Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bob Castle (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 29 January 2007 (→January 29: expanded). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 G12. 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

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.

Instructions

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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:

  1. Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
    • {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
    • {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
  2. Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
  3. Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
  4. List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

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 page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably 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.

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.


January 1

I have sent a message to the owner of the Flickr page seeking clarification on the issue. GeeCee 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet received a response from the owner of the Flickr page that was initially linked. GeeCee 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is now licensed under creative commons as per http://www.flickr.com/photos/macphotogrammetry/32732182/. I removed the 'all rights waived' tag but I do not know what tag would be more appropriate. GeeCee 07:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

  • User:RJN, who also appears to have used the sockpuppets User:Sarbox and User:UH Collegian, is a problematic editor. If you have a look at the upload logs for those accounts you'll see many redlinks where he has previously uploaded copyvios and had them deleted. He has made plenty of efforts to game the system, make dubious claims of fair use and made false assertions that whatever website he has grabbed images off has released them to the public domain, or that he was the creator. Images that have so far survived because he's claimed them as his own and no one has yet been able to track down the real source include: Image:Sltownsquare01.jpg, Image:Sugar Lakes.jpg, Image:Sugar Land City Hall.jpg, Image:SFASL monument.jpg, Image:Oyster Creek Park.jpg, Image:Sltsmidrise.jpg, Image:GraniteSC.JPG, Image:Main Street Bridge in Sugar Land.jpg, Image:Sugar_Land_pillar.jpg. Many of these (but not all - I've listed them all so we can take them on a case-by-case basis) are low-res images, often fairly professional-looking, that look very much like they've been taken off the web, with no camera EXIF data etc. This in itself is not sufficient reason to assert a copyvio, without an alternate source, but given the uploader's history in this area (many similar images of his appear to have previously been found to be copyvios, in these cases I am guessing the source has since disappeared from the web), I am strongly of the opinion that Wikipedia should err on the side of removing these images as likely copyright violations. Moving from photos to maps, Image:Midland-Odessa CSA.PNG and Image:Longview-Marshall CSA.PNG make similar GFDL claims, when the very similar Image:HSB MSA.png was tagged as PD without a source or assertion that it was self-made, as with the other two. It seems that RJN/UH Collegian/Sarbox is mainly concerned about avoiding a fuss over the dubious copyright status of his uploads, so he takes the approach of tagging them with whatever he thinks he can get away with. Finally, Image:UptownHoustonSkyline.jpg is described as coming from the non-existent website www.uptown-houston.org, who apparently "allow anyone to use it for informational/brochure purposes." This suggests a license incompatible with Wikipedia's aspirations to be composed of free media. People who wish to use our content for commercial gain, as the GFDL allows, would appear to be unable to include an image allowed only for "informational/brochure purposes", yet RJN has erroneously tagged it as PD. This user is clearly not tagging his images in good faith, based on his history of copyright violations. Cortha 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

  • Image:Richardson-D-lg.jpg per website: ""© 2007 The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports" though it is a federal government website. --MECU≈talk 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I noticed the copyright after I uploaded the image to the Commons so I pointed that out at the Commons and it seems to have been moved from there to Wikipedia. Anyway, we may be able to use the photo of her on this page. Their news, speeches and photos page says: "News releases, speeches and photos (from the photo page) may be reproduced and used for newsletters, publications, and websites if credited appropriately: Courtesy of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.", which is a free license along the lines of BSD. There don't appear to be any restrictions on commercial use either. If there's any other questions or issues, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I attempted to contact them to clarify, since we have a number of these images, but got an error message using their contact form. Perhaps someone else could try? We may have to resort to snail-mail. Chick Bowen 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The webpage says Please be advised that the e-mail system is unavailable daily from 3:00am to 5:00am EST due to maintenance requirements.. Did you try during these hours? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

I can read Swedish. The source says © Aftonbladet (a major Swedish newspaper) Kjetil_r 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can read Swedish. "Aftonbladet" would never give away a photo for free. Thuresson 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

January 15

Update. {{Fairusein|Kobe Bryant}} has since been added. However it's not appicable. Criterion included in that tag is that there must be no free alternative avaiable. There are three other free images of Kobe Bryant already on the page. So clearly the "no free alternative" criterion is not met, and this cannot be fair use. Mwelch 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

