —Bkell (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sagecontourplot.png

This screenshot claims {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. SAGE is released under the GPL, which requires derivative works to be released under the GPL too. Is this screenshot considered a derivative work, or is it like "software created with GPL tools"? Does it contain copyrighted interface elements of SAGE which are licensed under the GPL, not this Creative Commons license? —Bkell (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The following two comments are copied from User talk:Timothy Clemans#Possibly unfree Image:Sagecontourplot.png:
Where do you get the idea that the image is not released under Creative Commons by-sa as the image's Flickr page says? That screenshot was made for http://code.google.com/p/google-highly-open-participation-psf/issues/detail?id=300 where the author clearly states that it is released under CC-by-sa. Timothy Clemans (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I finally found where you actually wrote what you were thinking. See http://code.google.com/p/google-highly-open-participation-psf/issues/detail?id=300 Timothy Clemans (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the person who took these screenshots believed in good faith that he could release them under this Creative Commons license. My question is whether he had such a right. If I decide to take the source code of SAGE, modify it somehow, and release my modified code, I am bound by the terms of the GPL to release my modifications under the GPL. I cannot decide to release my modified code under a Creative Commons license. What I am wondering here is whether this same restriction applies to screenshots of GPL software. —Bkell (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
From Sage mailing-list by William Stein:
"You can assure the people in that wikipedia conversation that it is definitely *not* our intention to disallow CC licensing screenshots of sage that show the documentation, and that I'm sure we'll be happy to work with them to clarify the license so that they'll be comfortable with those screenshots being on Wikipedia." Timothy Clemans (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if the copyright holders of SAGE are willing to allow screenshots and things to be released under a Creative Commons license, then there's no difficulty. They can certainly give that permission. What I thought had happened was that some third party (other than the copyright holders) had made a screenshot and unilaterally decided to release it under a Creative Commons license; I was concerned about this because it seemed to me that the copyright holders had licensed the software to this third party only under the terms of the GPL, and I wasn't sure if that gave this person the right to license his screenshots however he wanted. —Bkell (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
William Stein and some of the other developers seem to think that taking a screenshot of a Sage notebook worksheet and releasing it under a CC license is covered by fair use. See all of the relevant Sage mailing-list thread. Timothy Clemans (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the status of this image? Several of the Sage developers seem to think that screenshots taken of the Sage Notebook are covered under fair use and can be released under the Creative Commons license. It is annoying seeing warning messages about this image. Timothy Clemans (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

These arguments are somewhat moot for this particular image- it must be nonfree in its current form because it contains UI elements of the nonfree Safari browser. If these were cropped out, then we'd have something to discuss. Staecker (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted for now. When you get the licensing figured out and crop the UI elements, re-upload the image. -Nv8200p talk 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BPrinz2.jpg

Appears to be a news photo, no evidence that it is self-made. The description suggests the uploader edited it, but didn't actually create it. Mosmof (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MSilva1.jpg

Nothing to suggest this image is self made. If it was, should upload high resolution version on Commons Mosmof (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sweden Ljungbergs 4.jpg

Likely a news image, no evidence it is free Mosmof (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:APaulson2.jpg

Uploader claims this image was taken before the Women's World Cup, but the sponsor logos on the uniform suggests this is a promo shot, as FIFA does not allow sponsor logos on match uniforms. Mosmof (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • In addition to the 4 photos listed above, the user has uploaded multiple images with dubious or unclear copyright. Unfortunately, they are all licensed as self-made, so there's no way of knowing which ones, if any, are legitimately copyright free. --Mosmof (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pepperoni.jpg

Claimed {{PD-USGov}}. The source is given as http://www.michigan.gov/mdc/. This page does not exist any more, the Internet Archive has no cache of it, and I can't figure out what it used to be or where it is currently located (the Michigan Department of Commerce maybe? but I can't find a home page for the Michigan Department of Commerce). Anyway, it appears from the URL that this image was created by some agency within the government of the state of Michigan, which is not the United States federal government. If so, then {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Works of individual state governments are not automatically in the public domain. This picture is also easily replaceable; anyone can go take a picture of pepperoni. —Bkell (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My gosh it is pepperoni for crying-out-loud! Is it not time for people to get a life and not worry about a snap shot of sticks of sausages!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.2.133 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GEMoore.jpg

Uploaded 8 June 2004, before many of the current image guidelines came into effect. Apparently this image was once located at [2], but no longer. Google doesn't seem to know about this image at that site [3]. According to George Edward Moore, this man died in 1958, so it is quite possible that this image is still under copyright. Unless we can determine more information about the copyright status of this image, I am afraid that it fails the non-free content criteria. —Bkell (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rahul_B_S_F_copy.JPG

Uploader blanked self-licensing unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)