Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 23
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 23
[edit] Image:Mattos.jpg
Images uploaded by Pana ivan are all high-quality, yet low-resolution and cropped and lack EXIF data. The user has not provided adequate source information on any of his uploads, except to mark them as "self-made" and date of the photograph. One of the user's upload was an obvious copyvio of an AP image, and there's no evidence to suggest the other photographs aren't copyrighted either. (Copy from old log) — Matthew_hk tc 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Daizee.jpg
Permission claimed, but no OTRS ticket.
- Also by same uploader:
- Image:Eddie_kingston.jpg
- Image:Chikara_Campeonatos_de_Parejas.jpg
- Image:Grandprix06.jpg
- Image:ChikDel.jpg
- Image:Quackenbush.jpg
- Image:Eban.jpg
- Image:YoungLionscup.jpg
- Image:GranAkuma.jpg
Kelly hi! 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Celtic media.JPG
Uploader claims to have taken the picture on May 17, yet the very image was posted on a message board on May 8 by a richyb83. Mosmof (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawing for now, as uploader says he has permission from original photographer. --Mosmof (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BRball.JPG
Same user as above, uploader claims to have taken the picture on May 17, yet the event pictured will take place in August. The other uploads by the same user, Image:BRCClibrary.JPG, Image:HuebridgeBR.JPG, Image:Celtic media.JPG, are also all low-rez photos of decent qualty, created on May 17. Mosmof (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawing, as uploader says he has permission from original photographer. --Mosmof (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Galapagos4 logo.jpg
Image was uploaded with a fair use tag and a fair use rationale for an article about a record label, and then magically changed to GFDL on a later edit, retaining the rationale. My gut feeling, confirmed after going to the Galapagos4 Web site and finding no indications of free content, is that this is not licensed under GFDL, and is actually non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chelsea Team 1905.jpg
The source website's terms and conditions here, make no mention of cc-by-sa licensing, only the usual dire warnings. Possibly the image is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? Image also exists on Wikimedia Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Upendra1.jpg
Composite image made up of copyrighted screenshots. Polly (Parrot) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cannabis_cultivation_mature_two.jpg
Permission claimed, but no OTRS link. The original photo cannot be viewed on Flickr, and we have no idea what specific license terms the copyright holder agreed to. Kelly hi! 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Justin Weaver.jpg
Likely a promotional image. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Summers Little Angel.jpg
No proof that the artist holds copyright to his own album cover. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elise Primavera at a book signing.jpg
Stated license does not coincide with info at flickr. Uploader claims to have permission from author. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Permission was requested on 15 May[1] and the license has not been changed from a noncommercial one. Kelly hi! 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was another comment some five months earlier. It is possible that a free license release was granted via e-mail at that time. If so, this release needs to be forwarded to OTRS. If an explicit release was not granted, the uploader now has an opportunity to contact the photographer using the contact info at [2]. I would leave this listing active for a week or so to allow for an opportunity to verify a free license release. Of course the image could also be deleted in the meantime and restored when/if a release is granted. If the uploader consents to such conditional deletion, I'll gladly perform it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any need to rush into a deletion. The copyright holder has clearly been made aware that the image is being used here, and apparently hasn't complained. I think it would be fine for the image to stay until permission is granted or this report is processed in the normal course of things (which, given the backlog here, will likely be a couple of months.) Kelly hi! 20:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was another comment some five months earlier. It is possible that a free license release was granted via e-mail at that time. If so, this release needs to be forwarded to OTRS. If an explicit release was not granted, the uploader now has an opportunity to contact the photographer using the contact info at [2]. I would leave this listing active for a week or so to allow for an opportunity to verify a free license release. Of course the image could also be deleted in the meantime and restored when/if a release is granted. If the uploader consents to such conditional deletion, I'll gladly perform it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Apparently this is the permission e-mail, which only re-affirms the noncommercial license on the photo. Kelly hi! 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Buffalobillvaquero.jpg
Photo is a derivative work of a poster. No details on authorship of the poster artwork...we have plenty of free images of Buffalo Bill, this image should probably be deleted. Kelly hi! 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hush-web.jpg
Album cover, uploader is unlikely to hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Q5-web.jpg
Album cover, uploader is unlikely to hold copyright Polly (Parrot) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
