Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

1 Instructions
2 Holding cell
3 New listings

3.1 June 1
3.2 June 2
3.3 June 3
3.4 June 4
3.5 June 5
3.6 June 6
3.7 June 7
3.8 June 8
3.9 June 9
3.10 June 10
3.11 June 11
3.12 June 12
3.13 June 13
3.14 June 14

4 Footer
Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied"

If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion I9. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}.

If an image is missing source or license information, place either:

or

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own. It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each user.
Shortcut:
WP:PUI

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

[edit] Instructions

Deletion templates (policy · log)

{{copyvio}}Copyvios (howto · log)
{{ifd}}Images (log)
{{rfd}}Redirects (howto · log)
{{md1}}Miscellaneous (howto · log)
{{delrev}}Deletion review
Articles (howto · log)

{{relist}}   {{subst:prod|why}}

{{subst:afd}}   {{subst:prod-nn}}
Templates (howto · log)

{{tfd|template}}
{{tfd-inline|template}}
{{subst:tfd2|template|why}}

{{tfdnotice}}
Categories (howto · log)

{{cfdnotice}}   {{cfr-speedy}}
{{subst:cfd1}}   {{subst:cfm1| }}

{{subst:cfr1| }}
User categories

{{cfd-user}}   {{cfr-user}}

{{cfm-user}}   {{cfr-user-speedy}}
Stub types
{{sfd-t}}   {{sfd-c}}   {{sfd-r}}
Mergers

{{merge}}
{{mergeto}}   {{mergefrom}}
{{merging}}   {{afd-mergeto}}

{{afd-mergefrom}}
Page moves
{{move}}   {{moveoptions}}
Speedy

{{db-author}}  {{db-web}}
{{db-nonsense}}   {{db-test}}
{{db-nocontext}}   {{db-empty}}
{{db-attack}}   {{db-catempty}}
{{db-band}}   {{db-banned}}
{{db-bio}}   {{db-notenglish}}
{{db-copyvio}}   {{db-repost}}
{{db-vandalism}}   {{db-talk}}
{{db-spam}}   {{db-nocontent}}
{{db-copypaste}}   {{db-r1}}
{{db-imgcopyvio}}

All speedy templates
Unfree images

{{PUIdisputed}}   {{Ifd}}
{{subst:nsd}}   {{subst:nld}}
{{subst:nrd}}   {{subst:rfu}}

{{subst:orfud}}   {{subst:orfur}}
Transwiki (howto · log)

{{Copy to Wikibooks}}
{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}
{{Copy to Wikiquote}}
{{Copy to Wikisource}}
{{Copy to Wikispecies}}
{{Copy to Wiktionary}}
All transwiki templates

This box: view • talk • edit

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

I
Edit the image page.

Add {{pui|log=2008 June 14}} to the image page. If the image is in use, also add {{puic|Image:Image_name.ext|log=2008 June 14}} to the caption(s).
II
Create its PUI subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the image at the bottom of that page using {{subst:pui2|image=Image_name.ext|reason=reason}} — ~~~~. (remember to exclude the Image: prefix).
III
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:idw-pui|Image:Image_name.ext}}

Remember to replace "Image_name.ext" with the name of the image or media

Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.

[edit] Holding cell

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

[edit] New listings

[edit] June 1

[edit] Image:Indian_Meal_Moth_damage.jpg

No evidence permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Indian_Peacekeepers.gif

No evidence permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg

Listed as "Courtesy image" on image source site, not explicitly listed as a US Army/Gov't image BillCJ (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This link should clarify the situation: http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=7158 At the bottom of the page, it states: "Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as "Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army" and credit to individual photographer whenever possible."PistolPete037 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Barbette03.jpg

no evidence that there was no compliance w/ copyright formalities Mangostar (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • What evidence of this negative would you like? The image was published in the United Kingdom in 1926 and was never to the best of my ability to locate published in the United States. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I still believe that this is in the public domain, I have added a fair-use rationale in the event that it is not, as the image is acceptable under WP:FU. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:362011p5ran444z9.jpg

Image name, watermark suggests unfree image. — Amog |Talk 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SOPposternov5.jpg

GFDL claim - But clearly a movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SOPposternov5.jpg

GFDL claim - But clearly a movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Apple-wireless-keyboard-aluminum-2007new.jpg

Product- Does design right exist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • uhh...I thought you couldn't copyright utilitarian objects. We usually don't factor design rights in because this is a PHOTO of something, not an actual something we made a recreation of. ViperSnake151 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yunakimfestaonice.jpg

GFDL Claim - But source listed claims 'All Rights Reserved' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rubyrana.jpg

watermark suggests unfree image — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sumikhadka.jpg

watermark suggests unfree image — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Poonamghimire.jpg

watermark suggests unfree image — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Payal1.jpg

watermark suggests unfree image — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AnitaGurung.jpg

watermark, background logos suggest unfree image — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Missnepal.jpg

Unfree logos of Dabur and Vatika — Amog |Talk 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment:I meant he has uploaded more than the handful of suspected images I've added here.We need someone to check out the rest of his pictures. - Amog |Talk 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HaroldGodwinson.jpg

Not a free image and if fair-use were claimed it would be replaceable either by an image taken from any of several out of print works on numismatics available on Google books, or at the Internet Archive, or by taking a trip to a museum holding one of these coins and making a picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Linux sreenshot.jpg

orphaned, possibly unfree due to Skype logo (and we've gone overboard on the Firefox logo before) ViperSnake151 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, given that the logo is incidental to the image, I would say it is free enough (kind of like of you happen to catch a copyrighted logo on somebody's t-shirt in a crowd). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ANT_NDEC_wiki.jpg

It is likely that ITV reserve exclusive rights to photography of Saturday Night Live, so the stated licensing is invalid. The quality is definitely not worth the dubious copyright status. — BigBlueFish (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the licensing of some of the other uploading user's contributions may also have the same issue. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:InduKotiStotra.jpg

No evidence permission was given to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Interrupted_by_reality_while_dreaming.jpg

Uploader does not appear to be copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2

[edit] Image:Istana_Budaya_and_The_Eye_of_Malaysia.jpg

Insufficient source information to determine the image license. Most Flickr images are released under a Creative Commons license. Nv8200p talk 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Itou_kentarou.jpg

Watermarked with commercial web site name Nv8200p talk 03:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:California Assembly District 41 Map as of January 2007.jpg

This is the work of a state govt, not the federal govt. It is not in the public domain. Lincolnite (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GAOVD Air Liner.jpg

Image is a scan of a postcard refer [1] no evidence at this link or that used by the uploader [2]] that it is a free use image MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Salesianbuilding3.jpg

Seventeen of the 20 images of this high school that were uploaded by Gumba56 and claimed as self-created turn out to have been copied from http://www.salesianhigh.org/ophouse/vtour/vtour.html . The 3 remaining images are similar in appearance and size, so I assume they were also "borrowed" from that website. — Orlady (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Salesiansaints1.jpg

