Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 28
[edit] Image:Kabuto90.jpg
Claimed {{PD-self}}, but this is a character from Naruto. See also previous listing. —Bkell (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yura90.jpg
Claimed {{PD-self}}, but this is a character from Naruto. —Bkell (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hidan.jpg
Claimed {{PD-self}}, but this is a character from Naruto. See also previous listing. —Bkell (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wreck diving hms hazardous.jpg
Tagged {{PD}}. I do not doubt that the uploader took the photograph himself, but this is a photo of a display which seems to have been created by the Department of National Heritage, a United Kingdom government agency. I don't know a lot about UK copyright law, but I believe that there is a high probability that this display is protected under crown copyright. —Bkell (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If the photographer uploaded this picture to Geograph, it would be released under a Creative Commons 2.0 licence and thus suitable for use on Wikipedia. There are other examples of this type of picture on Geograph, which have been used on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- But the problem is that the photographer does not hold the copyright to the display itself, so he cannot be the one to release the display under a free license. In some sense the photography here might be freely licensed (the lighting, the camera angle, etc.), but the subject of the photograph is a possibly copyrighted display. —Bkell (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dancrade and Samedov.JPG
No explanation as to how this uploader owns the copyright. Looks like a professional photo. Corvus cornixtalk 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's a lot of noise in the photo, and it includes metadata (it was taken with a Fujifilm FinePix camera). It doesn't look like a professional photo to me. I'd be willing to believe that the uploader took the photo. —Bkell (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw the nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Store foodlion.jpg
Claimed {{GFDL}}, but source is given as http://www.delhaize.com, whose legal notice makes it clear that they reserve all intellectual property rights. —Bkell (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- MortalConviction has added a fair-use rationale, claiming that this image is not replaceable because "Logo is protected by copyright and trademark, therefore a free use alternative won't exist." (The image is still tagged with {{GFDL}}.) The focus of this photo isn't the logo, though; it's a storefront. Anyone can take a photo of a Food Lion storefront. We can get a freely licensed replacement image, even if a small part of the image incidentally happens to be a logo which may be subject to copyright restrictions. Consider images such as Image:Xmas07-NYCTimesSquare.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The picture is a press release photo, meaning it is free. On the Delhaize website there is a note "These pictures are to be used exclusively in news articles and reports related to Delhaize Group". Food Lion is indeed part of the Delhaize Group. I will edit the description as to include the entire picture. —MortalConviction (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- It may be monetarily free, but it is probably not licensed under a free license. "Freedom" here means that anyone is free to copy, modify, and distribute the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Unless you can find explicit evidence that the copyright holder has released it under such a free license, it is not free enough for Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose; images which are not free in this sense must meet all ten points of the non-free content policy. The first point of this policy requires that the image be irreplaceable (because there is no justification for using a non-free image here if it could be replaced by a free one). —Bkell (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:New Picture.GIF
Claimed {{GFDL}}, but source is given as http://www.delhaize.com, whose legal notice makes it clear that they reserve all intellectual property rights. —Bkell (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EdlinePic.png
Claimed {{PD-self}}, but this is a screenshot of a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Project chanology.jpg
Cannot be public domain. Contains a Scientology trademarked symbol in it. As this symbol is copyrighted by the Church of Scientology - a derivative work based on this image is not allowed. Also, we want to tread very very very very very carefully with organizations that have been known to get litigious over what they perceive to be copyright infringement issues. Delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Iphone skin.png
This uses some of Apple's images, while it is a skin, still uses some icons that Apple probably copyrighted (such as the Comm man logo, and the IE logo). Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- And Microsoft's Internet Explorer icon, too. I've changed the license tag to {{Non-free software screenshot}}. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Texas AandM University seal.png
While the source on this is (now) correct, A&M very explicitly states that its seal (which this is) should only be used on official A&M documentation. The seal should NOT be used on Wikipedia. This is also been shown by C&Ds from other university's regarding the use of their seals on Wikipedia. This image should be deleted and its usage replaced with the actual A&M logo. Collectonian (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is already tagged as a non-free image, so here at "Possibly unfree images" is not the right place to bring this up. The purpose of PUI is to investigate the copyright status of images which are dubiously claimed to be free. You should discuss this on the article's talk page. If it is decided that the image should be deleted, you should follow the steps at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. (Actually, in this particular case it would be simpler to remove the image from all articles and then tag it with {{subst:orfud}}.) —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other resources that may be useful to you include Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. —Bkell (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ljova-heatmeup.ogg
The actual source of the file indicates that they are -NC licensed. Gmaxwell (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
