Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 18	May 20 >

1 May 19

[edit] May 19

[edit] Image:Liveandkicking150.jpg

I doubt this is free The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bommalaattam.jpg

advertisement, not free The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bone W Machine.jpg

cf. [1] The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John Patterson.jpg

invalid license at flickr - noncom The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the image talk page the uploader here is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a confirmation on the uploader's user talk page from User:Spellcast. Kelly ^hi! 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:South Africa coa.svg

Not sure why it is ineligible for copyright and why it shouldn't be moved to commons but Image:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is already at Commons. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/Archive/Feb 2008#South Africa COA I don't oppose this deletion. Jackaranga (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the question about the commons, I specifically didn't want to move it there, because it might not be free. However commons:User:FXXX moved it across anyway, in an attempt to piss me off. He has done it for other images I created, and has been warned and the images deleted, however he continues to re upload images from wikipedia or the commons and claim them as his own, and then attempt to get the original deleted. Check the dates please, before you claim it is already at Commons, it is FXXX copying my images not the opposite. FXXX has finally been blocked for his repeated offending. Jackaranga (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Peg Herbert.jpg

[edit] Image:MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG

~~Looks like copyvio of image at http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/anti-armor/matador/MATADOR.html~~ Update: not taken from www.israeli-weapons.com (they took it from Wikipedia), but may be invalid as a derivative image (see discussion). — jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC).

The person who uploaded the images has removed the tag, and replied at the image talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to check my version carefully before proceeding further but this is what you want. No matter.

I had uploaded mine image on the 9 March 2008 and released it for reuse under the conditions laid down in the license of {{self|cc-by-3.0}}.
It is clear that the website had downloaded my image (at an unknown later date) and using a little thing call Adobe Photoshop, they managed to clean up, cropped it down to a smaller size then uploaded it to their own website for use minus my title caption "MATADOR CUTAWAY DIAGRAM" above that image as well as the borders. Compare them! Here, my image (resolution is 624x420 pixels); and here, their image (resolution is 609x381 pixels).
Evidently, it becomes apparent that they are the ones infringing on my rights here. And if you were to argue that I had added that title caption or the borders after they had uploaded theirs, please provide me with a detailed word for word description here on how you will be doing so.
At the urging of a certain administrator whom I have a COI with (he said so very clearly on your user talk page), you decided to do his bidding and tag my image as per his view or request. I find that utterly disgusting that you haven't taken the time to analyse the image in depth before making this call here.

I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am more than happy to be corrected. Yes, I was asked to look into this issue by another editor who, yes, said that he has a potential COI. (I have asked him what that conflict of interest involves.) Looking at the images, it seemed to be prima facie that they are the same, or virtually so. Your initial response was to remove the tag and to tell me to look closely at the image, which wasn't particularly helpful. Your explanation here is much more helpful, and I thank you for it. As I am (as I replied to the original query on my talk page) unfamiliar with image technicalities, it would help me if someone else could comment. But I am certainly ready to believe that the copyright violation goes the other way, and it is they who have taken the image from here, and not vice versa.

Perhaps you could help me (and I would certainly learn something): is the main proof of your contention the fact that your image is larger than theirs? Is there any other evidence that their image is the one that has been changed (perhaps even that is have been changed using Photoshop), and not vice versa? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have a further question, and ask it out of ignorance and in completely good faith: I presume that you (Dave1185) adapted some original cutaway diagram, and then added the text. Should you not have to acknowledge the source of the original diagram? Again, I likewise stand to be corrected. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did removed that tag on the image page and placed a question to you on the discussion page for you to show proof as you did not provide clearly in your notice to me beforehand. Hence, I went to your discussion page only to find that "that" particular admin had told you about "his" view and asked you to volunteer for this "mission". I have reasons to believe that this is his way for tit-for-tat due to the tag I had recently placed on another user uploaded image whom I suspect he has certain vested interest in but only he knows. That image was indeed a copyvio as I see it because I had went to search for the root source and managed to find it. That aside, here is a easy 1-2-3 steps you can take to find out more of image files but I suspect you know it already... anyway, here goes.

