Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 15	March 17 >

1 March 16

[edit] March 16

[edit] Image:Esperanto-PM.jpg

I don't believe the uploader is the copyright holder on the stamp as claimed. Nv8200p talk 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Esphere-days-200.jpg

No evidence that permission was granted to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:G9F1404.jpg

[edit] Image:Reba 07 by S Graham.jpg

Possible copyright violation Caldorwards4 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looks like it was cropped from an album insert to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Image shows up on the first page of a Google Image search for "Reba" from an article on monstersandcritics.com. Eric444 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment This picture was not cropped from any "album insert" and it would show up in any search engine because Universal Music Group, Nashville distributes these "promo pics" as does Starstruck Entertainment. There are no copyright infrindgements. BVRDAMR 01:44, 24 March 2008.

[edit] Image:Brasil Bandeira.gif

I see no notice on the website stating that it is 'public domain' or 'released under a free license'. Most of these sites grab gifs from other sites (illegally), and simply host them. As such I think we need a statement saying that they were the original author, and that the image is under the license specified. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 07:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an assumption, which is always a complicated business. The website claims ostensibly that their material is free. I've seen no concrete indication that they could or would be lying. Perhaps this is based on a case of animated gifs (or maybe just one) that had been distributed as free and were later found to be not free? If that is the case, however, this would be arguing from a special case to a general rule, a so-called converse accident. The situation is particularly tricky for an image that has been uploaded about 4 years ago (the upload date is the date of a re-upload, since back in 2004 we often made only sparse comments regarding the image status, and in 2005 it got deleted without notification to the uploader, etc.).
If someone could, however, find something, anything being distrubuted by that website as free that is knowingly not free, that would be "probable cause" enough for us to make the leap and assume that this particular image might not be free despite the fact that the website claims that it is — when it claims that all of its content is free. Barring that, however, I don't see how or why to make an assumption like that validly. Redux (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this report based on the fact that I could not find any legal notice saying that it was PD. Could you point me to where the notice is? Thanks. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 11:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They claim that their entire content is "Gratis". In Brazilian Portuguese, the term is used in both the original, "correct" sense ("free of charge") but also in the sense that the content would be free of any [legal] restriction. I suppose the real point here would be that I retrieved the image from that website a long, long time ago. In 2004, they were being more literal in stating that their material could be copied freely, but since then the website has been completely modified, and for the worse. As a matter of fact, since I had not visited it in a while, I'm not even sure if it continues to be updated to date. I would be, however, quite surprised, given all the circumstances (back in 2004), if this particular image turned out to be a nearly-5-year-old copyright infringement on the part of the website. Redux (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mehmetyankee.jpg

Summary states PD, tagged GFDL, source has a copyright notice. matt br 10:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:F-16.jpg

No sourcing of elements in image Nv8200p talk 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MacBook_Air-3.jpg

Taken from a webite. Not GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Macca_JA.jpg

Taken from a webite. Not GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Macca5.jpg

Unlikely that the uploader has taken this image. Rettetast (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Macinsiderssmall.jpg

Taken from a webite. Not GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MachuPicchuAribalo2.jpg

No evidence of GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mackenziecrooked.png

Taken from a webite. Not GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Johnny Alegre NYC-2007.JPG

No evidence that Blue Gallardo is uploader and requests to uploader talkpage have goon unanswered Genisock2 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1949 MS LP.JPG

Cannot be GDFL, copyright of license plate rests with issuing authority — Radio Alerter (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:1950 MS LP.JPG

Cannot be GDFL, copyright of license plate rests with issuing authority — Radio Alerter (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:1956 MS Farm LP.jpg

Cannot be GDFL, copyright of license plate rests with issuing authority — Radio Alerter (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:JeffersonMississippi1969.jpg

Cannot be public domain, copyright of license plate rests with issuing authority — Radio Alerter (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Oyster card front small.png

Image of the front of an Oyster Card, which contains copyrighted logos — Million_Moments (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

I will change this image to fair use. Million_Moments (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kept Stifle (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:067f.PNG

Taken from a website. No evidence of GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Q&A-Logo.gif

Not GFDL Rettetast (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shusha_Guppy.jpg

Permission to use this photograph in Wikipedia is not GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have told to you earlier (a fact that I had already clearly indicated on the pertinent photo page) that I have a written permission from Ms Zerbanoo Gifford to use this photograph of the dying Shusha Guppy in Wikipedia. If you, Rettetast, are in any doubt with regard to the truth of my statement, then please do not hesitate and write to Ms Gifford and ask her whatever you wish to ask; amongst others, ask her to send a copy of her earlier e-mail to me to the appropriate Wikipedia address. Her e-mail address is: zerbanoogifford@hotmail.com. If you cannot carry out this simple task, then please stop harassing me!!! Do something else, for the sake of heaven! --BF 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shusha Guppy died on Friday 21 March in London. --BF 12:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now VOA (Voice of America) turns out to be using the Wikipedia photograph of the late Shusha Guppy. See: VOA.
--BF 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hendrik_Brugt_Gerhard_Casimir.jpg