January 17

I only use it once, and that'a just a thumbnail. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mort Kunstler painting, "The Great White Fleet Sails" showing 26th US President, Theodore Roosevelt. Permission was given to post this promotional graphic from his on-line gallery by artist Mort Kunstler via email to submission editor SimonATL to articles The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt.
URL Source: http://www.mortkunstler.com/gallery/merchant.ihtml?pid=268&step=4 Permission to post graphic granted by artist Mort Kunstler for wikipedia articles on The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt."
The article is tagged GFDL-self, but Mort Kuntsler has not edited the image page, and it is not clear that he licensed the image under GFDL. It looks the artist gave a limited, Wikipedia-only license, which we cannot use. -- Donald Albury 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has now changed to the {{promotional}} tag. -- Donald Albury 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is being used to illustrate Theodore Roosevelt and Great White Fleet, not "the work or product" for which this is a promotional image (namely, the artist). I don't think a {{promotional}} tag applies. Unless we're using this image specifically to illustrate this artist's work, I don't think it qualifies as fair use under the Wikipedia fair-use policy. —Bkell (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

  • Image:Tianamen beating.jpg it's claimed that the copyright owner allows the image to be used for any purpose and therefore it's public domain. I tried to check this but couldn't find any copyright statement on the page it supposedly comes from. Also, I'm not sure what the source is. This page [3] has a similar image but it's a lower res. Perhaps the image has been changed in the 2+ years since it was uploaded or something, I'm not sure. Someone needs to verify the copyright status and verify the source. This should include verifying whether the owner is releasing it into the public domain or is simply releasing all rights if the claim is true about for any purpose. Nil Einne 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

January 20

January 21

  • Image:Carleth and Steven Keys.jpg source website appears to just be collection of images this user has. Nothing that seems to be that this user has ownership of this image. --MECU≈talk 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that source website isn't even applicable anymore. I used to have the picture there, but it isn't anymore. At any rate, I took the photo myself. If you don't believe me, try and find it online anywhere and you won't. The photo was taken at my house. Please do not delete this image. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide any evidence that you actually took this picture? I couldn't find the image on the source website, though I do believe it is yours, it doesn't explain why you listed it as a source either. In short: Why should we believe you took this picture? --MECU≈talk 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I listed that page (http://www.steevven1.com/pictures.php) as a source mistakenly, as the image used to be hosted there, thinking that it still was. I will remove that site as a source, as it no longer applies. Anyhow, what is a way which I can prove that I took the picture? I mean, nobody can really prove that they took a picture without having video of them taking the picture or something lol. Let me know of a way I can prove that I took the picture, and I will do my best to do so. Again, I encourage you to try to find the image anywhere else. You will not be able to because of the fact that it is my photo; I didn't take it from anywhere. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

  • Image:AND Using NAND diagram.png. Labeled "Made in LiveWire 1.10" (link mine), yet also marked as {{PD-old}} —Remember the dot (t) 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, {{PD-old}} is probably wrong, but it seems likely that the uploader was the creator of the image and meant to release it into the public domain with a tag like {{PD-self}}. (It might even be trivial enough to be uncopyrightable.) —Bkell (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has only been 70 years since this sort of thing became trivial. Anyway, the PNG version can go—it’s been automatically converted from a JPEG and I’ll make an SVG version with Xcircuit as soon as I find the time. —xyzzyn 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how old the idea is. You can't copyright ideas; you can only copyright expressions of ideas, and only creative and original expressions at that. I'm not exactly sure what you say is 70 years old: the idea that AND can be constructed from NAND, or the actual symbols used to represent NAND gates. The former is uncopyrightable, whereas the latter could conceivably be copyrighted. But these symbols are used universally, so I'd say there's a pretty strong reason to believe that the creator of a circuit diagram using these gate symbols is not infringing anyone's copyright and can freely release the diagram into the public domain. The question here really boils down to the idea-expression divide and the merger doctrine. The idea illustrated in this image cannot itself be copyrighted. If this idea is capable of intelligible expression in only one or a limited number of ways, then even the expression of the idea cannot be copyrighted, since doing so would in effect be placing a copyright on an uncopyrightable idea. This is why I say that this circuit diagram is probably so trivial as to be uncopyrightable: It is the most straightforward way to express this idea, this expression of the idea does not show any creativity or originality (the idea itself may be creative, but the expression is not), and there are no other equally intelligible expressions. —Bkell (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only objecting to calling the concept trivial. Anyway, Image:AND from NAND.svg already exists, so we really don’t need the PNG; I’ve updated the JPEG version’s description page to point at the SVG. —xyzzyn 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:1974kissin.JPG is clearly a professional photograph with no information. It's probably not a 'promotional' image, and besides that, there are plenty of other images that can be used (as of right now, it doesn't have any articles linked to it) Verloren Hoop 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:BigRedWKU.jpg is credited to a now defunct page on the Western Kentucky University athletics site, but there is no evidence that the image is actually in the public domain. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Giodm.jpg: Claimed {{Attribution}}, but source [5] doesn't seem to have any kind of statement allowing unlimited use of the photo as long as the copyright holder is attributed. —Bkell (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