Seventeen of the 20 images of this high school that were uploaded by Gumba56 and claimed as self-created turn out to have been copied from http://www.salesianhigh.org/ophouse/vtour/vtour.html . The 3 remaining images are similar in appearance and size, so I assume they were also "borrowed" from that website. — Orlady (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Salesiansaints2.jpg

Seventeen of the 20 images of this high school that were uploaded by Gumba56 and claimed as self-created turn out to have been copied from http://www.salesianhigh.org/ophouse/vtour/vtour.html . The 3 remaining images are similar in appearance and size, so I assume they were also "borrowed" from that website. — Orlady (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jason_statham.jpg

I'm unable to find anything coroborating at the moment, but this appears to be a copyrighted image uploaded by an WP:SPA to circumvent WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Smulogodontdelete.jpg

I doubt the "self-made"-ness of this. ViperSnake151 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But it has "don't delete" in the file name. Doesn't that inspire confidence about its authenticity? haha... IronGargoyle (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CrystalRiver12345.jpg

Uploader claims public domain and work of US federal government - source website is a non-government site [3] and states all rights reserved MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 3

[edit] Image:Wikipedia passport.png

appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website The Transhumanist    21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Interlingual Barnstar-small2.png

appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website The Transhumanist    21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Interlingual Barnstar-small.png

appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website The Transhumanist    21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Interlingual Barnstar.png

appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website The Transhumanist    21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I made this image and I don't know what the rules are about using a copyrighted image and changing it. Does the new image then belong to me? How much does something have to be changed to make it different enough from the copyrighted image that it isn't an issue anymore?--Silversmith Hewwo 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
See Sample (music) and Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films. Basically, where any potential copyright case is concerned, imagine the judge you would be brought in front of as an old one-eyed Pakistani guy with a two foot beard who has spent all his life sitting under a tree rocking back and forth chanting verses from the Qur'an except for the occasional legal case where someone has got his attention long enough for him to point his finger and yell "Death!", and you have a good idea of the American legal system. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Blue_Marble_Puzzle_Globe_in_stand_with_passport.png

Wikipedia != source - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

it has come to my attention that an image this is derived from appears to be a derivation of a copyrighted image from a commercial retail website
The Transhumanist    21:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:300px-National_Nine_News_2008.png

Clearly LOGO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:National_Nine_News_2008.png

Clearly Logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like something that should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shreky.jpg

Clearely not a PD-Self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fifiona.jpg

Clearly not PD-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pussyboots.jpg

Clearly not pd-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lipovo_from_space.jpg

Unsourced - Is it feasible uploader has access to arieal photo imagery? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MrsDoubtfireMovieP.jpg

Clearly not Pd-Self - Movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fel_Sala_1.jpg

No evidence given to support GFDL claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fel_sala_1.jpg

No evidence to support GFDL claim, Permission claim but no OTRS ref Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Al-khatib.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license. Polly (Parrot) 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The photo was taken from the Syrianhistory.com website of Sami Mubayyed. Other photos have been taken from the website before with consent of Sami (see this one for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashim_Atassi_Inauguration_1936.jpg). And the same goes for the rest of the photos that you tagged. Yazan (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That one's public domain so is fine. Polly (Parrot) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If the one's you uploaded are public domain in Syria, then you should alter the licensing to reflect that. Polly (Parrot) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But it was published on Wikipedia first. I'm sorry, I might not get this well yet, what exactly should I do in this case?Yazan (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried adding the Public Domain template to the photo license but it didn't work (Template:PD-Syria). Yazan (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I emailed Sami Mubayed again about the photos and he assured me that i have full permission to use them on wikipedia under a CC license. Can I remove the "possibly unfree image" tags?

One other thing, why does the PD template works on that photo but doesnt work with the rest? Thanx Polly. Yazan (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 10#Syrianhistory.com. howcheng {chat} 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Noureddinatassi.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license. Polly (Parrot) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Al-kasm.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Khoury-UNSC.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fares al-Khoury1.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shishakli 1.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Khalid al-azm.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nazim al-Kudsi.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Al-ayyubi.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license Polly (Parrot) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CCF Flag CGGS.jpg

How can a logo coined in 1856 be GFDL?? — Happy‑melon 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Muhammed Faris, First Syrian Space.jpg

No source given, wrongly subst'd license reason, probably a FU replaceable since it is of a living person. MBisanz talk 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wbepic.gif

There are two issues with this image. First, this image does not add anything to the article in which it is used which could not also be expressed (and in a more accessible fashion) in plain text. Second, the image contains likely unfree clip art for which no source or licensing information has been provided. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - I beleive it's a matter of opinion as to whether the image adds value or not. I have been careful for reasons of accessibility to include the information in writing as well as in the picture. However it is much easier for a user to see and digest the flow of interactions in a diagramatic form than in a bulleted list. I have just checked the licensing terms of the clip art i used (in microsoft word) which states that it can be used in the creation of websites. I agree however that I need to list it's source with the image, and so I will do so. Your first point could be valid (depends on the consensus on this) but your second point shouldn't be valid once I have added this info. Cheers James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtq4u (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest it could be easily re-worked without the clip art and still serve the same purpose. Although can a created image of this sort be original research! MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we have any evidence that the clipart is non-free? -- Ned Scott 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The diagram does add value to the article. The article itself was AFDed. The close was disputed but I have arranged usefication rather than going to the trouble of DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - According to the section of the license agreement cited on the image description page, the clip art is licensed for commercial use (specifying websites and software, although I believe it's reasonable to include printed material under the "websites" criteria since, well, you can print a website), derivative works, and further distribution--unless I'm missing something, there's actually no attribution requirement, which makes this license even more liberal than the {{cc-by-3.0}} often used by the Wikimedia foundation for licenses. While {{attribution}} would probably be the more appropriate, this clearly qualifies as "free" content for the purposes of Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    It still sounds like it might only be valid for things directly involving the user who owns the program. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ike.jpg

This is a different image than what was licensed as public domain. It looks like a video game character so likely copyrighted and orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete the hell is that public domain :D Happy‑melon 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tagged at as CSD I9 as copyvio of [4] Copyright © 2008, Gametrailers Corp. All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 4

[edit] Image:LLonAB.jpg

Seems like a copyrighted screenshot. — Spellcast (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Cropped version of [5] from [6] World Wide Entertainment USA, Inc.. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tagged as CSD I9. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SuttonFoster.JPG

The uploader of this photo was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. This picture is very low resolution, contains no metadata, and like other pictures by the uploader, that I found the original source of, all but the person's head has been cropped out of the photo. BlueAzure (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vayutri.jpg

Appears to be a scan of a tourist map of India. Appears to be a good faith mistake, as the uploader probably did create the scan, just not the map. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jhgtrei.jpg

Looks like a publicity photo to me. No meta-data, obviously very 'shopped, studio picture, downsized, etc. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not downsized or even altered www.galatta.com/OfficialSites/minnale/html/images/thepair.jpg just taken straight from a website www.galatta.com/OfficialSites/minnale/html/index.htm. (Sorry link is blocked by spam filter) MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Raymond08.jpg

Looks like a publicity photo of sorts. No meta-data, downsized, looks posed. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Israelreaction2003.JPG

Low resolution, no meta-data, very news-papery type shot. Possibly taken from a news website. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Turkishpeople.JPG

Appears to be taken from a news-site- low resolution, it's a long time after the event, etc. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uploads by User:Mickey117

Mickey117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has uploaded numerous images with incorrect free copyright tags and others in which he/she is unlikely to be the copyright holder (studio portraits of prominent politicians, etc). I've fixed licenses where I can but the following images likely require deletion. Even if in the public domain due to age (50 years after publication), Lebanese copyright law requires attribution of the photographer in perpetuity.

