Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 27 March 29 >

Contents

[edit] March 28

[edit] Image:Footdoc.jpg

User has long history of uploading copyvio images as PD-Self. Picture is lacking a description. — (EhJJ)TALK 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:von_einem_airstrip_road.jpg

Uploader has stated the image is scanned from a book, but has then asserted GFDL licensing — Kevin (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tnp.jpg

Tagged with both {{Non-free web screenshot}} and {{PD-self}}. If the uploader has the authority to release this image into the public domain, then the {{Non-free web screenshot}} tag should be removed (and probably replaced with [[Category:Screenshots of web pages]]). —Bkell (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If the user has authority over the website, the best thing is for him/her to post the screenshot on the website's server and release it into the public domain there. Then, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons as a public domain image. (EhJJ)TALK 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
will do. Dan Knauss (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Von einem home.jpg

Uploader has stated the image is scanned from a book, but has then asserted GFDL licensing Kevin (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:171450.jpg

Appears to be a publicity still from a film. Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Kelly hi! 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:13006_112010507284.jpg

no clear release or statment this is an image of the government from source website, a police photo is not a work of the federal government MECU≈talk 13:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anima283.jpg

Appears to be a screencap or scan. Kelly hi! 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

License changed to {{non-free television screenshot}}, flagged with {{subst:nsd}}. Kelly hi! 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deferred to I4 deletion in a week. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Froylan_Ledezma.jpg

No evidence permission was given to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Geert_Wilders.jpg

According to Commons:User:Bryan, an admin at Wikimedia Commons, the free license at Dutch Wikipedia is not sufficient.[1] Kelly hi! 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it is a duplicate of Commons:Image:Geert Wilders CZ.jpg, which is up for deletion there. Kelly hi! 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shaki-dasilvano-9_28.jpg

Uploader seems to have simply tagged all his uploads as "self-made" regardles (including album covers), with a mostly empty information template I'm not overly convicend this photo is his own creation either. Sherool (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Motel.jpg

Uploader seems to have simply tagged all his uploads as "self-made" regardles (including album covers), with a mostly empty information template I'm not overly convicend this photo is his own creation either. Sherool (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cibula.jpg

Uploader seems to have simply tagged all his uploads as "self-made" regardles (including album covers), with a mostly empty information template I'm not overly convicend this photo is his own creation either. Sherool (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Labradoodle 1.JPG

looks suspiciously professional, may be from a studio Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course its professional. It was a 9.99 photo taken at PetCo during the holidays. --Endless Dan 03:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OmPuff.jpg

Appears to have been scanned from a magazine or simmilar printed material (possebly a cover), suspect the uploader did not photograph this himself. Sherool (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)