Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 5 January 7 >

Contents

[edit] January 6

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:FullMoonShow.jpg

Unlikely logo in the public domain. Author + 100 years (podcasting definitely wasn't invented back then). Source does not state image released under licence, so full copyright must be assumed. Breno talk 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Breno thank you for noticing this, however the owner of this image has given me permission to use this image in the article The Full Moon Show, as he wishes to expand the podcasts listeners base and have a resource for listeners and non listeners alike. I added the 100 years template because the use on wikipedia template gave a message of instant deletion, if you would not mind helping me allow this image for use it would be much appreciated, I am quite unsure about some things as this is the first image I have uploaded onto Wikipedia. Thank You. Seanor3 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Resolved. Claiming fair use
I went through the FMS Terms of Use on their site. It doesn't mention that media is released under a particular licence, only that it is copyright. For now, I have corrected the image to be labeled as a copyright logo, and wrote a brief fair use rationale how it is being used here.
If you could point me where the show says they licence their work please let me know. If he told you personally please explain the licence they want to use, and I'll get in touch with them about a process where they email Wikipedia granting us permission. The main thing they need to understand, however, is that not only Wikipedia needs permission, but all its downstream projects (commercial or otherwise) will be able to use the image. --Breno talk 00:58, 8 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:PiratesWAB.jpg

Uploader once tagged GFDL-self but removed it thus unsure if it is freely usable. Jusjih (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Malcolm_Frasier_bust.jpg

The first uploader claimed self licensing of a picture showing a 3D art. The second uploader challenged it. Jusjih (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bobtex-1.JPG

The uploader first said that only non-commercial or educational uses would be permitted. The current statement seemd to be cut from the first statement and unclear. Jusjih (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Irken_Symbol.svg

As a user-made copy of a copyrighted image, still falls under non-free usage as a derivative work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I'm not 100% sure of copyright law, since I'm not a lawyer, I'd thought that drawing an SVG of this wouldn't be infringement, as it may count as different enough from the original. Sorry if I was mistaken :) If this is infringement in it's current form, then would it perhaps be usable as "fair use" on the Irken page? Similar to how, say, images of the Klingon alphabet are used at Klingon language? Image:Qapla'.svg from there, actually, is listed as PD despite being as much of a copy of copyrighted symbols as mine, so I'm not really all that sure if mine is infringement. Xmoogle (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the guy for derivative work information, I've just seen (on en.wiki and Commons) folks who've redrawn/re-done copyrighted logos and symbols under free licenses and had them deleted as derivative works. If I were 100% knowledgeable about the subject, I might have tagged differently, but I'm not--so I only listed it as a possibly unfree image--I could be mistaken. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, hopefully someone a bit more knowledgeable clears this up for us, and perhaps tells me if, if the image is not acceptable as PD, if it's still ok or not as "fair use". I'd presume so - as another (again trek related) example the Klingon page has a user made Klingon empire symbol, listed as "fair use". Xmoogle (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ZoeRedfern.jpg

Tagged with both fair-use and {{PD-self}} tags simultaneously. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TangoJustoDaract2.jpg

From a commercial website. No evidence uploader has rights or permission to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tank.jpg

Doubtful that uploader is the author or has any rights to release the image as GFDL or CC Nv8200p talk 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bailee Madison.JPG

Need evidence that copyright holder has given permission to release under this license. Shell babelfish 10:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gameoflifetwistsandturns.jpg

Appears to be a promo photo; unlikely the uploader took the photo themselves. Shell babelfish 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Garcia3.jpg

Source given [1] doesn't have a notice of release under GFDL, need some confirmation that the uploader has received release. Shell babelfish 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gemini-CP.jpg

No Flickr user found named robinseggs; images on Flickr not automatically "free". Shell babelfish 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jibrell.jpg

Claim of release into public domain, but source has no such release [2] Need confirmation that uploader has obtained release. Shell babelfish 12:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation receieved. OTRS Ticket#2008010810007908. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bnytech logo.png

Copyrighted logo. Chris.B (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bnc.png

Copyrighted logo. Chris.B (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KSBrooks March 2002.jpg

Promo photo unlikely to be released as GFDL; need confirmation that uploader has release from copyright holder. Also doesn't appear to be valid claim for fair-use since a free version could be created. Shell babelfish 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cffdfd.jpg

Promotional image; dubious PD-self claim. Chris.B (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KrausCCA.jpg

Need evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain. Shell babelfish 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you doubt the information given by User:Paxart? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image kept User:Paxart states he is Phillip Kraus, the subject of the image. -Nv8200p talk 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LAXPD Patch.JPG

I don't believe the source/licensing is correct unless the Clipart library has branched out into photographs. Shell babelfish 14:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LAXPD Patch1.JPG

Another photograph claimed to be from the clipart library Shell babelfish 14:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg

Book first published in 1946; doesn't appear to be in the public domain. Shell babelfish 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to descriptions of the legal case that determined that the book (Autobiography of a Yogi) is in the public domain[3][4], and here is the book on Gutenberg[5]. The copyright expired because it was not properly renewed, and the court determined that the book did not fall under the 'work for hire' doctrine. The first link doesn't explicitly mention the book, but that was the decision that brought Autobiography of a Yogi, and some other works by Yogananda, into the Public Domain. It is now printed by different publishers and countless websites on that basis. ~ priyanath talk 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image kept per this explanation, but I nominated the image for deletion at WP:IFD as the image is an orphan an I could not find an article about the person pictured. -Nv8200p talk 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:02-hoops_shot.jpg