  • Image:Suleiman Frangieh, Jr.jpg
  • Image:Bkhoury.gif
  • Image:Foadchehab.gif
  • Image:Charleshelou.gif
  • Image:Amin-Gemayel.jpg
  • Image:René-Mawad.jpg
  • Image:Hraoui.gif
  • Image:Emile-Lahoud.jpg
  • Image:Elias-Sarkis.gif
  • Image:Charlesdebbas.gif
  • Image:Habibbs.gif
  • Image:Alfred-naccache.gif
  • Image:Ayoub.gif
  • Image:Petro-Trad.gif

Kelly hi! 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BayanModified.GIF

Image from a user with a history of uploading copyright violations as his/her own work. I have no idea what this actually is, but it is not in line with the user's other uploads, so may actually be free. As such, I am bringing it for discussion here rather than deleting outright. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's basically an official statement issued by the Hawza Elmiye Qom, of which I have a copy, and obviously this statement is not copyrighted. I have scanned the document and produced an image of it. So the image is created by me, and I can release it into public domain. The only website which uses this image is Ayatollah Lankarani's Official website which has no copyright associated with any of its contents. The page [7] which uses this image doesn't mention any copyright associated with this image, and they can't have copyrights because it's a public statement. Last but not least: Your accusation user with a history of uploading copyright violations as his/her own work has yet to be proved, you have no ground for making any such statement. NEDian (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea who the Hawza Elmiye Qom is- why is what they say automatically in the public domain? Have they been dead for years or something? Also, items only have 'no copyright associated with their content' if they explicitly released the content. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hawza Elmiye Qom is an Iranian organization, and what we are discussing is not an image rather it's a public letter/statement/notice which anyone can include in his works, like I pointed out the page [8] earlier. To publish this statement here, I have made an image of it. What's the copyright issue, please guide me... NEDian (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, until you show us that the writings of this organisation are in the public domain (as, say, a lot of the work US governmental agencies is) we have to assume that the image is made up of copyrighted work, the same way that photographing a page from a modern novel would be. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JFRescue.PNG

Looks to be very old and of web resolution. Unlikely to have been created by the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Original picture is in my photo album and was taken with a Kodak Instamatic camera in the summer of 1969 in Jacksonville, immediately before a Three Dog Night concert at the Jacksonville Memorial Coliseum. I scanned the image and cropped the sky and pavement before posting it. Mgreason (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Patrick Vieira.jpg

Web resolution, no meta-data, the 'author' does not know the date it was taken. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yuku.JPG

Vanity, NN. WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Not used on any pages. Page also states "copyright by baller_baby--baller_baby's own work" despite GFDL tag. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • One still retains copyright even if they release an image under the GFDL. If you think it should be deleted for any other reason then you need to list this at WP:IFD. -- Ned Scott 10:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg

"uploaded from my computer" does not give clear indication of the source of this image or it's copyright status. Rtphokie (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SFHGroup-logo(smaller).gif

Appears to be a corporate logo, unlikely to be free. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • While the uploader cannot release the image into the public domain, the image itself might be ineligible for copyright since it is mostly just text. Most logos can only be trademarked and not copyrighted for this reason. Suggest tagging with {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Ned Scott 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:David Archuleta.jpg

According to the metadata, The copyright holder is FilmMagic. Lionheart1979 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Yep. [[9]] I will delete it myself. I wish people would stop with doing this. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Uploader has now replaced deleted image with a different version (not the same as link provided above) and duplicated it for good measure Image:David Archuleta (v2).jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Second image flagged for deletion as redundant. Kelly hi! 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:I-31269.jpg

(no reason given) Wikidās-ॐ 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete, definitive copyright violation. Also fgsfds. ViperSnake151 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 5

[edit] Image:Uncut erected penis foreskin retrected2.jpg

As per this entry[10] on the Penis article talk page, this image appears to be a cropped version of another photograph, and not an image of the uploading users' penis as described on the image page. Deadly∀ssassin 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KateVoegele.JPG

Appears to be promo photo, used at the artist's official site, katevoegele.com (beware the auto-playing music!). No evidence to suggest self-made license is valid. Mosmof (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree it is two images from her myspace page [11], if you look at the image you can see where the two images dont line up on the left. Bottom image [12] and top image [13]. Suggests copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lbcn06.gif

Orphaned image. Listed as public domain but possibly copyrighted logo. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IbizaWilmingtonlogodecember.JPG

Orphaned, possibly unfree, logo for deleted article Ibiza (Nightclub) Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RedsPhillies+051.jpg

Don't know what CopyrightedFreeUse means but the blog seems to use a lot of images, most of which are probably not their copyright. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cloutier-stance.jpg

Names "Noah Thomas" as photographer. However, Thomas is a Getty Images photographer, so even if uploader and photog were the same person, he would not own the copyright to the image. Mosmof (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gaborik canuck.jpg

Appears to be Photoshop of this Getty Images photo. Copyright still belongs to Getty, free license does not apply. Mosmof (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ICCpune.jpg

Image uploaded by a user who has also uploaded images from other sites as their own. They claim the source on this one is 'website', but I cannot find it online and it looks more like they may have taken it themselves (fullsize, meta-data). J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: I will update new version of image that will comply with copyrights. ``Kriegg552``,(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume then it wont be another copy of [14] which appears on [15] it was uploaded in 2006 and is credited to photos copyright cncity. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hussein-Fatal.jpg

No evidence that the uploader has the right to release this image Stifle (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Couture.jpg

No evidence that the uploader has the right to release this image Stifle (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - a crap image with no usage. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rock_Band_Icons.svg

These images are a derivative work of the icons which appear in the game and as such are copyrighted by the gamedesigners. (see http://www.rockband.com/ Game info). Lokal_Profil 13:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This also applies to: Image:RB_Guitar_Icon.svg, Image:RB drum icon.svg, Image:RB Vocals Icon.svg and Image:RB Bass Icon.svg. Fair use might be applicaple for Rock band but use in userboxes would not be ok. /Lokal_Profil 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Big202115.jpg

