Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 3 January 5 >

Contents

[edit] January 4

[edit] Image:Edsger_Dijkstra_large.jpg

The image permission, User:Nixdorf/Randell and McClure is possibly not free enough for Wikipedia Fred-J 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This image was not tagged as a free image and is sourced and tagged as fair use. I removed the PUI tag and tagged as No Rationale. -Nv8200p talk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pink_plug.jpg

Sourcing does not match licensing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judgeroyscream.jpg

Likely copyvio, watermark indicates 1998 copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wamukoya_and_family.jpg

Uploader blanked the self licensing unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cpodjenny.gif

Included are:

  • Image:Cpodken.gif
  • Image:Cpodjohn.gif
  • Image:Cpodaggie.gif
  • Image:Cpodxiao.gif

Images from http://chinesepod.com/about are not explicitly released under CC-by 2.5. Does not appear copyright holder has released images under this licence. Breno talk 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VikingYouth.jpg

Image is not licenced CC-by-sa 2.5 on Flickr. It does not appear that the copyright holder has released image under this licence. Breno talk 10:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TC-31034-MainIcon.jpg

Stated that logo is released under the GNU FDL, though this is very unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. Breno talk 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as logo -Nv8200p talk 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sofa-icon-400DWho.jpg

Stated that logo is released under the GNU FDL, though this is very unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. User claims ownership of copyright but not able to confirm. Breno talk 10:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

tagged as logo. -Nv8200p talk 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Willwilkins.jpg

Claims to have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, though no image source is available. Breno talk 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pottercastlogo.jpg

Stated that logo is released under the CC-by 2.5, though this is unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. Breno talk 11:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MastersCast new.jpg

Stated that logo is released under the CC-by 2.5, though this is unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. Breno talk 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is a completely original creation (by me) and is the podcast album art that appears with the mp3 file. filmation 23:59, 4 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmation (talk • contribs)
Image kept -Nv8200p talk 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Infected.jpg

Stated that logo is released under the CC-by 1.0, though this is unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. Breno talk 11:37, 4 January 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

[edit] Image:Diggnationdropcat.jpg

Stated that screenshot of video podcast is released under the GNU FDL, though no source of image provided in order to confirm. Breno talk 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Diggnation releases all of their podcasts within creative commons and promote redistribution of their work. Revison3 is their producing company that holds the same philosophy. I couldn't find the tag that reflected this so I picked the one I did. This image is cleared to be used. source: diggnation.com gplefka —Preceding comment was added at 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the site [1] I have a problem with the way they use Creative Commons. The tag states "CC Some rights reserved" but does not state which CC licence they use. Reading the terms of service [2] states that user submitted content to the site is submitted to the public domain, but does not state that Revision3-owned content is done in the same fashion. As the tag states "some rights reserved" on the page this could definitely not be in the public domain as a result.
If you know the Revision3 guys or contact them get them to update their Creative Commons icons on their pages, as currently without a specific licence type, we cannot use it under CC. Also, if they choose a CC non-commercial (NC) component, it would be incompatible with the Wikipedia FDL. --Breno talk 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, if content is Commons but we don't know which type, we cannot state it is GNU FDL. I have emailed Diggnation with the following:
A discussion was started in regards to using a screen shot of your video podcast on Wikipedia and its downstream projects.
Your web page uses the Creative Commons logo with the line "some rights reserved", but does not state which Creative Commons licence the web page is released under. If you check out the licences you will see there are quite a few types which work can be released. Reading the Terms of Use on the Revision3 site does not include any Commons info, only stating that user produced content is released into the Public Domain. The Terms do not describe Revision3 content being licensed.
Also, when a web page has a Commons licence, it does not implicitly include media, such as the podcast. It should either be written on the webpage that the licence also covers the podcast, in the Terms, the copyright tag of the feed, or in the podcast credits.
Check out the Commons website for a licence wizard if you need help chosing a licence.
I notice that you guys have used OTRS email before to license Wikipedia to use your logo under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Please respond if you would like to arrange this again for similar images such as screen shots.
Sorry to bug you about this but as Wikipedia is a GFDL project, making sure we use free content is quite important to us. I could also imagine there are other free/libre projects out there wishing to correctly use your content under Creative Commons too.
Hopefully they get back to me / fix up their licensing soon. --Breno talk 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No response from the email at this stage. --Breno talk 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Image kept. Tagged with Creative Commons 2.5 generic license which is what their terms of use indicate. -Nv8200p talk 20:28, 5 February 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:Edmonton_Skyline.jpg

Its source says it's copyrighted. OsamaK 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DSCF2285.JPG

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. Addhoc (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amex.GIF

this image is a derived work and therefore can not be PD After Midnight 0001 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dead Marxist.png

