Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 25
[edit] Image:Sonchangmin.jpg
Image has been given a "GFDL-with-disclaimers" tag, but is quite clearly a publicity photograph taken from a website, as indicated by the summary. No evidence that permission has actually been given, and I very much doubt that this is the case. — PC78 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Humayun_ahmed.jpg
A Library of Congress image should not be tagged GFDL and since there is no catalog reference I doubt the image actually came from the LOC. Nv8200p talk 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GhostRiderTeaser_pross_2.jpg
Even if the final image was made by the uploader (something I highly doubt), it is still very apparent that most of the content in the image came from copyrighted sources. --Mark (Mschel) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fawkes_Arcadia_2006.jpg
Uploader blanked self-licensing unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Adele_Adkins.jpg
Uploader blanked self-licensing unexplained.\ Jusjih (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. It's a hard call - the uploader's username is the same as the site from which it comes - to say whether this is some 3rd party copyvio or a genuine good faith newbie having trouble understanding the rules. I tend to think it's the latter, but I could be wrong. I've just written to the website to ask for confirmation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I saw the photo and I thought it was uploaded by the owner (judging from the username), so I helped by putting an appropriate tag. I didn't see anything wrong with it. Starczamora (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's quite possible is that some third party, fairly ignorant, looked and found the pic on the web and, in a good faith attempt to give fair credit for it's use, made an account in the owner's name to upload it. The stumbling attempts to licence & caption the pic indicate that could be the truth. The only way one can confirm the truth is to contact the owner. I'm still waiting for a response to my email. What I will say is that IMHO it is not a very attractive photograph. I'm sure, since she is quite in the public eye at present, a good alternative will soon appear. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I saw the photo and I thought it was uploaded by the owner (judging from the username), so I helped by putting an appropriate tag. I didn't see anything wrong with it. Starczamora (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard from Adrian Lourie via email. He confirms he is the owner and uploader and asks what license he should use. I've added the cc-by-sa license to the image and asked Adrian to confirm approval via email. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vertexguy01.jpg
Suspect this image is licensed by ConsPlayers.com. User has uploaded other similar images (Image:Vertexguy05.jpg, Image:Vertexguy03.jpg) that have been deleted or tagged as copyvios--in the latter case, he even went so far as to crop out the watermark of the website in an attempt to squeak by. jonny-mt 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The following images are also subject to the same problem, so I'm bundling them into this nomination:
- Image:Vertexguy02.jpg
- Image:Vertexguy04.jpg
- Image:Vertexguy06.jpg
- Image:Vertexguy07.jpg
[edit] Image:Holland.JPG
Claims PD, but is obviously a still shot from an animated television series. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
overwritten by totally different image; old revision has been deleted. SkierRMH (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Renton 5.JPG
Claims PD, but is obviously a still shot from an animated television series; also, unused in favor of a better image. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eureka.JPG
Claims PD, but is obviously a still shot from an animated television series; also, unused in favor of a better image. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Muslims.PNG
This photograph is claimed as {{PD-self}}, but it is a low-resolution image with no metadata. The uploader, Ray harris1989, has uploaded several other problematic images as indicated on his user Talk page. Grenavitar asked him about this a month ago, but he hasn't responded. He has not edited Wikipedia since December 12. Based on the low resolution, lack of metadata, and uploader's apparent unclear understanding of our content policies, I think the image was taken from a news site. It should be deleted as a copyvio. *** Crotalus *** 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Floyd Mayweather.jpg
Although the Flickr image is marked CC-BY, it looks like the Flickr user is inappropriately uploading copyrighted images and claiming them as their own. Mosmof (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, on second look, it looks like the uploader and the Flickr member are the same person, and just uploading copyrighted images so they can falsely assign a CC license. Please also delete:
[edit] Image:Hallows.jpg
Copyrighted album cover claimed as owned by uploader and released under GNU. — Precious Roy (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I removed that now that Precious Roy explained it to me...and I got it from Amazon.com anyway. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gothatfar.jpg
Copyrighted single cover claimed as owned by uploader and released under GNU. — Precious Roy (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sugababes promo.jpg
Tagged as GFDL-self-no-disclaimers, but derived from a photo copyright Dave M. Benett/Getty Images: [1] Muchness (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MapEcosv2.jpg
Copyright owned by Google (and possibly MapEcos also) -SCEhardT 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