I'm not certain here, but the licensing says that it is free for informational use, and does not explicitly say that it is free for modification. I believe that that would make it non-free according to the guidelines presented by the policy pages. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"without restriction on the amount of material" seems to imply to me that the content can be changed. The original material in any derivative work is a variable amount. I am pretty certain this is free enough for us. There may also be other relevant Russian government statutes as well, although I'm not aware of them. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems free enough for me. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hose.jpg

Suspicious image. Of web resolution, the meta-data says it was modified in 2005, but it was uploaded in 2006. It also has two conflicting copyright tags. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Myfairbrady.jpg

Seems unlikely that uploader is the copyright holder for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lullabystarsailor.jpg

Appears to be a still from a music video. No evidence and no likelihood that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Poor misguided fool video.jpg

Appears to be a still image from a video, no evidence uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zcbilogo.jpg

Copyrighted image; no assertion of ownership or rights granted. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Goodsouls.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Silence is easy.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Born again.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Keepus.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Inthecrossfire.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fourtf2.jpg

Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ShowLetter-5.jpg

no evidence on source site that images is attribution only. Garion96 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Europe_flags.gif

No evidence of GFDL Rettetast (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 6

[edit] Image:US Sevens Rugby Team in New Zealand.jpg

Tagged PD with a claim of permission, but Flickr page has clear 'all rights reserved' notice. No evidence to suggest uploader is the image's creator. KrakatoaKatie 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the permission section of the summary the message is a copy that explicitly states the photographers willingness to allow it to be used on the article, I dont see how that can be disputed, but if you are not happy with this I will reemail the photographer asking for a lisence chnage if you are still not satisfied. Taifarious1 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the permission section of the summary it says use in wikipedia article only - which I dont think is acceptable it has to be free use for any purpose. Need to send Wikipedia a copy of the email please refer WP:COPYREQ. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have sent a copy of both emails asking for and the response by the author for permission to the Wikimedia Foundation about the validity of the permission granted, but if they find that wished expressed by the author does no suit Wikipedia guidelines, is it still possible to ask the author to license his photograph under a Wikipedia compatible license? Taifarious1 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's best to ask the author to release the work under a compatible license. howcheng {chat} 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't heard back from the WF about the legitimacy of the permission but i have a feeling i may have to ask anyway. Taifarious1 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I work the OTRS permissions queue and I can tell you that's no good. Permission for Wikipedia is not the same as permission for anyone to use for any purpose -- the latter is what is required. howcheng {chat} 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just mailed the photographer requesting that he add a creative-commons compatible Flickr license on the photo. So, am I right in the belief that if he does not wish to change it, that the image will be deleted? Taifarious1 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jeff Hardy Tag Team Champ.jpg

iMatthew T.C. 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kobe_Bryant_Lakers_Celtics.jpg

Flickr source shows all rights reserved. Sole photo uploaded by user (same name as Flickr uploader, by the way). Image orphaned. Kelly hi! 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1950s_Tennis_at_Pinelands_Club,_Cape_Town.jpg

No indication the Filckr uploader is the photographer. Kelly hi! 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mudkip.gif

Look at the image, seems to be well know, and the same of origaln OsamaK 11:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. So I hurd you liek copeerite violationz? ViperSnake151 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:38064235 bel celebrate300x300.jpg

Low resolution, no meta-data, border. Looks like it was taken from another website. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bapu.jpg

Author makes a paltry claim that they created the foto, but it seems doubtful, the tagging is incorrect. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging has been corrected. Let me know if there is still an issue.--rohitom (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Villianc.svg

[16] is a Google search for this, and from what I can tell it's a derivitive image of a copyrighted cartoon character. Therefore, it is non free and should only be used on claim of fair use. ...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closed. Firstly, the image is on Commons, so there is nothing you can do here anyway. Second, we've already been through this: see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Villianc.svg. In summary, this is not Snidely Whiplash -- he's green for one thing -- and any similarity is a coincidence because both are based on stereotypical concepts of villains, with the handlebar mustache and whatnot. howcheng {chat} 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Image:Painting2.jpg

No evidence uploader is the painter of this image. Kelly hi! 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hands.jpg

No evidence of PD status at given source. Kelly hi! 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Innovative Learning Logo.jpg

I doubt that the logo for a for-profit corporation is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JohnGray.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 20:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:This Cruel World Album Cover.jpg

Unless the uploader is an executive with the recording company, they could not have created the image theirself. Corvus cornixtalk 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Salmela Anssi 07 01 Tappara.jpg

The image looks to be professionaly posed, no explanation as to how the uploader is the copyright holder. Corvus cornixtalk 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Avianca Airbus A320-200 F-MM BZ 3408.jpg

Same image (different size) as [17] from [18] photo taken by Yannick Delamarre/French Frogs Aviation Pictures no proof uploader or stated author Ricardo Ariza is the same person MilborneOne (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Photosation_30_mar_2008_(4).jpg

A fan site is likely NOT the copyright holder of the image and therefore has no authority to release it under the GFDL. howcheng {chat} 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for your information the copyright of the photo is held by the official fan club itself including all other photos of the singer, if you want to know. It is the singer's official group and the images have been released as GFDL. Why don't you contact them if you don't beleive me? The fanclub is the official copyright holder. And also, the websit eis NOT a fan site, it is inf act the singer's official website and all the picutes belong to the website itself.

Thank you for your cooperation. Blytonite (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, even if it's the singer's official fan club, they certainly still don't hold the copyright -- that belongs to the photographer or his/her employer. Now if the photographer is an employee of the management company, or if the photographer's contract with the singer explicitly grants copyright to the singer, that would be a different story. Simply owning a copy of the photo (physical or digital) is not the same as being the copyright holder. howcheng {chat} 05:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Howcheng, I'm a member of the singer's official website. I know the photographer (his name is David Abdullah) and I guess the copyright status is held by both the singer (Amal Hijazi) and her production company (Rotana). Rotana usually gives away the pictures or album artwork as a GFDL and even the photographer has released it under GFDL if you see the official website. Even still the picture is certainly released under GFDL and so are most of the singer pictrues as far as I know. If you really don't beleive me, Howcheng, you are free to either e-mail Rotana to ask the photographer, David, for the copyright status.

Looking forward for your reply.

Thanks! Sweet sarah 1984 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for your information the photographer's contract with the singer explicitly grants copyright to the singer. This is IT! If you don't beleive me, please contact the singer directly from her official website or just contact her production company Rotana. I've wasted enough time arguing with you adminstrators. I upload pictures which are fully FREE and yet you guys delete them. Do you really enjoy doing this? But mind me, I will NOT give up until I have found justice!!!!! Thank you for your cooperation,

Blytonite (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:98 Honda Integra Type R.jpg

"Released by Honda Motor Company" but no evidence of release provided. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Photosation_30_mar_2008_.284.29.jpg>

Well, for your information the copyright of the photo is held by the official fan club itself including all other photos of the singer, if you want to know. It is the singer's official group and the images have been released as GFDL. Why don't you contact them if you don't beleive me? The fanclub is the official copyright holder. Thank you for your cooperation. Blytonite (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] June 7

[edit] Images uploaded by User:SlimVirgin

The following images have e-mail permission claimed but lack ticket #'s from OTRS. (Note - there are a few that refer to an OTRS ticket from the Animal Liberation Front. However, that OTRS ticket only referred to a few specific images, with a claim that photos taken on behalf of the organization were PD. Details on the ticket here. The images I've listed here have no indication they were taken by the ALF.)