January 24

January 25

GMA-7 allows free use of their images on websites and blogs. I've screencapped those images to show the controversial costume rip-off (Jepoy 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I was referring to the Sailor Moon drawings, but just the same, the sources of the pics (all of them) must be appended to the image description page. --Howard the Duck 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from a political poster and flyer and is used freely on placards and banners at political rallies and political rememberance rathering aswell as websites.--Vintagekits 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use is the same as this image and this--Vintagekits 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ditto--Vintagekits 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

ditto again, this is bordering on stalking and at least wikibullying. All the details of the use is outlined in on the images page--Vintagekits 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Frilled shark.jpg - individual who licensed image as pd-self claims to have been a part of the investigation crew, however in my view this does not grant him/her the rights to this image. From what I can gather [18] this image was first seen in a handout by the Awashima Marine Park, the image was then picked up by the AP newswire. Also the uploader claims this image is "free for educational use" however that doesn't mean the same as being in the public domain. -- malo (tlk)(cntrbtns) 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is copyrighted by getty images. Chikanamakalaka 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the photograph must be removed, the remaining pictures in the 'frilled shark' article seem to represent a different/immature animal, and fail to convey the similarity to ancient drawings of sea-monsters. If this is the level of education and openness resulting from obeying the law, give me crime! >:D

January 27

Why they are fake tags? I am new to Wikipedia and except the flute image is from Nature, all other bronze pictures are from bronzes.cn and the website does not have any copyright statement about the pictures. I search all the possible tags and decide to use the free picture tag. Do I need to send them a letter asking an autherization? What should be the right procedure to show these pictures here to the world? What is the requirement for verification of the source? Can you tell me and show some pictures you have uploaded and show the autherizaton letter from the picture taker? thanks. Dongwenliang 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a copyright notice on that website (admittedly I can't read Chinese.) I have emailed the admin of bronzes.cn to see what kind of copyright is on those images. If you could provide a link to the copyright page of that website it'd help. Nardman1 04:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Xia-marking.jpg is from www.huaxia.com and Music-Bell.jpg appears to be hosted on an image host, with no other source info available. I'm looking for a way to contact the administrator of www.huaxia.com for copyright info but I can't find it yet. Nardman1 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also sent an email to bronzes_cn@yahoo.com.cn. I wonder how did you find this email address if you can not read Chinese. But these tags are not fake tags, it is the best assumption I can get. Thanks for your understanding, if there are ways that I will be 100% responsile for any voiations of the copyright law. My email address is dongwenliang@gmail.com. Ask the layer of Wikipedia to contact me directly. Thanks. Dongwenliang 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this"© 2000 By www.viewcn.com & www.huaxia.com 版权所有 华夏经纬网" at the bottom of every huaxia.com page (except the portal, ironically, and it says 2000 even on new stuff). The Chinese text translates as "all rights reserved China latitude and longitude network". Are you still going to claim that Xia-marking.jpg is free? And Music-Bell.jpg is from an image host, with no provenance info (ie a source further back.) Are you going to claim the rights to that? How about Jiahu-flutes.jpg, from Nature? Their website plainly states their stuff is copyrighted. There's 3 fake free use tags I've PROVEN you've put on images. You've also uploaded copyrighted articles such as Xiaochangliang which had to be deleted *twice*. Wikipedia is user-run...there's no way for you to be held "100% responsible" for violations of copyright except via the user process I'm trying to use. Also I did find the email address to the admin of bronzes.cn by using babelfish on this page. Nardman1 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might these images qualify under fair use? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, although someone who speak's Dongwenliang's native language should explain Wikipedia's policies to him. And you'd have to find the ultimate source of Music-Bell.jpg before fair use could be established. And the copyrighted text from [19] on its page should be deleted. Nardman1 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don’t think the website viewcn.com and huaxia.com is the original creator of this image, the original author is difficult to find thus this picture also may qualify fair use since they put it on the public domain. The same situation applies to the music bell image. The only image of jiahu flute, did I put a free copyright tag? No. The tag I put is "This work has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by the copyright holder", not "This screenshot either does not contain parts or visuals of copyrighted programs, ...". The problem in your link of the music bell is the text, not the image, since your link provided a different image. You cannot understand my language, but I can understand English, why it’s necessary that must be the one who speak my native language to explain the policies? Given the grammar and complicated procedures of Wilipedia, I did not use the right tags, also it is even hard for me to find the talk page. In any condition, it is inappropriate to call them "fake tags", I would accept your comments on “Xiaochangliang”, but I also ask an apology of “fake tags”, if you are well educated and understand what I am saying. Dongwenliang 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

January 29

It probably falls under "fair use" since it is the intro photo on the mayoral office's official website (public). I also think that it is preferable to the temporary replacement image that you put in the article. --Holdek (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=104054172"