Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 11 March 13 >

Contents

[edit] March 12

[edit] Image:Wikipediaonly.jpg

Text in image watermark contradicts license given. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted under CSD I3. —Bkell (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Skyfire1.jpg

reason this image is non-free 156.34.239.151 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Susperia.jpg

This image is taken without permission from http://www.metalkings.com/reviews/susperia/susperia-eng.htm and no proper source/permission is given for original image source. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:867 photo.gif

This image is taken without permission from http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=867 and likely a copyright violation 156.34.239.151 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Banwell.jpeg

Image uploaded by blocked sockpuppet account with a history of uploading images with bogus claims.

[edit] Image:Screenshot021.png

Screenshot from a video game, uploader does not hold the copyright. Polly (Parrot) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the screenshot myself! --HomieG2008 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes it a derivative of the original copyrighted material and you do not own the copyright to the image. See Derivative work. -Nv8200p talk 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


So even if you take the screenshot yourself its violating the copyright?? --HomieG2008 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's like taking a picture of a picture and then claiming you hold the copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i didn't take a screenshot of a screenshot if thats what your saying. I took a screenshot while i was playing the game with a screenshot plugin i have for my PSP with Custom Firmware. Again im not really clear on these copyright laws, but i will take it down or you guys can take it down, i just want to know how i can post pics. --HomieG2008 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I know you created the screenshot. What I mean is, when you did, you essentially made a photograph or copy of someone else's work and are claiming it as yours. This is considered derivative and isn't allowed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


OK i understand now. You guys can take it down. It was too small anyways. lol --HomieG2008 (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ER_Adult_SJT.jpg

Derivative Nv8200p talk 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Earthweek_Ebola_Story.png

Earthweek material is not released under the GFDL or CC. Nv8200p talk 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sample_Map.png

Earthweek material is not released under the GFDL or CC. Nv8200p talk 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Marymount instalaciones coliseum.jpg

--Nabudis Shadow (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

There are many problems with this image and the site it came from which point to a very real possibility that it is non-free, in the interest of brevity here are two:

1) The uploader of the image claims it to be released under {{GFDL}} but does not identify who created it. The site from which it was obtained doesn't have this information either, but does claim to release the images it displays in its galleries under GFDL terms. The problem is these images: photo 1 and photo 2 which, like the image in question do not identify the author and are also supposedly released under the GFDL. However they are credited to the International Solidarity Movement and AP by this story on CNN.com.

2) Elsewhere in the site's galleries is another photo, somebody took of their TV which is also being released under the GFDL. It's too bad that the photographer didn't bother taking a picture of the TV program's GFDL info but perhaps they only had one photo left.

Please note a recent discussion about this image here was inconclusive, however I'm re-listing it first because based on information not presented before I believe I've shown that it's probably an unfree image and second a few editors misunderstood the last discussion as being a seal of approval for the image and have been especially vocal on that fact at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg. Anynobody 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ,the result of last discussion was this image can't be labeled as unfree [1].Now , if a it has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.Can you please clearly mention what's the "Newly discovered copyright infringement"?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ebritton.jpg

Source is a pro photographer with no evidence provided that image was releases under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not an image thief. I received permission from Jay Davis who posted the image at RaiderPower.com. I sent him a message today to see if I can get him to complete the Wikipedia form regarding GFDL. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The GFDL release was completed by the legal owner of the photo and I submitted it to Wikipedia several days ago. So, there is no reason whatsoever to delete this image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GFDL release confirmed in OTRS. howcheng {chat} 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ecc7980.jpg

No evidence image was released under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ecc8384.jpg

No evidence image was released under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ecc8586.jpg

No evidence image was released under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eccpres.jpg

No evidence image was released under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Echelon_3_domes.jpg

The copyright holder is most likely the artist and not the uploader as claimed. Nv8200p talk 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my image, I took the photograph myself. -crash2000 (Talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Harry judd.jpg‎

Image does not look like an amateur photo, yet has been released as public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dannyyyy.png

Image does not look like an amateur photo, yet has been released as public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DougiePoynter19.jpg‎

Image does not look like an amateur photo, yet has been released as public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Image is a very bad shoot of him and should be removed and replaced. -User:bskladd96: Rebecca Skladd User talk:bskladd96:Talk 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbb.jpg

User with history of copyright issues, both images and text. Photo of Lindsay Lohan is doubtfully self-taken. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Asasasas.JPG

Same user as above. Professional, not self-taken. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aaaaaaaa.jpg

professional, not self-taken. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bbbbbbbbbbb.jpg

professional, not self-taken. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aaaaaaaaa.jpg

see all of above. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aaaaaa.jpg

see all of above. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BubbleWindowGirl.jpg

License state image is the work of the US Government, but in fact the image is from a state-run non-profit. Incorrect license. Whpq (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image is the property of the N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher and has been released into the public domain through a Creative Commons License by the owner. The tag to the image has been edited to reflect this change. Ncaquariumff (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Xexakis.jpg

Tagged {{Attribution}}; source is [2]. I don't read Greek, but the English version doesn't seem to have any kind of copyright notice at all, so there appears to be no basis for the claim that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." —Bkell (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:
Hi there! I uploaded the Xexakis.jpg. The Hellenic Authors' Society is a nonprofit organization dedicated, among other things, to the promotion of Modern Greek Literature abroad. As it is, there exists no explicit copyright notice within the website, but I happen to know that all information included in the website can be freely used, provided that the use serves the goals of the organization stated above. Do you have any suggestions on how I could alter the copyright information of the image? Thank you in advance. Odikuas (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't just take your word for it. Don't take this personally; we have a requirement that all copyright and licensing information should be verifiable by anyone. There are several things you can do. If the owner of the website holds the copyright to the image (this is something you'll have to verify), then you can ask the owner of the website to explicitly say somewhere on the website that all content (or at least this particular photo) can be freely used (in particular, it needs to be okay for anyone to use, modify, or redistribute the photo for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial; it's okay if this use requires attribution of the photographer or the source of the photo.) Alternatively, you can contact the copyright holder and ask for written confirmation that the photo has been released under a free license; you can then forward this written confirmation to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (an OTRS address), where it will be securely archived. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information. Please note, however, that Wikipedia requires all content (including images) to be usable (and modifiable) by anyone for any purpose, so restricting the use of the image to only those uses which serve the goals of the Hellenic Author's Society is not free enough. Images must be usable for commercial purposes and for purposes which may be different from the goals of the copyright holder. —Bkell (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I will contact the Hellenic Authors' Society then and see what they say. —Odikuas (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gumshoe logo.gif

Tagged {{GFDL-self}}, but this is the logo of gumshoe.com. —Bkell (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)