The following image has a PD claim, including a source that supports that claim, but I think the source is incorrect. The source states this is a "courtesy photo" from Israel, and, according to Israeli copyright law, this photo should enter the public domain 50 years after publication. (20112012) (See Commons:Copyright tags#Israel.)

Listed by Kelly hi! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here, but most of these are free images, released by the people who took them, and most have OTRS tickets, or were cropped from images on the Commons, or are old images. The claim that an image taken during an ALF raid was not taken by the ALF is particularly strange — unless you were there when the image was taken, Kelly, and know something the rest of us don't. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you specify which of the images have OTRS tickets (aside from the ALF ticket I mentioned above) or are cropped from Commons images? I thought I read the image description pages carefully - I even had an OTRS volunteer look up the ALF OTRS ticket, as mentioned above. Kelly hi! 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The ones I've looked at are self-explanatory e.g. the Keith Mann images. I've e-mailed permissions to ask if there's a problem with the OTRS tickets. If there isn't — and I'm pretty sure there isn't — the images are fine. If any pages are missing their tickets, I'll add them once I've heard back from permissions. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Keith Mann images is that there's no evidence they were taken by the ALF, and they weren't mentioned in the OTRS ticket that was placed (by the uploader, not an OTRS worker) on the image description pages. Kelly hi! 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The Israeli image would seem to not be due to enter the public domain until 2012, according to the citation of Israeli copyright law in Commons. It seems to have been uploaded under the misconception that all government pictures are public domain, but that's only true of U.S. federal government pictures (taken by employees, not outside contractors), and maybe some other countries, but not all countries or their subdivisions. Israel apparently has a 50-year copyright on government photos. The picture may be a legitimate candidate for a fair use rationale, but is mistagged as public domain. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Eichmanntrial image looks PD and okay to me. I don't have time to look through the other images to see if they're alright. Wizardman 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the links to Israeli copyright law? Kelly hi! 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess the question is whether or not the Isreali government put it in the public domain outright, waiting the 50 years. Proof or disproof of that would make for an easy decision. Wizardman 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The presumption has to be that its not public domain until someone can show otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Proof by assertion isn't. Each image should carry a clear link to something demonstrating its license (a statement on the page it was copied from, along with a link to the page, or an OTRS ticket reference that covers the image explicitly, or a statement that it was self authored, or similar...) The {{information}} template is very useful for organizing this. The onus is on the uploader to correct issues, not on the person notifying the uploader, of the issue to fix things. That is practice here and has been for a long time. Accusing a volunteer doing their job of various things (harassment, creating extra work, and the like) isn't really appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The page linked to as the source ([24]) describes the photo as public domain, and it's part of the United States Holocaust Museum website. That seems credible to me.-Polotet 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've also looked at some of the others, and it seems that at least some of them are from sites which grant permission to use the photos, including [25], which states "Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source." and [26], which states "Anyone wishing to use the original AAPN photographs on this site is welcome to do so." It seems like some of these images are fine and the ones that do have problems don't all have the same problem; it would probably be much more useful to group them based on source or alleged problem and discuss each group separately.-Polotet 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Images from factoryfarm.org are noncommercial use only.[27] I'll take another look at the AAPN photo(s) and strike them through if necessary. Kelly hi! 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Factoryfarm.orgs terms are a bit unclear; that page does say "You may use this site for noncommercial or personal use only. No content of this site, including the text, images, audio and video may be copied, distributed, modified, reused, reposted or transmitted for any commercial purpose without our prior express written permission.", but it prefaces that with "Except as may be otherwise indicated within this site," and all of the image pages state ""Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source," with no commercial restrictions. While it would be best to get official emailed confirmation of the license, my interpretation would be that the terms on the image pages are the controlling ones.-Polotet 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's some ambiguity in the language there. Is "permission to reprint" the same thing as "permission to redistribute the photos on other websites"? The use of "reprint" would suggest that they're thinking of hard copies, not electronic copies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
For our purposes at Wikipedia, that statement is perfectly clear. They are discussing republication permissions, which is a different matter from copyright release. Wikipedia cannot restrict downstream uses of its material to noncommercial entities, so it rejects such terms. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be noted that Israeli copyright law was rewritten recently and entered into force may 2008 although I don't know how that impacts past crown copyright images.Geni 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Israel changed their copyright term to life+70, but that did not affect stuff that was already in the public domain, unlike the Russian copyright law changes from earlier this year. Kelly hi! 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That is for general photos yes but are the changes with respect to goverment produced images retrospective or not?Geni 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah - yes, government works are still released into the public domain ~50 years after publication, this did not change. So the Eichman image should enter the public domain on January 1, 2012. Kelly hi! 17:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we take the museum's word for it? The museum is a credible source. If the museum is wrong, the worst that will happen is someone will at some point ask us to take it down. We shouldn't get so bogged down by becoming unreasonably strict about verifying copyright -- the marginal cost increases way past the marginal benefits. The museum is a more credible source than most users, who often upload pictures and release them. If we trust them, then we can trust the museum. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:PD SerbiaGov Images

Many images in this category, especially photographs of the Serbian military, are not "official material" in the sense of the copyright exemption of Serbian law. Their source websites assert copyright. The exemption in Serbian Law is only for laws, governmental decrees and other similar material of comparable official status. It does not cover all government publications such as decorative images on government websites, government-published magazines and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

