Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 27 May 29 >

Contents

[edit] May 28

[edit] Image:GopherM.JPG

An old image I uploaded, non-free WxGopher (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is an unused image and you are the uploader you can request that it is speedily deleted if you add {{db-author}} to the image. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mohakhaliskyline51.jpg

a "Tmac" at Skyscrapercity is credited, but no evidence that the image is in public domain Mosmof (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:REMsign1.JPG

User claim of PD - But clearly derived from trademarked artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Remslika2.JPG

Clearly derived from copyrighted artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JonPapernickportrait1.jpg

This image is listed as GFDL by the uploader, but the comments say that the photo was (perhaps) taken by the writers wife and is located on the writers website. That does not allow the uploader to use GFDL and this is a BLP - i.e. replaceable fair use doesn't apply. Avruch T 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg

GFDL Claim - but source site says (C) Kevedo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg

GFDL Claim - but source site says (C) Kevedo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg

GFDL Claim - but source site says (C) Kevedo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I am not sure I understand the dispute. The image was taken for the Frat Pack Tribute site. The site owns right to the photo, taken by Vicky Millingon, our UK editor. I am not sure what else I can do to "prove" that I have rights to the photo. Please advise.Kevin Crossman (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The website in question (www.the-frat-pack.com) does list Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United StatesKevin Crossman (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • And ND is not a 'free' licence - Usable under 'fair-use' criteria though ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • So, all Wikipedia images have to be literally free to redistribute and create derivative works from? Is that what you are saying?Kevin Crossman (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - if you know the copyright holder and you can get them to release it with a free to use licence, the procedure is at WP:COPYREQ. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess the "derivative" aspect is the part that bothers me. Can we do ahead and remove the image?Kevin Crossman (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wikki2a.jpg

PD Claim - But clearly trademarked art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wikki_t_shirt_logo2.jpg

PD Claim, but clearly derived from trademarked artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ShowtimeHeadlineEdit.png

Self claim- but looks more like composite , no evidence to say images used are under compatible license Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Farmer451280x800.jpg

Self made looks like self scanned. Garion96 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Or copied from [1], although photo4everyone state that All this photos/pictures/wallpapers from this site are freely available for everyone. it acknowledges in the term of service that the copyright is not allways known! Certainly not self-made and highly likely to be a copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scan0016kom.jpg

Tagged as CC-SA-3.0, and claimed as self made but appears to be a scan from a Magazine— Nigel Ish (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree the meta data and appearance show a scanned image. Some of the uploaders other images are prefixed scan!!! MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)