Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 18 March 20 >

Contents

[edit] March 19

[edit] Image:Portrait3 gr.jpg

Link in the summary is broken, no way to tell if the license is correct. Polly (Parrot) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nop the link is not broken, it perfectly works. No need for any suspicions. Iberieli (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it works, it links to a page where it says that the images are all copyrighted. Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nicoli.jpg

Copied from Natela Nicoli's homepage along with two other pictures and most of the article. JdeJ (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carmen.jpg

Copied from Natela Nicoli's homepage along with two other pictures and most of the article. JdeJ (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dorabella.jpg

Copied from Natela Nicoli's homepage along with two other pictures and most of the article. JdeJ (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Proportions of the Parthenon.jpg

Image from a book page; no appropriate fair-use rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On what ground? All images are taken from somewhere not counting the user made ones (which migh fall as original research and in are useless in consequence).--20-dude (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're also giving me no clues. According to your comment, the "infringement" is that it is "being disputed". You never mentioned why. What's the dispute about? At least let me in. haha. "I dispute this dispute!! " (joke)--20-dude (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, delete it, but please. Somebody still jas to give me a catedre on copy right. I'm still kinda blurry on the comic book copyright tag compared with the regular book pages situation. I also can make no sense out of wikipedia alouding screenshots in contrast... and why do they talk about resolution since a) the resolution is always going to be inferior to the film, and b)there is no maximum resolution limits neither for uploading nor for article placing.--20-dude (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I also need to know if taking a free image of a piece of art and marking with colors and writing over it to analize it as per the indications of secondary sources qualifies as original research.--20-dude (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Also what's the Non free 2D art tag for anyway? Can somebody explain me this in my user talk page?--20-dude (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Notre Dame of Paris' regulator lines.jpg

copy of a book page, not a fair use Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This image is originally from Frederik Macody Lund's Ad Quadratum, published in 1919. Therefore is actually free. (Same as the below image)--20-dude (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Then change to the license tag that says public domain due to be being published in the US before 1923; or, wait, it was only published in Norway; I don't know what the rules are there. When did Macody Lund die? 1943; probably not long enough ago. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In the US, and I believe on en.wikipedia, it doesn't matter where it was published, so long as it was before 1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I see that you are correct. Should be a simple matter, then, to fix these images, assuming they are true copies from Macody Lund's 1919 book. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg

copy of a book page, not a fair use Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - While a copy of a page from a book does not on its own invalidate a fair use claim, there are at least two ways in which this image fails the non-free content test: 1) the building still exists, therefore a free version of this diagram could be created, and 2) the image is being used simply to illustrate a general concept rather than in a discussion of that specific diagram. -- Hux (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This image is originally from Frederik Macody Lund's Ad Quadratum, published in 1919. Therefore is actually free.--20-dude (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So fix the tag and it should be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Group of Croatian men in club of town Joliet Illinois.jpg

No evidence that the creator of this image has been dead for 100 years. Mosmof (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

When the creator died is irrelevant here; the tag may be wrong, but the only question is when and where it was published. If it was published prior to 1923, then it's free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay - so the photo looks like it was taken before 1923, but it still needs source information, since the uploader only provided the URL for where the image is located: http://www.mikulich.com/origins_8_01.htm.

[edit] Image:Ford6.jpg

Using deprecated PD license, no explanation of how the image is in public domain Mosmof (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Warthog.jpg

Self-identified as a screenshot; not CC-license applicable. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M41LightAnti-AircraftGun.jpg

Self-identified as a screenshot; not CC-license applicable. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tim Birkin.jpg

Scan of a photo of a British person from the 1930's, licensed as GFDL. No information about the author of the photo or where and when it was first published. While the GFDL is of course nonsense as long as the uploader is not the heir of the photographer, it might be PD - but that can't be verified without any information about its author and time and place of publishing. Photos from the UK are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. — Kam Solusar (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This might well have been my misinterpritation of GFDL, photo was my grandfathers but I have no idea if he took it, in fairness it is unlikely that he did as he never mentioned seeing him race and the picture appears to show the subject dressed for this. I scanned the pic from that photo but looking on the web (search Google Images) the same picture appears so perhaps it was a publicity shot. No idea if this could be construed as PD, except that TB passed away in 1933 (75 years ago). No idea who the photographer was or when that person passed away. Any ideas? Rob (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JeromeLeroy.gif

Low-resolution photo of a football player (apparently during a training session) uploaded with GIF format. Released as "Public Domain" with no information at all about it, the uploader having a long history of copyright violation pictures previously uploaded. Angelo (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BFH.jpg

I question whether the poster of this image is the actual creator of it. He has posted copyrighted images and text before claiming public domain licensing. Dougie WII (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


I question whether you have a credible source claiming that I AM NOT ACTUALLY THE CREATER OF THIS IMAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahrain1985 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a hard claim to defend against, but unfortunately I do see why Dougie might raise the issue. It's a nice picture; how did you take it? What type of camera did you use? Uploading the original picture in the original high resolution with the digital camera's original metadata (if a digital camera was used to create it) would go a long way to assuring me that it is in fact yours.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I used my own camera at the opening of the event, as I live close by. The camera used is Canon. Any further questions

Is it even a photograph? It looks like it might be computer graphics to me. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you retarded Dougie? And have nothing better to do? I USED ADOBE PHOTO SHOP TO CROP THE PICTURE. IT IS NOT COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS YOU CAN TELL BY LOOKING CLOSER. MAYBE YOU NEED A NEW PAIR OF GLASSES OR A REASSESMENT OF YOUR INTELLGIENCE

Here is the source of the photo, it is the last picture in this gallery on the Bahrain Financial Harbour's website. BlueAzure (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image:C.jpg

Image from Boeing website, unlikely to be under a GNU license. Polly (Parrot) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I will recheck the license to make sure - Holden_yo

Just as a note, I have changed it to a locked name, C.jpg isn't a specific name. If you reupload it under fair use, just use a better name. Also, you can use four tildes to sign your comment in the uber way we all do it in (~~~~) ViperSnake151 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)