... I'll stop listing here - there are many other parallel cases, mostly by the same small number of uploaders. Please delete all others in the category, except official coats of arms, emblems et cetera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolute nonsense. Sorry this is not an insult but a fact. You didn't bother to read the law but came out of the blue with this request which has got nothing to do with reality. Law says ANY material which means anything produced by the state body or a body performing public functions and these are Government, President, Municipalities, Army etc. This material can be document, photograph, chart, report, text, law, decree etc. Anything they make is in PD unless stated otherwise (websites created by third party are copyrighted, you can't take the design of official websites if they were made by private agencies for an example the website of President was made by third party while the MFA website was made by them therefor they can't put copyright tag for website design or for an example photos made by agencies which are just reused on government website but this is stated clearly in a form of water tag over the image saying AFP or whoever is the original copyright holder). --Avala (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. No need to be insulting. I did read the law, did you? [28] Maybe you are confusing the Serbian with the US law? The US government indeed exempts all things produced by its employees. The Serbian government exempts only:
1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;
2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
3) Official translations of regulations and official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
4) Submissions and other documents presented in the administrative or court proceedings.
I concede "official materials" is somewhat ill-defined. What exactly is official and what isn't? But the very use of the qualifier "official" implies that there is an understood distinction between official items and unofficial ones – if there wasn't, they wouldn't use any qualifying adjective at that point. If they meant to say "any material", why don't they just say "any material"? I don't know where they would draw the boundary, but I'm pretty certain a magazine published by the government for the entertainment of its military, or a picture gallery on a government website, would fall on the unofficial side. If you can prove the law is interpreted differently, please let us know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Because any material means anything at all while official material can be produced only by state bodies and bodies performing public functions. Laws have to be precise. You wont see the word any that often in laws. For an example all ex Yugoslavia state laws are somewhat similar, there are no great differences and Croatian govt website has a clear note where it says all the material is in PD (their law requires attribution though). Serbian govt website wasn't that clear but I explained it to you - anything produced by the govt except the reproduction of the third party work is in PD.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be mistaken about the Croatian case too - that website too [29] asserts "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia", so even though they then grant free use, they explicitly don't place it into the public domain. Also, the absence of copyright lawsuits is not a very convincing argument against the existence of copyright. And my point about the use of "official" still stands. These regulations are found in the laws of many European countries, and for all I can see they all seem to be intended for a much smaller class of items. I'll happily accept if I'm proven wrong; if as you say you know something to the contrary that is actually sourced and not just your personal opinion, please tell us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning of lawsuits was additional information, not the final evidence. And regarding Croatia, yes the form is different but the idea is the same - PD or free use both countries allow the material to be reused. One uses the formulation of "Content from these pages can be used without a prior consent by the author under the condition that the source of information is quoted." while the other puts it into it's law.--Avala (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you've still not done anything but asserting your personal beliefs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And you have? It's your belief that this law doesn't cover non-textual material even though it doesn't mention anything of that sort. It could as well be the so called "legal hole" where the law is not clear enough and should be changed (and the Copyright Agency of Serbia has indeed called for changing of this law but in their proposal this article would remain unchanged) but in continental law that Serbia is using if the law doesn't make exemptions (f.e. all official material except photography) then it means all official material. If we would start exempting something it would mean that we are expanding the law, for which we have no authority. I have contacted several official bodies and legal team of the Government for the official explanation (though considering the possible ambiguity of the law we have to wait and see if I will receive coherent answers). Keep in mind that this law hasn't been tested in court regarding the Article 6. Obviously no one felt an urge to ask for the Supreme Court opinion and the Government never objected the usage of it's material under Article 6 (which brings us to conclusion that the Government shares the opinion of Wikipedia that such material is in PD). --Avala (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll gladly accept whatever those guys say, if they answer, thanks for making that inquiry. But in the absence of an answer, I'm afraid we'll have to stick with what they already have told us: "Copyright 2008 © Ministry of Defence, Republic of Serbia". That's what they say. If your interpretation of the law was correct, that copyright mark would be nonsense. These guys are explicitly saying that they, the government, do own copyright for what they publish. It can't really get any clearer, can it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It refers to the website design which is in lack of other better laws considered a publication as a book or a magazine.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If the website design is copyrighted, it clearly can't be meant to be "official material" in the sense of that law. And why then would the photos on the website be "official material" when the website itself is not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Website is not the work of the Government but of the third party agency which is not an official body. I thought I wrote this.--Avala (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you know? It says "copyright Ministry of Defense", it doesn't say "copyright agency so-and-so". By the way, a genuine question: what does the following mean: "Sva prava zadržana, Zabranjena je reprodukcija u delini i u delovima bez dozvole" It's in the copyright notice of the Serbian Army website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it should be explained in the impressum though not all websites have it available. It's a generic copyright sentence. I am not sure if the army can be called an official body at this moment as it is in transition from independent body to civilian run body. That is why I avoided uploading army material under PD tag, I even wanted them removed but I did not push for it too much because of the unclear status of the army so I didn't want to wrongfully remove content. Government, President and Municipalities that's where I have no doubt - they are official bodies. --Avala (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Chuckle. Of course an army is always an official body of the state. "Civilian-run" only means they get subordinated to the ministry of defense, rather than constituting an independent structure directly under the president. "Civilian" doesn't mean "private". (Come on, an army's job is to kill people, one would hope they'd at least only do that in an official function and not privately, wouldn't one?) – Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, but this comment of yours gives me further doubt about whether you understand law as well as you seem to think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Formulation of the Army Law defines it as a force, subordinated to President as the Commander in Chief. It doesn't fall under the precise definition of the state body. That is what I meant to say. Words "force" and "state body" are not the same. When army was an independent body (and not state body) it had it's own court. Military courts have recently been abolished which means army is now under regular state laws and regular courts. On the other hand Government is clearly defined as a "state body" and that is why we have no doubts about it, but the army situation is not that clear. So on this day army can probably be considered a state body falling under all state laws without exception, which wasn't the case before. Hope I made myself clearer.--Avala (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the question is whether the army comes under the same copyright regime as the government. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that all arms of the state - including the armed forces - are subject to the same rules on copyright.
I have to ask, has anyone actually tried contacting the Serbian government to ask whether their images can be reproduced? It seems like an obvious step. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala said he did, above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No reply yet. Just from some agency that deals with intellectual property but they thought I was asking them about the website design. They also told me to contact the Government directly and I am still waiting for the Government. --Avala (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - just as an FYI, I made a request for some expert help here. Kelly hi! 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, certainly a good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Expert help? I am sorry but only Serbian law makers are expert on Serbian law, not the Wikipedia interpreters.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Including you? Kelly hi! 18:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not a law maker but I do know the copyright law and court decision enough to say that the Government never sued anyone for copyright. Wondering why? Take a look at Serbian copyright law - Article 6, Paragraph 2 .--Avala (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone erased heaps of images by his own decision. That was a very bad move.--Avala (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jennifer Lavoie March 31 2007.jpg

Appears to be a crop from a professionally shot image - publicity pic, Playboy, other magazine? - no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SMALL WIKI POSTER.jpg

I doubt that a DVD cover is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SR-Good-Night.jpg

Where is the proof of "permission"? -Nard 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CatherineDaza.jpg

Claimed as own work by User:Essence5, which seems unlikely based on the user page. Appears to be a professional shot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 8

[edit] Image:Garry Kasparov - New York 2003 .png

Uploader asked for use "on the Wikipedia page of Garry Kasparov" and then tagged the image as GFDL, even though the copyright holder was never informed that he would be releasing the image under the GFDL. I am contacting the copyright holder with a request that is in line with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, but the image should be deleted if I can't get a response back in good time. — Ryan Delaney talk 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:U2crokepark05.jpg

Taking a look at this user's talk page, I must call into question the validity of the licensing information. It's possible that this user did not take this photograph. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:100 1037 (Medium).JPG

Appears to be of living people, yet is tagged as non-free MBisanz talk 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Iain Duncan Smith2.jpg

No link provided to the exact location of the image, and I cannot find the claim that images are available under a CC licence on the website. mattbr 12:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Foxy Brown.jpg

Given the uploader's history of uploading fair use pics under free licenses (as well as a block), this is almost certainly a copyvio. — Spellcast (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:RossHutchins.jpg

