Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 24 May 26 >

Contents

[edit] May 25

[edit] Image:1 716346917l.jpg

uploader doubtfully owns this image; no information on it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:18681100 w434 h q80.jpg

"I own the right 100 percent". Really? The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Allsport-lemonlime.jpg

Even ignoring the watermark which seems to imply a copyright not belonging to uploader, this is a derivative work. It is copyrighted, and would be fair use. However, it is unused. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bennycoulter.jpg

looks professional; even watermarked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rosscarr.jpg

user with a history of copyright problems. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as CSD I9 as copyvio from [1] from source page [2] www.downgaa.net 2004 All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChurchillDownsSpires.jpg

Bad source for image - also CC-BY-SA-2.5 is not a license option at Flickr. Kelly hi! 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:My-Chemical-Romance-2007.JPG

The image is very low resolution and professionally done, suggesting that it was illegally copied from another site. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely a copyvio, but remember that the reasons you have provided are complete speculation with no actual evidence. asenine say what? 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Larger copy of image [3] that predates upload copyright The Sydney Morning Herald (although they may be re-using a publicity image) certainly does not appear to be self made. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:115844856654l.jpg

Appears to be some form of derivative work of the 60+ year old school's logo/seal.[4] Shawisland (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Blogger screen.jpg

Screenshot of unfree webpage Samuell Lift me up or put me down 04:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is meant by unfree here because I did a print-screen snapshot of the website and then edited it to size. Could you give the reason as to why it is unfree webpage? Tarun2k (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not a webpage which has been released under a free license. Delete it. asenine say what? 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to delete, I changed it to non-free image. Problem solved, why don't people just correct it when it's clearly wrong nowadays? ViperSnake151 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Kept - valid fair use claim. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kraybone_pic.jpg

No evidence of public domain release. Kelly hi! 14:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Newhomes.jpg

Uploader history of copyvio, no camera metadata, web resolution. Kelly hi! 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Somalishop.jpg

Same uploader as above, statement on page that uploader is not copyright holder. Kelly hi! 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Simad.jpg

Same uploader as above, same issues. Kelly hi! 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Somalia-1.jpg

Same as above. Kelly hi! 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Somalippl1.jpg

Same uploader. Derivative of multiple, probably copyrighted works, with no sources given. Kelly hi! 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SajAged14.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:August_A._Busch_III.jpg

Uploaded tagged image with PD-self since image was provided free to the public. No information regarding actual author. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:A-B_Logo_Small.jpg

Uploaded tagged image with PD-self since image was provided free to the public. No information regarding actual author. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:August A. Busch IV.jpg

Uploaded tagged image with PD-self since image was provided free to the public. No information regarding actual author. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adolphus Busch.jpg

Uploaded tagged image with PD-self since image was provided free to the public. No information regarding actual author. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:August A. Busch, Sr..jpg

Uploaded tagged image with PD-self since image was provided free to the public. No information regarding actual author. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lucy7.jpg

No evidence the copyright holder or their heirs have agreed to release the image into the public domain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This tag will be removed as this image falls into the public domain time frame. This image was a studio still and has been released to public domain at the sale of Desilu. Canyouhearmenow 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Only works published before 1923 are guaranteed to be in the public domain. Do you have evidence that this work was previously published or that its copyright has not been renewed? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Federal regulations under the free usage act clearly makes it possible to use an image that has been reprinted more that 5000 times or was published in or before 1945. They did this because many studios liquidated their artist developement departments and originals to these works were lost or originals licenses were now rendured unreliable. Check the Federal guidelines on images of non existant copyright holders. Canyouhearmenow 02:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have never heard of this 5000 reprint rule- you'll need to cite text in Wikipedia guideline. And we have no way of checking what you say about Lucille Ball's rights is true. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JDEAN1.jpg

No evidence the copyright holder or their heirs have agreed to release the image into the public domain Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BOGART01.jpg

No evidence the copyright holder or their heirs have agreed to release the image into the public domain Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TAYLORF2.jpg

No evidence the copyright holder or their heirs have agreed to release the image into the public domain Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Legotech.png

The Lego bricks used are from a site which does not license it's content under a compliant license. The uploader admits this. asenine say what? 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M1s90.jpg

Totally invalid license, improper tagging and all that, this guy has me going around in circles. ViperSnake151 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg

Possible copyright violation from [5]. Uploader seems like an SPA and maybe be a sockpuppet as well. History of problems at Isis Gee. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)