No evidence of GFDL-license. Rettetast (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have told at numerous other occasions that KNAW (The Netherlands Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences) gives permission to use similar photographs provided that the source is explicitly given (consult the website of KNAW). I cannot just keep repeating the same mantra for zillions of times! Someone on Wikipedia should take note of this and similar simple facts and prevent these so-called editors constantly harassing contributors!!! --BF 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Women_from_Shiraz_as_seen_by_Jane_Dieulafoy_in_1881.jpg

No evidence of GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It gives a link to the original source, which is one of Project Gutenberg's (US) public domain volumes. Clearly this is public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and this just strongly suggests that this editor may not be able to read. S/He has been needlessly wasting my time since last Sunday. --BF 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's in the public domain, why did you tag it with a GFDL template? GFDL is much less free than PD. --88.134.141.133 (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to explain whys and why-nots. Wikipedia belongs to all, so that when one detects imperfections, one has to correct them. I am not employed by Wikipedia, but rather like millions of other people do what I deem to be correct at any given time. So please instead of asking questions, put things right when you detect mistakes. I may have tagged some photographs incorrectly, however anyone capable of reading, or at least subtracting two four-digit numbers, could have known that something published around 1880 was already in the public domain by 2007, or 2008. I am against roaming Wikipedia and mindlessly tagging things for deletion; it signifies a profound lack of respect for the efforts by others. I do not know what the criteria are for becoming a Wikipedia "editor", but from my personal experience am inclined to suspect that nonchalance must be one outstanding criterion. --BF 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"I may have tagged some photographs incorrectly, however anyone capable of reading, or at least subtracting two four-digit numbers, could have known that something published around 1880 was already in the public domain by 2007, or 2008. " - Not necessarily. It depends on the date of death of the author. There are lots of works from the late 19th century that are still copyrighted because they weren't published pre-1923 in the US and their authors lived another 50 or 60 years. In this case, Jane Dieulafoy died in 1916, so it is indeed in the PD, but the GFDL-template is nonsense. Please read something about copyright before uploading further images, thanks. --88.134.141.133 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted as free. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bazar_Shiraz_as_seen_by_Jane_Dieulafoy,_1881.jpg

No evidence of GFDL. Public domain because of age? Rettetast (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It gives a link to the original source, which is one of Project Gutenberg's (US) public domain volumes. Clearly this is public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and this just strongly suggests that this editor may not be able to read. S/He has been needlessly wasting my time since last Sunday. --BF 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted as free. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shokooh_Mirzadegi.jpg

Confirmation of license must be forwarded to OTRS per WP:COPYREQ. Rettetast (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Write to Ms Mirzadegi (her e-mail, already given on the page of the photograph, is shokoohm.pasargad@gmail.com) and ask her to do so. At the time she told me in writing that this photograph could be used in Wikipedia. If you do not wish to take my word, for whatever reason, then it is your responsibility to check the issues that have led you to doubt the validity of my statement. The fact is that the photograph at issue has been uploaded by me and its copyright statement has been signed by me. Consequently, if for whatever reason you should believe that this photograph should be deleted, then you must be openly accusing me of fraud! And that is sickening! I feel already sick, wasting my time and typing these words here. Shame on you and on your ilk for so openly and inconsiderately insulting the dignity of people who selflessly waste their times on Wikipedia. --BF 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted as free on the balance of probabilities. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vernon_Scannell.jpg

No evidence of CC license in the source Rettetast (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Possibly unfree"? Then, please check these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc., etc. The Internet seems to be awash with this photograph, and editors, like Rettetast, are making an event of this photograph being on Wikipedia. In short, photo-editors like Rettetast seem to have a special gift for wasting their time and that of others for no good reason, whatever. --BF 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have checked all your links, but none of them say that the image has been released under cc-by-sa-3.0. Where does that claim come from? Rettetast (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then replace the existing copyright tag with one which to your mind is the appropriate one. It is morally not right to go around and annul someone else's contribution for a trivial technicality! The fact is that with the web being awash with this particular photograph, no one can claim ownership of this photograph of this dead poet! I am astound by the realisation that apparently some people can take pride in obliterating a dead man's face from Wikipedia (you have also marked the photograph of the dead Kaveh Golestan and the dying Shusha Guppy for deletion, I hasten to add) for no good reason, except through the force of an impulsive and disproportionate sense of vigilantism and self-righteousness. --BF 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - most likely a copyright violation. No evidence that the creator of the image gave permission to release this image under a free license. Doesn't matter that other sites on the net use this photo without clear permission, Wikipedia is not just some other site that doesn't care about copyrights. --88.134.141.133 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I had always wondered, and still do, about the psychology of those who as state employees carry out capital punishments in the state prisons. And here I see before my eyes that someone who does not even have a Wikipedia account (or at least pretends to be an outsider) sees as her/his primary task to come in for the occasion and vote for the deletion of the photegraph of a deceased individual. May I respectfully ask, what brought you here Madam/Sir? As for "No evidence ...", this is just a cover for ill will. As I wrote earlier, the Internet is awash with this very photograph, so that whether there was any initial permission to use this photograph on websites, it is now too late to ask such question; the whole thing is now out of control and no sane person would consider to sue for a possible violation of the copyright laws in this particular case. But aside from all these, those who know Vernon Scannell's personality and poetry, will have no problem in believing that he would have given permission to use his photograph on Winkpedia --- please at the very least read the piece that Simon Jenkins wrote about him in The Guardian of 23 November (the pertinent link is given in the External-links section of Vernon Scannell) --- before voting in favour of deleting his photograph. Be constructive, sometimes! --BF 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kaveh_Golestan.jpg