Appears to be copied from a website; given uploaders history with copyrights, likely invalid license and actually a copyvio ZimZalaBim talk 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stantennis.jpeg

Appears to be copied from a website; given uploaders history with copyrights, likely invalid license and actually a copyvio ZimZalaBim talk 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bruins1989.jpg

Appears to be copied from a website; given uploaders history with copyrights, likely invalid license and actually a copyvio ZimZalaBim talk 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vinkwimbledon.jpg

Appears to be copied from a website; given uploaders history with copyrights, likely invalid license and actually a copyvio ZimZalaBim talk 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JulietGellatley.jpg

No evidence image has been released under license claimed. Kelly hi! 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. DurovaCharge! 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ibnmyatt.png

No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of this image. Kelly hi! 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you like the evidence? How can this be supplied? It never appeared before him. AWT (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't send off red flags for me. Has the appearance of a home snapshot. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Daniel alcides.jpg

Nominated for deletion on commons from which we learn that this is from bnp.gob.pe. Peruvian copyright is life+70, and this is presumably made from life, subject died in 1885 . No idea whether Peru has a no-authorship provision or whether this was published in the US prior to 1923. Probably PD but not certainly PD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scan0001kompik.jpg

Appearance and metadata show a scanned image from book or magazine MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

also

Uploader User:Kompikos has other images which are also suspect. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RunicArmanenFutharkCirclecopyrightVictorOrdellLKasen.JPG

I'm not convinced, based on layout, design, etc., that this is ineligible for copyright. Kelly hi! 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - image has been deleted before. Kelly hi! 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
How many times? I gave details. The link is on the main site: http://geocities.com/fjornpim/ and the direct link is http://geocities.com/fjornpim/runecircles.htm Not only did Mr., Kasen give me permission but on his site it says that they can be used as long as credit is. I have supplied sources. It is to be only used on Wikipedia. This was confirmed by Victor Ordell L. Kasen at his website http://www.geocities.com/fjornpim/ and the direct link to this image is here: http://www.geocities.com/fjorn . See discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:RunicArmanenFutharkCirclecopyrightVictorOrdellLKasen.JPG&action=edit)

(PLEASE CHANGE TO PUBLIC DOMAIN AS DISCUSSED IN DISCUSSION.) AWT (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amar1.jpg

Apparently from http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=176900802 where there's no mention of creative commons attribution licensing. Not suitable for fair-use-in either I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 9

[edit] Image:La_county_flag.gif

The license used states the image is the work of the federal government. I highly doubt the federal government designed the LA County seal. Rockfang (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The seal and flag of Los Angeles County has been determined as in the public domain. No difference than using the seal of the University of California. Actually the seal of UC is the property of the Regents of University of California. I don't think the County has ever copy righted the seal or the flag that was designed by the late Supervisor Hahn many years ago. Ucla90024 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have any kind of proof stating this? I'm not disagreeing, I'd just like to see where you are getting the information from.--Rockfang (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The license is still wrong though. It's definitely not Federal. Wikipedia:Upload has nothing to tag county or city logos, and the Federal one says "NOT state or local government". Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jermainepaul.jpg

Marked "self-made", but contains no other source information and looks like a publicity shot. Also, the "created" date does not match the one in the metadata. Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:YuanLongping.jpg

No evidence that the image has a Creative Commons license. Source site says "All Rights Reserved". Mosmof (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree website shows all rights reserved tagged as CSD I9. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
New version has been uploaded, and I don't read Chinese well, but I don't see any evidence of Self-GFDL here. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WFAlogo2.jpg

I doubt that a corporate logo is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hauteville house comic.JPG

Although I have no doubt that the author did take the photograph, this appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted work, meaning that it is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gaapweb.jpg

I cannot see where the rights have been released. On the website provided as the source, the copyright notice says content is all rights reserved. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pq.jpg

Looks like a publicity photo. Low resolution. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Larger version at [30] - dont know original source but public domain doubtful. Main website page is not in english [31] but does have a copyright statement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pulsi220.jpg

Appears to be a copyvio of [32] but comes from this website [33] unable to read copyright in Indonesian MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TataSierra.jpg

Appears to be a copyright violation from [34] but possibly not original source and may be a publicity shot. No reason to think uploader is copyright holder for self-made declaration MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Estate.jpg

Appears to be a copyright violation from [35] but possibly not original source and may be a publicity shot. No reason to think uploader is copyright holder for self-made declaration MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ang..jpg

The uploader claims authorship of the work, while also admitting that this property belongs to LINFAIR records (see non-free/fair use media rationale). Pandacomics (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Uploader has been repeatedly warned/blocked for continued uploading of copyrighted images and falsely claiming ownership. --NrDg 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 10

[edit] Image:Bjwhitmer.JPG

Lifted from a website. Not Fair Use. Endless Dan 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syrianhistory.com

Syrianhistory.com is not the copyright holder for any of these images. According to [36] they come from various sources, some from personal connections, and some that are scanned from books. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Some of these are also listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 3#Image:Al-khatib.jpg. howcheng {chat} 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a talk with the uploader to send a copy of the email to OTRS. He replied to me this: "Hello! I forwarded the email exchange about that photo (and the many others) to this email address [permissions-en@wikimedia.org] (OTRS's), regards. Yazan (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)", which can be seen on my talk page. --Sdrtirs (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl 007 cover v1.jpg

Uploader uploaded as pd-self, with a copyright notice right there on the image page. The uploader is User:Sk8trchick, which seems to be a female user name, but the copyright is to somebody named Mike. Corvus cornixtalk 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl zac cover.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Corbin cover.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl cover miley.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl 003 cover v1.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl 005 cover v3 rgb sml.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl 006 cover v1.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kewl 008 cover v1.jpg

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Slummincover.JPG

Blatantly photoshopped fan-made album cover, thus a copyvio of whoever took the main photo's work. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bjwhitmer.JPG

No evidence of PD release by copyright holder, dead source. Kelly hi! 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MymosaSchema.gif

www.mymosa.eu (the cited source) says nothing about content being GFDL. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I am the uploader and I work in the MYMOSA project. I have asked the responsible ones if it was ok and they gave me the permission. M Toma (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Uploader needs to get the copyright holder in the MYMOSA project to release the image under a free licence, please refer to the procedure in WP:COPYREQ. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yamaha Lagenda.jpg

Looks like a studio photo. Also low resolution and no meta-data. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ketupat bawang.jpg

Web resolution, no metadata. User has uploaded other suspicious images. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sri asaramji bapu.JPG

Low resolution, heavily 'shopped, looks like a posed studio shot, no meta-data, etc. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Don rosales.jpg

Looks a little old to be self-made. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BZ1.jpg

Low resolution, no meta-data, border, happened in the mid-eighties. J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RamManCd2.jpg

I doubt that a CD cover is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RamManCd1.jpg

(Another) CD cover that the uploader claims is public domain. I doubt that a CD cover would be released. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shady Grove Church.GIF