This might be a derivative work from Image:Famousphotoche.jpg, and therefore under fair use, not GPL -- lucasbfr talk 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-free image, does not qualify for fair use in this manner. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is from the Jim Fitzpatrick poster of which he made copyright free. :) 8thstar 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fitzpatrick's work is derivative from Alberto Korda's, who specified that it was to be used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara"", which your image cleary does not. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This should be deleted, it's still a derivative work of a copyrighted image - it would fall under fair use, and this image is ORFU. Doesn't serve the same purpose as the poster. --Coredesat 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So it is fair use? ...ORFU? 8thstar 13:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's ORFU (orphaned fair use) as it's not used in any articles - user pages aren't articles. This has no use in any articles, so it needs to be deleted. --Coredesat 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Archforce.jpg

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. After Midnight 0001 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Csmegatrong2g.jpg

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. After Midnight 0001 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Megatron-smallest.jpg

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. After Midnight 0001 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Revoltechmegatron.jpg

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. After Midnight 0001 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Megatron-g2.jpg

Photos of toys are considered to be derivative works, and hence copyrighted. After Midnight 0001 16:22, 4 January 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

[edit] Image:Foficon.jpg

If you followed an external link here, you may be looking for the Diggnation discussion. My apologies for sending the wrong link. --Breno talk 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stated that logo is released under the CC-by-sa 1.0, though this is unlikely given it is a commercial logo. No source of image provided. Website of photographer does not state that their images are released under licensing. Breno talk 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo is released under creative commons. It is stated on the Feast of Fools website that "All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License." http://www.feastoffools.net/contact
The photograph was a gift from photographer friend Jason Smith to Fausto Fernos and Marc Felion. How should we proceed in documenting this gift?
The above comment/question was written by Marc Felion of the Feast of Fools Podcast. The producers of the show gave me permission to use the logo on the page, and they, in turn, have the permission of the photographer to use the image in the logo, as indicated above. Marc's comment refers to their Creative Commons license for all images on their website-- how can we apply that correctly to this image so that this issue does not arise again? Thanks for your assistance.RcktManChgo (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Resolved.
Thank you both for your time. With the new info and source I've looked into this more. Image is licenced under Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0. The non-commercial component is not compatible with Wikipedia, so cannot be used under that licence. However, I've updated the image to claim fair use of copyright, so the image can remain. Closing issue. --Breno talk 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
On a related note now that I have a source for Image:Podcast Awards (GLBT 2006 and 2007).jpg again the CC NC component is not compatible. It's more unlikely to be able to claim WP:FU fair use for a photograph of that nature (a photograph at an awards night is replacable with a free equivalent, as opposed to a copyright logo with no free equivalent). So will probably be removed shortly by an administrator.
If you're still on here Marc, if you would like to release specific images to Wikipedia, but retain your CC by-nc-sa 2.0 licence on your site, see Example requests for permission. Basically you can email Wikipedia stating that you release them under a CC by-sa licence or similar. Administrators will then update the image licence accordingly. Many thanks. --Breno talk 05:39, 6 January 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:Fring htc.jpg

Image is a derivative work of a copyrighted logo. [3]
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thyme_manakish.jpg

source links directly to image, website has (c) notice on main page, couldn't find where this image used, not likely free or uploader had permission, none stated, should be replaceable, uploader changed names to User:Omar 180 MECU≈talk 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pizza_manakish.jpg

same as above, different website, tripod hosting, image unavailable there MECU≈talk 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mr_bigg's_products.jpg

permission claimed, no OTRS MECU≈talk 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lewrockwelldotcom.gif

permission claimed, no OTRS, see WP:COPYREQ MECU≈talk 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed Lew and I expect that he will quickly send confirmation of the image's free status to the OTRS folks. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Lew sent the release email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at 3:58 pm CST. DickClarkMises (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OTRS link https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentLinkObject&SourceObject=Ticket&SourceID=1281532 I won't process it since I'm involved. MECU≈talk 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Lew did not indicate in the email whether he would prefer to release under GFDL or into the public domain (the two possible options I indicated as acceptable), so I propose that his blanket assent be taken to mean that he intends to release under GFDL--the option that reserves the most rights to copyright holder. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Image kept. OTRS tage needs to applied ASAP -Nv8200p talk 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Graves_of_the_Imams.jpg

Who is the author that died more than 100 years ago? MECU≈talk 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hazrat_Qasam.jpg

license is PD (outdated), but no reason why MECU≈talk 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grave_of_Abbas.jpg

license is PD (outdated) but no reason why MECU≈talk 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shrine_of_Abbas.jpg

license is PD (outdated), but no reason why MECU≈talk 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bibi_sakinazarih_main.jpg

license is PD (outdated), but no reason why MECU≈talk 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:QueenLaughing.JPG

this is an orpha image. the uploader was a drive-by contributor and it's remarkably candid and lucky to get such a photo. the user was confused with the PD-self tag on his/her only other upload but on this one he/she also wrote "Author: Myself". Before moving this to the commons, I'd like a second opinion.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)