Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 7	March 9 >

1 March 8

[edit] March 8

[edit] Image:Alvin and the chipmunks2008.jpg

this a copyright poster and the uploader has no rights to release into the PD. Fredrick day (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah that's going to fool us --Fredrick day (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Charles Murray MOH.jpg

A copyright violation of this website's image [1]. Polly (Parrot) 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:James W. McGhee.jpg

This image, said to be from 1921, but not published, is said to be from his family archive. The photographer is not identified, yet it is claimed that he died more than 70 years ago (before 1938); lacking a reason to believe that, it would seem that this image is likely copyrighted. It was added by a descendent for a vanity article, and it's not really needed now that the article has been moved to a topic specific to a legal case instead of being a bio. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep An excellent example of copyright paranoia mixed with speculation over a family photograph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the guy who uploaded it was a family member and WP:SPA, and he didn't seem to understand or care about policy, it can hardly be called paranoia. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For a "work for hire" the copyright does not belong to the person who operates the shutter, but the person who paid for the photograph, as for example, my high school photograph. Any real or implied copyright would belong to the family. And the poster, representing the family, would be best to determine the copyright status. Of course anyone can challenge it in court, but to assume someone will, is just copyright paranoia over a family photograph of his granddad. Its just being silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment This likely counts as an anonymous work; no one knows who the photographer was. Given that, the life+70 standard does not apply. For works of this vintage (unpublished and created after 1897 (the guy's clearly older than 15 in the photo) but before 1978), the duration of copyright is creation+120 years, not life+70. That being said, however...

Just to add to the mix, the law on who was considered the original copyright owner changed somewhat significantly in 1978. Prior to 1978, most states (and this would have been a state law matter for old unpublished works such as this) had some variation on the copyright going to a hiring party if the work was made at his "instance and expense." This likely would have been McGhee himself. With all that being said...

Keep There is no reason to believe the uploader does not have full rights to this photo, and even if he did, no liability will attach unless the photographer's heirs identify themselves and prove ownership. Unless someone can establish that this is a copyright violation, this is just not worth worrying about. TJRC (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this issue out, please? It seems there's no real basis to object to this image, and I'd like to restore a more useful caption in McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) the article where it's used.TJRC (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BG about me.JPG

Composite picture made up of at least some copyrighted images, uploader cannot hold the copyright. Polly (Parrot) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Iceweasel knoppix1.png

Screenshot of Wikipedia page to show Iceweasel. A completely GFDL webpage could be used instead. (I'm not completely sure I'm right, hence listing here). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Marimarian.jpg

Source of photo is given as a photoshoot at MariMar, sourced from iGMA.tv. The uploader is claiming ownership and releasing under a free use license. There is no proof of the uploader owning this copyrighted image. NrDg 04:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amsler.jpg

Tagged as blatant copyvio, but Drlasik (talk · contribs) or Sandeepjainmd (talk · contribs) claims that author was contacted and release for free use Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image is now orphaned--has been replaced in articles with an image from nih.gov. Justin Eiler (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Text message advertising explained.pdf

Text asserts it is copyrighted therefore the pd-self tag is incorrect. Hut 8.5 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Text message advertising strategy and campaign ideas.pdf

Text asserts it is copyrighted therefore the pd-self tag is incorrect. Hut 8.5 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Text message them.pdf

Text asserts it is copyrighted therefore the pd-self tag is incorrect. Hut 8.5 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:New bmc logo.pdf

Unlikely a company is going to license their logo under the GFDL Hut 8.5 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Faraz_Ahmad.jpeg

Image appears to be a studio portrait. The uploader is most likely not the copyright holder as claimed as he cites sources such as YouTube and a couple of blogs. Nv8200p talk 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a misunderstanding. These "sources" were added later for context.[2] The image is a self-uploaded (GFDL'd) portrait of User:Farazilu, author of the Online petition to remove Muhammad depictions from Wikipedia. It should be treated like any other image in Wikipedia:Facebook. It is not in use in article space, but it is being used at a Signpost article. See this earlier ifd for context. Wikipedian's portraits shouldn't be deleted on grounds of not being used in articles: they also figure as a repository of stock images with potential application in articles, as evidenced by the usage of Image:Wheeler.jpg in beard. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate if wikipedia can remove this picture, as i am done with wikipedia and has no intension to work on it. and my pictures are used to reveal my real id. Farazilu --78.149.98.252 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say if the uploader does not want his image to be used for the purposes he didn't have in mind when uploading his image, then revealing his identity to the real world through it is inappropriate. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Too bad he uploaded it with a free license! And he intentionally sought the fame... -Nard 03:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:070924 katyn memorial jc.jpg

