Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 20 May 22 >

Contents

[edit] May 21

[edit] Image:PandR.gif

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ben-brown-blogger-aug-11-2006.png

The Flickr source is actually sourced to this site - although the specific link is now dead, that site displays a copyright notice and no CC license. Kelly hi! 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CoMoflowers.jpg

Private photo on Flickr, cannot verify license. Kelly hi! 03:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the uploader, User:Grey Wanderer seems to be a fairly well-established and respected editor. We let trusted editors sign off on Flickr uploads. There doesn't seem to be anything suspicious about these images otherwise. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Correction... The upload log [1] strongly suggests that this was a Wikipedia-only license, and the uploads were made when the editor was new to wikipedia. Suggest deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The photos were released by the author under a Creative Commons licence, I also stated that they would be used on Wikipedia (and any Wikipedia mirror/leeach). I have an email documenting this on my Flickr account. I'll find this and put it in the proper place this week. Sorry I didn't know I needed to provided documentation at the time I uploaded them. I know better know, but was lazy and waiting for someone to bring up the issue. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept. A week has passed and apparently no documentation has shown up. Can always be re-uploaded with a fit license and documentation. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CoMoPano.jpg

Private photo on Flickr, cannot verify license. Kelly hi! 03:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CoMoMoss.jpg

Private photo on Flickr, cannot verify license. Kelly hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CoMoBlueNote.jpg

Private photo on Flickr, cannot verify license. Kelly hi! 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Irfan Pathan.png

Dead source, cannot verify license. Kelly hi! 03:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Peggymarchyellowpants.jpg

According the summary this from the cover of an album, it's unlikely that it would have released into the public domain as claimed. BlueAzure (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ramy.jpg

I don't quite think this is free. The last time this was put up for dispute, the tag was removed. I believe this is copyrighted material. Mspraveen (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this is not-free? and Why do you believe this is copyrighted material? It would be good if you can provide some supporting claims, like some website where this image is used with copyrights. Also, I see Metadata of the image, in the bottom of the page, and uploader claims he took the image when he met the actress, which makes me believe the uploader is the owner. - KNM Talk 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. Thanks for your concerns. I assume good faith, but sadly many misuse it. The metadata, that you pointed out, contains the following information: Orientation, Horizontal resolution, Vertical resolution, Software used, File change date and time and Color space. This doesn't make me believe that it is an original image. Someone might obtain the image from the internet and say crop it using photoshop (the software that was used here) and upload it. For all reasons, I won't disregard the possibility that the uploaded cropped his/her own image. But, I have my own doubts.
Furthermore, I really wonder the intentions of the person if the previous tag was removed without explanation. If the image uploaded was the copyright holder's, shouldn't he have given an appropriate explanation. I maybe wrong in my belief. But, the metadata (seemingly dubious) and the the image in itself that appears like a promotional picture for an event prompted my actions. It'd be great if the uploader could clear the air. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kanihaa.JPG

I believe this is copyrighted material. Mspraveen (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:428px-001 A.jpg

I don't think that the uploaded actually sought the model/actress's permission before using it here. I contest that claim. Mspraveen (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vishnu 1.JPG

The uploader has previously uploaded images extremely similar in appearance - Image:Female Goddess.jpg and copies - that were originally sourced to an art catalog and then had the license changed to {{PD-self}} when the copyright status was questioned. Given the fact that there is no metadata for this image, I'm extremely dubious that the photo of this sculpture was taken by the user. Kelly hi! 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I took this photograph but it was also published in a catalog. Liguria (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is dubious. I have been assuming good faith, but the circumstances here are drawing on my good will. The information about these images has changed multiple times from the uploader. At one point, the user was claiming they were a relative of the photographer and could therefore release the images. However, a) unless the relative is dead and you are the heir, being related to someone does not mean you can steal their work and give it away for free on the web and b) if you are doing work for a catalog, you are selling your work to the owner of the catalog. Very rarely do commissioned work like this allow the photographer to keep creative control over the content. That is the nature of contract work (or at least in the US). We'd have to have documentation that the copyright owner of the catalog did not retain the copyright of the images within the catalog. All of this is a bit confusing, but it does make me doubt the veracity of the uploader's claims. The only reason I have not speedy deleted these as copyrighted images yet is because I want a 3rd opinion on whether photographs of 3D art can be copyrighted.-Andrew c [talk] 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, absolutely. Though circumstances on photos of 2D art can differ (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag - which also discusses 3D works somewhat), photos of 3D art are nearly always copyrightable because the photographer chooses the lighting, background, angles, composition, etc. Generally the only question with 3D artworks is whether the photo is a copyrighted 2D derivative work of a copyrighted 3D artwork - see Commons:Freedom of panorama. Since this 3D artwork is presumably {{PD-old}}, the only question is the copyright on the photo. Kelly hi! 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am practically the owner of this photograph and I give you the permission to put it on wikipedia, the photograph was also published in a catalog, correct. Liguria (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Kelly hi! 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mandi.jpg

The image is being claimed for use in public domain by saying copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights. However, the disclaimer on the website (source) says that All images are copyright to their respective owners. It is a case of straightforward and blatant falsification of information. Mspraveen (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Blatant copyright violation--NAHID 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Silver spring 002.JPG

Neither the Web site listed here [2], or its indicated successor [3], make any indication that their content is released to the public domain. Silver Spring Penguin, in fact, displays a copyright sign at the bottom of its pages, indicating to me that the site is in fact NOT public domain, and therefore I suspect that it also extends to this image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also adding Image:Silver spring 001.JPG to this PUI discussion, as it is the same image, though with a slightly different source credit. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Haifa bus 37.jpg

No evidence they relesed the image, nor that it's theirs to release. Liftarn (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chris Gaffney.jpg

No evidence from the source page of a CC license. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally emailed the photographer, Jeff Smith, who gave me permission to use this photo and the photo of The Hacienda Brothers. You can contact him at his website (which is clearly credited on the page) and confirm his permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.1.109 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hacienda brothers.jpg

No evidence from the source page of a CC license. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The photographer has given me permission to use his photo. I'm not sure how to provide evidence of that, but he (Jeff Smith) can be contacted at http://www.jeffsmithusa.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.1.109 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)User talk:Glstacks

Image deleted for now. Permission can be sent to permission at wikipedia.org. Rettetast (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bic srk.jpg

screenshot of a TV broadcast, uploader doesn't hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a screenshot of a TV broadbast in the first place. This is a cropped photo from publicity material which has been released on the public domain for promotion of the channel Bindass. Ganeshcp (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Still it doesn't make you the copyright holder to release in public domain. Mspraveen (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fort Minor.jpg

Promotional photograph, no evidence the uploader hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded that image, I can assure you, I had scanned that image from album cover, down scaled it & manipulated its image properties my own, so that it no where holds copyright except that I have provided the free license. i think Such a low-resolution sample image can never be a serious copy right problem. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That doesn't make you the copyright holder, the CC license is clearly incorrect. Polly (Parrot) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RCMP with serge.jpg

Can't confirm license from the source, or that the uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My wife & I took this picture. What information would you like to insure that it's useable? Kylar (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I modified the license on Flickr to CC. If that's not acceptable, please let me know. Kylar (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the license has been changed at Flickr - thanks! Please consider this resolved. Kelly hi! 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Asboprotest.jpg

No copyright holder, unverifiable license. Kelly hi! 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)