Right click both images and save image onto your local hard disk.
Right click on both images and select properties.
This brings up the file's general information and summary. Select summary and see for yourself the available details such as the image's width, height, horizontal/vertical resolution, bit depth or the usage of image altering software (such as MS Paint or Adobe Photshop) if it was indeed used in the process but this can be omitted due to personal preferences. As with analogue photography or imagery, you cannot enlarge any digital photo or image without losing too much of it's resolution. Having said that, I'm sure you can make your logical conclusion from there on. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Please, believe me when I say I don't know something! Anyhow, I'm on a Mac, and I did the equivalent of what you suggest: downloaded both images, and clicked "Get Info." However, it doesn't give me all the specific information you describe. I.e. there's nothing about width, height, resolution, etc. What it does tell me is 1) that matador__1.jpg (the image on the external site) is 72kb, whereas MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG (your image) is only 44kb. It also tells me that the former has a "profile name" that is sRGB IEC61966-2.1; your image doesn't have a profile name. I have no idea what this means.

~~Anyhow, as I seem unable to access the relevant information, perhaps you could provide it?~~

~~Meanwhile, I have no great interest in whatever bad blood there may or may not be between yourself and Rifleman 82. If he turns out to be wrong, I am more than happy about that~~. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how best you can view this file now except... maybe you can save the files and get to a PC and repeat steps 1-2-3? As for the profile name, I guess this is the equivalent of stamp telling others what software or camera you had used to create or edit the file and as I said, this can be omitted as per user's preferences. I chose to omit mine. Anyway, the increase in file size is due to them using Adobe Photoshop to white wash (clean up or touch up) some parts of the image (you will know the truth once you experiment with that!) and to compensate for the smaller image "physical" size, the resolution has dropped from 96dpi to 72dpi meaning it has lost some clarity. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked with the webmaster for http://www.israeli-weapons.com/; they confirmed that they took the image from WP. If anyone needs the email, please contact me.

At this point, the only issue left is whether this image is a derivative work or not, as well as the attendant issues. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand. Thanks. That seems to be resolved. (NB contrary to what I may have suggested earlier, I now realize that they were, as I understand it, within their rights both to take the image and to adapt it, but they should have attributed it as per its license). I will strike my part of the discussion above accordingly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the original source, it was from a Chinese Language newspaper clipping which I had found somewhere (I can't remember exactly from where or which newspaper). However, I did scanned and saved it before using MS Paint on my PC to do the necessary editing of adding the borders, the caption title and the various quote boxes by translating the text from Chinese to English. Having completed all that, I then uploaded it to wikipedia for use on the page of MATADOR (weapon) as an illustration guide. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the image is a scan from a newspaper, the source should be cited. WP:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works may also be relevant.

I don't have a COI. I asked jbmurray to look at it, and evaluate the issue on its own merits, and take action as he saw fit. This is perfectly normal practice among admins.

I preferred not to deal with Dave1185 directly because he seems easily agitated by my presence after I deleted his copyvio article at Sembawang Hot Springs, and his improperly licensed/copyvio image Image:MATADOR.JPG. If I need to deal with this image using my tools, I will do it and I will stand by my actions. As I have told Dave1185 previously, if he is unsatisfied with my admin actions he can take it up to WP:Deletion review and WP:ARBCOM.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I've left some comments on the circumstances that led up to this listing on my talk page. I hope that uninvolved editors can, however, discuss the issue here. I note that discussions are open for fourteen days, so there is no rush. I would only note that I see no reason why (and many reasons why not) Rifleman 82 should have to use his admin tools here. That should be up to whoever closes this discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this because there is not enough evidence that this derives from a promotional image released by the copyright holder. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:95355.jpg

No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph. Polly (Parrot) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Spot dino hari.jpg

No evidence of a GFDL license on the source page. Polly (Parrot) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The_Mall_at_Millenia.jpg

Listed as PD by uploader but the source website says all material is Copyrighted. — Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 19

[edit] Image:Bloom C56.jpg

[edit] Image:Stella C29.jpg

[edit] Image:Flora C40.jpg

[edit] Image:Musa C55.jpg

[edit] Image:Layla30.jpg

[edit] Image:Tecna C46.jpg