Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 8 June 10 >

Contents

[edit] June 9

[edit] Image:La_county_flag.gif

The license used states the image is the work of the federal government. I highly doubt the federal government designed the LA County seal. Rockfang (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The seal and flag of Los Angeles County has been determined as in the public domain. No difference than using the seal of the University of California. Actually the seal of UC is the property of the Regents of University of California. I don't think the County has ever copy righted the seal or the flag that was designed by the late Supervisor Hahn many years ago. Ucla90024 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have any kind of proof stating this? I'm not disagreeing, I'd just like to see where you are getting the information from.--Rockfang (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The license is still wrong though. It's definitely not Federal. Wikipedia:Upload has nothing to tag county or city logos, and the Federal one says "NOT state or local government". Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jermainepaul.jpg

Marked "self-made", but contains no other source information and looks like a publicity shot. Also, the "created" date does not match the one in the metadata. Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:YuanLongping.jpg

No evidence that the image has a Creative Commons license. Source site says "All Rights Reserved". Mosmof (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree website shows all rights reserved tagged as CSD I9. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
New version has been uploaded, and I don't read Chinese well, but I don't see any evidence of Self-GFDL here. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WFAlogo2.jpg

I doubt that a corporate logo is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hauteville house comic.JPG

Although I have no doubt that the author did take the photograph, this appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted work, meaning that it is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gaapweb.jpg

I cannot see where the rights have been released. On the website provided as the source, the copyright notice says content is all rights reserved. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pq.jpg

Looks like a publicity photo. Low resolution. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Larger version at [1] - dont know original source but public domain doubtful. Main website page is not in english [2] but does have a copyright statement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pulsi220.jpg

Appears to be a copyvio of [3] but comes from this website [4] unable to read copyright in Indonesian MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TataSierra.jpg

Appears to be a copyright violation from [5] but possibly not original source and may be a publicity shot. No reason to think uploader is copyright holder for self-made declaration MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Estate.jpg

Appears to be a copyright violation from [6] but possibly not original source and may be a publicity shot. No reason to think uploader is copyright holder for self-made declaration MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ang..jpg

The uploader claims authorship of the work, while also admitting that this property belongs to LINFAIR records (see non-free/fair use media rationale). Pandacomics (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Uploader has been repeatedly warned/blocked for continued uploading of copyrighted images and falsely claiming ownership. --NrDg 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)