No evidence of GFDL in the source. Rettetast (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Golestan died, and his bones must have already turned into ashes! Deleting this little photograph of a man who sacrificed his life to tell the rest of the world about the miseries of fellow human beings in war zones, serves no purpose (he was the first person to tell the world about the gassing of the civilians in Halabja, Iraqi Kurdistan)! As far as I am aware, his wife and son have no problem having this little memory of Kaveh on Wikipedia. --BF 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject of the picture is deceased and notable it can be changed to a fair use image. Million_Moments (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The source that I have given, namely Tebyan, does not indicate that the photograph cannot be used in Wikipedia, or elsewhere for that matter. Further, as should be evident, when the source is given, there can never be any question of the photograph having been used inappropriately. --BF 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible this qualifies as {{PD-Iran}}? -Nard 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted as fair use. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Contrexx_sshot.png

Need OTRS confirmation of the public domain claim. Jusjih (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Matthew_reilly.jpg

No evidence of GFDL in the source. — Pichote (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sunken_Rainbow_Warrior_Bow.png

The desxription says, "Please note that it is solely for your article and not for any commercial purposes." Jusjih (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, but after scrolling through hundreds of possible licenses this is the only lisence that is applicable to the photographers requests, if you could suggest a better lisence to adhere to the rules more, then by all means do so, because i am keen to have this resolved ASAP :D Taifar ious1 02:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Krabi_INTL_Airport.jpg

No evidence of GFDL licensing from the source site. Jusjih (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sadhbh.jpg

Uploader removed self licensing unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Volker_Heine.jpg

Yes, that is so. However, Volker Heine is not such a person to mind having his photograph on Wikipedia. To Rettetast: if you wish to do something praiseworthy, then please write to Volker Heine and ask his permission; here is his e-mail address: vh200@cam.ac.uk. If you do not wish to do so, then please leave this photograph in peace; it has been uploaded by me, and I take the full responsibility for doing so. --BF 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I know Volker Heine for some twenty years. The only reason that I have not written to him about this photograph is that I do not wish to suggest to him that I may be doing him a favour on Wikipedia. The same applies to Brian David Josephson, whose photograph was mercilessly deleted earlier by another vigilante, aka photo editor. I am mystified how some people, with no calling for being constructive, are made editors on Wikipedia. --BF 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If Heine didn't take the photograph himself, he possibly isn't even the copyright holder. And releasing the image under the GFDL means that anyone could use it for whatever purpose, sure that Heine is okay with that? You can't just release an image under a free license such as GFDL without the explicit permission of the copyright holder - that's called a copyright violation. And it's probably not you that would have to take the responsibility, it's all the people that re-use Wikipedia content that have to take the risk of being sued because of such dubious licensing on your part. --88.134.141.133 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, however I explained above why I did not write to Volker Heine myself. If there is any sense of cooperation here, rather than deleting or voting to delete this photograph, someone has to write to Volker Heine and ask for his permission, or that of the copyright holder, to place his photograph on Wikipedia. Generally, the copyright of a photograph belongs to its photographer. In this particular case, the photographer is the photographer of Cavendish Laboratory who is an employee of University of Cambridge. Consequently, being a salaried employee, he cannot claim ownership of this photograph. It follows that an explicit permission by Volker Heine will suffice in this particular case. Please write to him and ask his permission if you are concerned. I know that the day after the copyright protection of Volker Heine's book on group theory expired, Dover Publications reprinted his book without having the decency of asking his permission for doing so. Volker Heine's only remark was: "what a pity, since if they had written to me not only had I given them the permission to reprint, but also sent them the updated text of my book." Volker Heine is generous and has a big heart; he would not sue for a photograph. --BF 15:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Celal_Bayar.GIF

No evidence og GFDL Rettetast (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Celadon_Bowl-Koryo_2.jpg

No evidencce of GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Celia1.jpg

"Copyrighted free use provided that it si not discrediting her memory" is not a free license Rettetast (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

She died in 1980. This image qualifies as {{PD-Cuba}} which I have taken the liberty of re-tagging it as. -Nard 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted as free. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cellcenter1.jpg

No evidence that the postcard has been released under GFDL, nor to the public domain. Rettetast (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Central-desktop-screenshot.jpg

From a mediakit. no evidence of GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Central_Rebel_Mascot.gif

Source info updated. Sf46 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Centurian.jpg

Drawing of an unbuilt building. Unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. Rettetast (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)