Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 3 May 5 >

Contents

[edit] May 4

[edit] Image:J0295160.gif

It's From Office Clipart CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G12 (copyvio). BoL (Talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted under CSD I3, actually: according to [1], these images can only be used for non-commercial purposes. Since we don't allow that, they've got to go. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:J0295160.gif

It's from Office Clipart CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ravencondol.jpg

Not owned by uploader, most content on the source site is copyrighted. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wardkimball.jpg

"photograph from out-of-print book Source= self-made". No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder/photographer, nor that the book/photograph is not still under copyright. (Some other dubious "self made" claims by same uploader) Infrogmation (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would delete the unknown image. If I really wanted to see the person, I'd research a little more. Besides, it looks copyrighted - considering Ward was a Disney animator. MagicPath111 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • copyright version at [2] although it doesnt acknowledge any alternate or older source. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Omaha.jpg

No evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly hi! 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Image has the text JoshWarrender3306 which probably relates to Joshua Warrender Photography[3] a commercial photographer of which Omaha skylines is a one of his specialist areas. Dont think a commercial photographer would release an image under a free licence. No evidence that uploader is Josh Warrender or Hill who uploaded it to the source site is either! MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vandellas2.jpg

If it's a promotional photo then the copyright is most likely owned my the record company (i.e. Motown or its parent company), so the uploader does not have the authority to release it under a free license. Hux (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ali-landry-LA.jpg

This is a photo of Ali Landry at a beauty contest. The uploader claims that this photo is licensed under GFDL because it was downloaded from a web site ([4]) that claims "All pictures contained on pages herein were collected freely from the internet and are believed to be public domain.". Those are courageous words from a website who claims that Sam Shaw's famous photo of Marilyn Monroe holding her skirt down over a subway grate is public domain. The web site seems to have thousands of copyrighted photos of celebrities, all of which they "believe" to be public domain. — Thuresson (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

That Marilyn Monroe photo could probably qualify for a fair use rationale since it could be deemed to be an historically significant photo. As far as the Ali Landry photo, there's no evidence that it is not public domain as stated on the source website. Sf46 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't claim it was public domain "as stated on the source website", you claimed it was GFDL. Thuresson (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zerba.pdf

Copied from a book. Uploader does not assert that he is the copyright holder Rettetast (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded from a magazine, not a book, and the article states that it is a copy of a mimeographed puzzle that was in wide circulation at the time, hence uncopyrighted and in the public domain. Canon (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how you go from "wide circulation" to "public domain". A lot of stuff are in wide circulation without being public domain, eg. Harry Potter or Abba songs. Thuresson (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's specious reasoning, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zeb_nutrients_PJN_2004.pdf

No evidence og Public domain or GFDL Rettetast (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedied under I10 (non-media files without encyclopedic relevance). Stifle (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NY WB crests.jpg

Image appears to come from a publication. No explanation of image's origin to justify claim of its public domain status. Lack of information about the image subject and source also severely limits its potential encyclopedic value. — Orlady (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WhitneyHouston20080418.jpg

No evidence the uploader holds copyright, no Metadata so suspicious. Polly (Parrot) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This photo has been posted at a number of celebrity blogs, often at a much higher resolution and first apparently at [5] who credits "Exclusive photos by MO". Thuresson (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WhitneyHoustonBoxingMatch0408.jpg

No evidence the uploader holds copyright, no Metadata so suspicious. Polly (Parrot) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Blatant copyvio. Photo by John Gichigi, Getty Images (link). Thuresson (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Theory Test Pass.jpg

Why should I believe the individual who uploaded it really is whoever designed the certificate? Moreover, why would the creator of the design have scanned it (as indicated by the metadata), rather than making an image out of it by electronic means? -- Smjg (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)