Derivative work. Sculpture is definitely not old enough to be in the public domain. Depicted massacre occurred in 1940 and sculpture was made sometime in the last 30 years. Photo is also listed for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:070924 katyn memorial jc.jpg. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the photographer and authorize use of the image for Wikipedia's purposes. Although the sculpture is likely not in the public domain as you suggest, it is physically located in public space and photos of public space are owned by the photographer. This is my understanding of the law; Wikipedia policy may differ. If so, the community should certainly act accordingly. Thank you. Shane Smith (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If this image is determined to be in violation of Wikipedia policy, I will happily remove it. However, I am curious why this image is a candidate for deletion under this policy, while the image of the Colgate Clock (Colgate_clock_front.jpg) appearing directly below it on the page has not been tagged this way. I am not asking this question because I feel singled out, put-upon, or even miffed by the discussion about my image, but because I think standards that are haphazardly applied are not standards at all. Shane Smith (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The clock has a utilitarian purpose as opposed to a purely artistic one. See Commons:COM:DW and Commons:COM:FOP#USA

Image deleted on en wiki and discussion continues at commons --NrDg 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image NOT deleted on en wiki. It's still there, sir :P Wakata (Alright, it's a fake username. You caught me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.120.61 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a copyright lawyer. There seems to be confusion about who can claim a copyright here, and in what the copyright is claimed. The fact that the statue itself is not in the public domain is irrelevant -- and frankly, how do you know it's not in the public domain? It's not only the operation of time that can cause something to come into the public domain. The photographer here is not creating duplicate statues. The photographer is taking a photograph of something that is publicly observable, and the only copyright he claims here is in the photograph. He also gives Wikipedia permission to use the photograph. Ordinarily, that would be enough to satisfy anyone's copyright concerns.

In the U.S., a photographer automatically owns the copyright to an image he creates at the moment the image is created. Though there are some conditions that could alter that, there's nothing in this instance that I can see that would. The photographer is given some additional protection from claims of infringement here because, as indicated, the statue is in a public square and, I'm reasonably sure, it is actually owned by the municipality. Also, consider that with uncommon exception, individuals who create public art, like a memorial sculptures, and give it to a municipality, also give up most of their rights in the work. This is why, for instance, the heirs of Have those who contend this image is infringing even bothered to check and see if the sculptor retained any rights in it? Chances are, he did not.

If Wikipedia detects a copyright problem with this image, then it should also remove images of things like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, or Noguchi's "Red Cube" -- which, arguably, is owned by 140 Liberty Street and not the City of New York -- because as near as I can tell, those images bear exactly the same relationships to their creators as does the image of the Katyn Memorial in Jersey City. If this image goes, then Wikipedia has an awful lot of content to delete. And why is that an image of a statue that is decidedly not in the public domain -- the Charging Bull at Bowling Green -- is allowed on Wikipedia under a theory of fair use, while people are here are suggesting that an image of a statue whose ownership is far less clear somehow violates copyright?

Also, consider that if Wikipedia's standard for non-infringing images is that the object depicted in a photograph be in the public domain, then it must remove photographs of all books and records that are not in the public domain.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot more to suggest that the person who supplied this image has it, free and clear, and a lot of the assumptions being made about someone else retaining superior rights in the statue itself -- which has very little to do with the image -- are probably just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goateeki (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CHRISRE5.jpg

Screenshot of a video game, uploader very unlikely to hold the copyright. Polly (Parrot) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gabrielle-union-picture-1.jpg

This image is unlikely to be under a GNU license, no evidence that this license is correct. Polly (Parrot) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tina.Beyonce.jpg

This image is unlikely to be under a GNU license, no evidence that this license is correct Polly (Parrot) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)