"courtesy of Josh Moore" but no OTRS or otherwise statement, all uploader's images are like this (about 3) MECU≈talk 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LenapeStone.gif

Need confirmation that the copyright holder has released this image into the public domain. Shell babelfish 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1138528897_3dbb1bbbc2-1-.jpg

No evidence uploader has permission to release image under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 15:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KellyPavlik.JPG

I don't believe the uploader, who just created an account to upload this image, is the subject, small resolution MECU≈talk 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm serious, this is my photo. As a big fan of Pavlik, I attended one of his matches and took this shot of him. Months later, I started looking on the web for websites featuring my favorite fighter. When I noticed that the Kelly Pavlik article on Wikipedia had no image of the boxer, I knew this would be my chance to apply what I already had. So after making an account and with a little help from a friend, I uploaded this photo onto the article. My apologies if I wasn't so explicit earlier. Harney (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the original is here, sort of. Since you're the photographer, what you could do is upload the original so the EXIF data is intact, and provide more complete information on the photograph, i.e. date, location, etc. You can use the {{Information}} template for leaving more detailed notes on the photo. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought there might be a chance that the image belonged to the uploader, but I'm pretty sure it's copyvio now. A new version of the image is uploaded and more description has been added, but it's clear the uploader isn't who he/she claims to be.
  • Uploader claims it's the "full and original" version, but I find it hard to believe that a professional photographer takes 300 × 375 images. My mobile phone camera takes bigger photos than that.
  • Uploader changed the date on the image from July 16, 2007 (date on the article) to September 29, 2007. So the picture had to be taken a full 2 months after it was published!
  • Uploader says "I took it after Pavlik won the title from Jermain Taylor". If you Google for images of the Pavlik-Taylor fight, you'll see Pavlik wearing silver trunks.
Sorry, I should've been more skeptical from the start. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1147670706-00.png

Screenshot from a video game Nv8200p talk 15:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gunnar-headshot-smile.jpg

permission claimed, no OTRS, see WP:COPYREQ MECU≈talk 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I think the actual copyright holder uploaded this, based on contributions. But I agree, there's no "proof. -Nard 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eddie Clarke.jpg

Tagged PD, summary states it is part of a music single cover, which is unlikely to be PD (single is "No Class", the image used in that article does not contain this image). Being used in a biographical article of a living person so would be a replaceable fair use image if not PD. mattbr 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This, and one for Phil Taylor, were covers for the "No Class" single (see this tiny image of all three covers), only the one of Lemmy is included in the article. In 2005 I edited these in photoshop, removing the logos and titles, smoothing the images' backgrounds and tonal balances. As this left some of the original photographer's work that were on the covers of the single, and keeping the need to build a free encylopedia in mind, I have deleted this and the image for Phil Taylor.--Alf melmac 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pygmalion-PlayCover.jpg

This is the cover of a paperback, evidently from the 70s or 80s. It was tagged as public domain by User:Ssilvers for reasons that escape me. Chick Bowen 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image depicted is a public domain image from 1913. If it is necessary to crop the image to remove any indication of where else it was published, can someone please help with that? This illustration is of the orignal production of Shaw's play, and shows the famous actress who played in the production at Her Majesty's Theatre. So, this image is a wonderful opportunity to illustrate all three articles with an extremely relevant public domain illustration. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Cropping it would be fine as long as a source that makes its age clear is provided. Incidentally, please note that if it was published in the UK in 1913 it may be PD in the US only; see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Chick Bowen 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Image deleted No source provided to verify age. -Nv8200p talk 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:17307897rn8.jpg

Screenshot from a copyrighted film Nv8200p talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:8050-17md.jpg

No evidence of a GFDL release B (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2007GoldenTicketX450.jpg

No evidence of a GFDL release from the copyright holder B (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is widely used in public. It has been publically released on the copyrighter's website, newspapers, and other public sources, like more free use websites like the one previously mentioned. I think that this image should stay. The image is under the GFDL. It is free. The GFDL template was, however, taken out because it is, sourcedly and copyrightedly, not my work. If it is to stay, please report. --CPGACoast (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, there is no evidence on the website you cite that the image is released to the public domain. In fact, the bottom of the website clearly says "All Rights Reserved". Note that being widely used or distributed does not constitute being in the public domain, if that's what you're implying, the same way a song doesn't lose its copyright when it's played on the radio. {{Non-free logo}} would be a more appropriate license, but it would only qualify as fair use on the Golden Ticket Awards article, not Amusement Today --98.204.112.111 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Tag change to logo -Nv8200p talk 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fadlallah4.jpg

The source is [6] but I can find neither the photo or any information about image copyrights. — Thuresson (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RingGo - First Great Western User.jpg

Caption states "photo taken by Rebecca Hadley for RingGo", suggeting that it is a promotional picture belonging to the company, thus wouldn't be a free-use image. — TheIslander 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, the original version uploaded of this was high-res and had exif data, suggesting at the very least the uploader had access to the original. -Nard 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)