Looks too old for the uploader to have taken the image themselves. Same image was uploaded several times with an unsuitable license (non-com, if I remember correctly). J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FPS.PNG

Based on a screenshot of a copyrighted game. Therefore non-free. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not based on a screenshot. I edited everything, including the facial color, eyes, and hair, as well as expression. Nothing of the sort appears in-game, therefore it is entirely a shapeshift. Zarbon (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evan Taubenfeld.JPG

Low resolution, no meta-data. Looks like a copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Black list club.JPG

Looks like a publicity photo, low resolution, no meta-data. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dburrowes.jpg

No evidence of free license. Please forward permission to permission at wikipedia dot org. Rettetast (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will send this confirmation in a few days - i am abroad until 18th June - please leave in the interim.Smerus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Canon hf100 with memory card.jpg

Looks like a studio publicity shot. No meta-data, lowish resolution considering the quality of the photograph. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would never have thought that a crappy picture that I made with my cheap camera would have been taken for a studio shot. Thanks for appreciation, dude. In regards to resolution, it is my right to use whatever resolution I like. If you have doubts feel free to prove them, statements like "looks like" don't fly. I can save you some googling time by pointing to the page where the picture was taken from: http://www.elurauser.com/articles/canon_hf100_review_part1.jsp This is my article and my website. Cheers, mate. Mikus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, not a problem- everything you say is correct. I apologise if I offended you. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Image:Qbq97-3.jpg

Image from a website with no license information posted as GFDL. Voidvector (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:63.gif

Image from a Cambodian government website with copyright info posted as GFDL. Voidvector (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:227937.jpg

Image from a website with no license information posted as GFDL. Voidvector (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 11

[edit] Image:Arnstein.jpg

The image is tagged as public domain due to being a pre-1923 US work. The source of the image does not provide any information about the age of the photo and the subject of the photo lived until 1965. BlueAzure (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Japanese Bridge Hoi An.jpg

Originally obtained by from Flickr at http://flickr.com/photos/69751997@N00/303339166/. That image is licensed as CC-by-nc-nd (non-commerical, non-derivative). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ilirian-roman_wars.jpg

copyright is owned by the painter. Who painted it and/or when? Lokal_Profil 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eddygrantthumb.jpg

Studio-taken photo, license missing. Has been used on album covers [37] [38]. — Gaaarg (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Apple-iphone-3g-black.jpg

Obviously from Apple; watermarked by a third party who neither owns the copyright nor releases it under stated license. Get a non-watermarked version straight from Apple and tag it as fair use, because it is. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 12

[edit] Image:Redondos1.jpg

From http://www.revistateina.com/teina/web/teina9/mus1.htm. I don't see strong evidence that the image was released PD (my Spanish is next to nonexistent; there's mention of "resistencia pasiva contra los derechos de autor", but it doesn't strike me as a real license statement) --dave pape (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Prize fighter inferno.jpg

The image is tagged as being licensed under the GFDL, but I could not find any mention of the GFDL on the source of the image. BlueAzure (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg

Photographer was Mark Redkin[39] (Марк Редькин, 1908 - 1987[40]). I don't think the image fell under any of the tags proposed in the deprecated {{PD-Russia}} that is used currently. Lupo 08:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fredward "Freddie" Benson.jpg

Image is listed as being a CC and GFDL licensed image. However, seeing as it appears to be a screenshot of this Nickelodeon character, it seems highly unlikely. Note that the page lacks a source. — 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DieHardMainMenu.JPG

Listed as a CC image, however the image appears to be a screen shot of a DVD menu and therefore would not be a free image. — 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ujguitar.jpg

The uploader claims to own the rights (releasing it to the public domain) to the picture but it is actually from here. indopug (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:74xeniatorn.jpg

The image is tagged as PD but theres no evidnce to support it and the external link [41] is to the picture itself. Storm05 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Misc. Still - Rajinikanth.jpg

No evidence that the GFDL license is correct. Polly (Parrot) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hülya Avşar.jpg

Clearly a promotional/publicity image. Highly doubtful that uploader owns the image and would release such a promotional image under a free license — 59.189.43.40 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Prabhudeva.jpg

No proof that image has been released into the PD by the cited source. Appears to be a screenshot — 59.189.43.40 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mymower.jpg

Looks like a publicity shot. Low resolution, no meta-data, apparent studio photo. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bangalorepalace2.jpg

No evidence of CC-BY release by copyright holder. Kelly hi! 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bangalore_South_Parade.jpg

Dead source, cannot verify PD claim. Kelly hi! 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 13

[edit] Image:Hare5.jpg

No evidence of public domain release by copyright holder as claimed. Kelly hi! 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep The evidence is that the uploader was verifiably a senior manager of the League Against Cruel Sports (1,090 google references for "mike hobday" "league against cruel sports" - [42]) and therefore able to legitimately authorise public domain release. MikeHobday (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WALES_Edwinsford_2005_snared_cat.jpg

No evidence of GFDL license as claimed. Kelly hi! 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep The evidence is that the uploader was verifiably a senior manager of the League Against Cruel Sports (1,090 google references for "mike hobday" "league against cruel sports"[43]) and therefore able to legitimately license release. MikeHobday (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hunting_Act.jpg

Derivative work of Crown Copyright. Kelly hi! 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Query whether a photograph of a document in the public domain is clearly defined in Wikipedia policy as being derivative. MikeHobday (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KolkatainIndia_2.png

No evidence of PD status for original map. Kelly hi! 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Franklin_Fox.jpg

Derivative of a copyrighted character. Kelly hi! 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bacolod-Silay City International Airport.jpg

The image is tagged as free, but despite contacting the user, no evidence that it is free has been located. I am bringing here rather than just deleting as other images that this user uploaded have been free. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Source link posted was incorrect. The image source is here; it is fully copyrighted. The image was already orphaned. Xeltran (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wolf Armoured Vehicle.jpg

Tag is up for TFD because there is no basis that Israeli Defence Force images are PD. Taking to PUI just to be on the safe side. ViperSnake151 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Israeli air force 160 squadron helicopters.jpg

Tag is up for TFD because there is no basis that Israeli Defence Force images are PD. Taking to PUI just to be on the safe side. Also, YOU DON'T NEED FAIR USE RATIONALES FOR CLAIMED FREE IMAGES...but soon you may just need one. ViperSnake151 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Irivere100.jpg

looks like a promotional image Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Emmett Good Faith Cover.jpg

Incorrect tagging and false claim of ownership of an album cover. No proper source given and no fair-use rationale given Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 14

[edit] Image:Prisonshiv.jpg

No indication of GFDL on given source site & no indication of right to grant license by uploader Simon Speed (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kj3.jpg

Licensed under CC 3.0 but looks like an official promo shot and has photographer name on. — Exxolon (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footer

Today is June 14, 2008. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 14 -- if this page doesn't exist yet, please create it. (new nomination) Also, please add it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/NewListings.

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:pui log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===June 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Possibly unfree images page (the one you're on now) work.

Languages