Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 29	January 31 >

1 January 30

[edit] January 30

[edit] Image:Ssbb leaks select screen.jpg

Image is not what it purports to be. Only previous use was on a talk page. Authenticity of image uncertain. Does not add to the project in any significant way. Coreycubed (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Calgary LRT Map.jpg

This image is tagged as GFDL, but text within the image itself prohibits ‘Reproduction or Modification’, and claims ‘All Rights Reserved’, with no mention of the GFDL. The uploader has not responded to my request for clarification of the licence terms. — David Arthur (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Once the author clarifies the image license, (most likely having to edit it on the image itself), it can be re-uploaded on WP. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:100_0025MA13692234-0004.jpg

Who is "Eric Schussel"? How do we know they agreed to release the image in the public domain? See WP:COPYREQ for how to request permission to license an image. Also, this image contains logos, but I think that may not be a problem much like the "Times Square" issue. They are secondary to the image. MECU≈talk 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image kept. Uploader claimed he is author so I will AGF that he is Eric Schussel. Logos are incidental -Nv8200p talk 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Magna_Carta_Hartlepool_2007_with_guest_Lee_Abbott_on_Bass_Guitar.jpg

who is "DJ Mountain"? there is also pd-self, is that really the uploader? MECU≈talk 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Magna_Carta_-_Lord_Of_The_Ages_1973.jpg

appears to be album cover, does uploader have rights to release into public domain? MECU≈talk 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Magna_Carta_-_Backroads_-_2006.jpg

appears to be album cover, does uploader have rights to release into public domain? MECU≈talk 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GavinRossdale 2007.PNG

It's questionable whether the uploader took this. Seems to be taken from a website. — Spellcast (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

Looks to be "borrowed" from WireImage: http://previews3.wireimage.com/PreviewImgPopup400.asp?ItemI=11680746 (I'll flag for speedy) -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CHHOYA COPY.jpg

Claimed creation date of 2007/08/02 is inconsistent with image metadata, which indicates photo was taken 4 December 2004. Suspect copyvio. EdC (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tetsuya Shiroo.jpg

The person claims it is a PD image because he found it on the web. HUH? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PFLP Emblem.gif

FOTW _→AzaToth 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Juggalo.jpg

Orphaned, of dubious provenance and looks like a poor photoshop forgery. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg

Image is a photo of a 3D object taken from the Victoria & Albert Musem's website here. Uploader does not have the rights to it. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploader claims to be affiliated with the Victoria & Albert Musem, but no evidence is presented that permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under GFDL. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Last May there was a discussion at COIN for how to deal with the fact that User:VAwebteam had a COI as part of the V&A museum web team! Since then, VAwebteam has been working closely with several editors on many articles and uploaded numerous images under GFDL. It has been accepted by all these editors that this is genuine. If at this stage you have reservations, it is hardly politic to start nominating images for deletion in this way. We do not normally question GFDL uploads of this kind, unless there is a reason to suspect they are not legitimate. There is no such indication—quite the opposite. Maybe you should ask the editor to arrange for the V&A to send an email to the Foundation to confirm legitimacy, if you have this concern. I consider it to be a fantastic bonus to have these contributions, which are a precedent to encourage other such institutions to also release GFDL material. This needs sensitivity in approach, not a heavy-handed one, which is guaranteed to stymie such contributions. Tyrenius (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I think there are procedures for this - have these been explained to the editor? Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked VAwebteam to validate authorisation.[1] Please note there are often long gaps between VAwebteam's editing, so action may not be immediate. Tyrenius (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I only noticed that VAwebteam had a history of these kinds of image contributions after making the deletion nomination. If other editors had been aware of this for some months now, why hadn't they also asked VAwebteam earlier to go through the proper channels (OTRS) and get the V&A Museum's permission lodged with the Wikimedia Foundation for each GFDL claimed upload that has been subsequently made after the May 2007 discussion? I have no problem if this sort of thing is done properly so that other editors who randomly stumble onto images that look to have been lifted from websites leading them to suspect that there is the possibility of a copyvio know that the website's owners have granted permission for the images to be uploaded here. This would also establish that VAwebteam has the V&A's imprimatur. I could call myself x MuseumWebTeam and start uploading images from x Musem's website while posing as being affiliated with x Museum. People inappropriately take images from other websites and upload them here claiming GFDL or PD all the time. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment and apologies for being a bit gruff about it. Had they started editing by uploading GFDL images, I think there would have been questions. As it happened, they started with the classic link spamming activity (although there was some strong support for retaining links), so there wasn't any reason to doubt their affiliation with the museum. It was three months till an image was uploaded, during which time very good working relations had been achieved with experienced editors. Tyrenius (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seen that VAwebteam has been very cooperative in editing and resolving the conflict-of-interest concerns (a textbook example of cooperation, I should say!), may I suggest that we attempt to contact them first before discussing on. This is indeed something that was not anticipated and was missed. Happens. Do they have their email activated? That may be a quick way of getting their attention. Otherwise, deletion of the image is not a big problem, the image can be uploaded again after the proper channels have been followed. I am sure they will appreciate it. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Their email is not enabled. I'm strongly opposed to deleting this image, until we've got things sorted out. Please have a little patience with what seems like an excellent editor. A week or so isn't going to make any difference to get it sorted out first. After all, if they are not who they say they are there's a whole load of images that will need deleting. There is every reason at the moment to think this user is genuine. Tyrenius (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have not had contact with VAwebteam (talk · contribs) for several months (regarding Linnaeus Tripe), but I have had email contact with them in the past (perhaps they have disabled their email contact information since then) ... I thought that the image thing had been taken care of several months ago ... I'll try to ping them to join this discussion ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

VAwebteam's last contribution was 3 weeks ago, so maybe a week may not be enough for them to get back on this, who knows. However as Beetstra said, if an admin does decide to delete this, it can always be uploaded again; the logs for this particular image indicate that it was deleted before back in September then reuploaded the following month. Then again, they might pass based on our discussion and keep with the proviso that permission is properly obtained. I've contacted Quadell, who was the deleting admin, as he deleted several I believe of VAWebteam's images on September 2 that he had flagged as replaceable fair use. I found the discussion mentioning this yesterday but can't seem to readily find it again. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission should tell you what you need to do to confirm permission, and note especially the "When permission is confirmed" section. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sent them an email ... we'll just have to wait and see. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, a lot of discussion once again. This image has indeed been deleted and uploaded again because I had used the wrong copyright permission when it was first uploaded. After much discussion in the museum and with other editors it was decided the GFDL permission was the way to proceed. This seemed the easiest way to go as the Director of the Museum is keen to contribute images to Wikipedia pages but we didn't feel it was realistic to send an e-mail every time an image was used from the V&A's website on Wikipedia. I will enable my e-mail again, should anyone wish to communicate via e-mail and will discuss with the Head of Online Museum the possibility of an e-mail to the foundation regarding permission to use the images off the V&A's website.VAwebteam (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An e-mail has been sent to this address permissions-en@wikimedia.org this morning. VAwebteam (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice going, Grasshopper ... another "tempest in a teapot", IMHO :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{12:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}

As that seems to have settled the matter, I have removed the copyright status notice from the caption in the article it is used in (Decorative boxes); I also moved the image to a more appropriate location on the page. Verne Equinox (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In thinking more about this discussion, I wonder, given the V&A's apparent interest in sharing its material, if some sort of formal agreement ahouldn't be stuck. Also, subject to such an agreement, that a special V&A/wikipedia tag should be created for the licencing page. Verne Equinox (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)