Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 2 July 2007 (Adding Image:Dany_bill.jpg). 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's source or copyright status is disputed or if it is only available under a non-free license.

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 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.

June 7

June 8

June 14

Image:BSRB1.jpg appears to be a popular photo listed by university public relations in an image achive established on its website as available for download, see: http://www.med.umich.edu/prmc/services/favorites/photos.html. why is it being questioned?Thomas Paine1776 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that is listed in a PR image archive does not necessarily mean that it has been released under a wiki-compatible license. In fact the site does not state anything regarding copyright of the images but there is a general site copyright disclaimer. The only way around this is to email the image owner which I will do... watch this space.Madmedea 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

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.


June 18

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The photographs of Lydia Koidula, Carl Robert Jakobson, Konrad Mägi, Georg Hackenschmidt are all taken prior to 1923 and released in the United States prior to 1923. The photographs the remaining individuals are being used in accordance with the Copyright Laws of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code and are being used solely for nonprofit, educational, research purposes to illustrate biographies of said individuals. ExRat 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia's non-free content policy, although based in U.S. law, is intentionally stricter than the law allows. Additionally, your own words contradict the usage of the non-free images, because as compiled into a collage of images, it's not illustrating the individual biographies. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

  • Australian War Memorial images Many images that came from the Australian War Memorial (AWM) are considered to be in the public domain in Australia. Yet an e-mail from the AWM says that the watermark must not be removed and that the images may not be used commercially. Ordinarily I would way that the AWM has no right to impose restrictions on a public domain work, but then I realized that the AWM is part of the Australian government.
    So, what should we do? I think an acceptable course of action would be to take the images which are confirmed to be public domain in the United States (by either year of publication or year of the author's death) and losslessly crop the AWM watermark off of them using Jpegcrop. AWM images not confirmed to be in the public domain in the United States should be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they're OK as is - all the AWM images I've uploaded have their copyright status listed as 'clear' on the AWM's online database (which isn't an automatic thing, as more recent photos have a label stating that either the AWM or the photographer holds copyright), and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they'd be covered by copyright if they were taken before 1955. To the best of my knowledge, no complaints have been recieved from the AWM and the last times this was discussed (see: [2], [3] and [4]) it was decided that the images were out of copyright and the AWM can't enforce its request for pre-1955 photos. --Nick Dowling 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick for alerting me to this. I am not a lawyer, but I have had professional experience with Australian copyright law. To the best of my knowledge, the AWM is wrong to insist on the retention of watermarks, serial numbers or even that they be attributed. I think attribution of the AWM and the photographer (if known) in captions is a reasonable policy (although I have been remiss in this regard myself occasionally). I believe that copyright-free status in Australia is indivisible.
I also have some experience of the inner workings of government agencies, as the AWM undoubtedly is, which tells me that they will attempt to do things which are not within their power, if they think they can get away with it. Grant | Talk 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian copyright council's factsheet on this issue (http://www.copyright.org.au/G023.pdf) states that photographs taken by Australian government agencies are out of copyright if the are both over 50 years of age and taken before 1969 (see Table 2, page 5). The National Library of Australia's website states that this rule applies to the photos in its huge online collections, which I believe includes all the photos on the AWM's database (see: http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/pic_copyright.html ). As such, I think that it's pretty clear that the photos on the AWM's database which were taken prior to 1969 and are over 50 years of age are out of copyright. I don't see any benefit from removing the AWM's watermark, however, as this is useful in verifying the photo's copyright details on the AWM database and its caption, where it was taken, etc. --Nick Dowling 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The license on the original states "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law" Alvis 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
The license tag says that but the summary handwritten by the author says differently. I'm afraid the boilerplate tag doesn't cut it if they manually write something different. -N 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I assumed the tag that the user posted which granted more rights to the image took precedence since you can't retract rights from a license once granted. In this case, we need to delete BOTH images then, because the original violates wiki watermark policy. Alvis 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm content to just leave them listed here, eventually they'll be deleted. -N 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the creator doesn't really understand public domain; what he wrote is most like {{cc-nd}}. As it stands, I agree there is no choice but deleting the images. It's possible that the "nd" is only to preserve the credit at the bottom of the image; if this is the case, it may be possible to convince the creator to relicense it as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}} with the attribution satisfied by text on the image description page rather than in the image itself. Anomie 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

The image can be found on Alwyn Uytingco's MySpace page

June 21

This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is my source giving the unveiling date as 1919. I'll add info to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is a photo taken in 1914. Uris 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man has a point. Madmedea 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute his statement, but I must be blind. I don't see the statue in that b&w picture. And I would still like to see as much information on artist/year of manufacture as he could gather. -N 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was unveiled in 1907 and was sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel. Here is my source. I'll add the information to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How weird perspective is. The statue looks huge in your picture. The other pictures make it look tiny. That's why I was so confused. -N 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The columned building is none other than The Rotunda, constructed in 1826. It is ineligible for copyright. This image is a derivative work of my own photograph of this public domain building. (Fonts cannot be copyrighted.) I'll add this info to the image's own page as well. Uris 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

June 23

June 24

June 25

*Image:Lydia white.JPG Released into public domain, but no assertion that user took the photo. Looks like a promo shot. tiZom(2¢) 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC) User uploaded second copy, explained that he took the pic, that subject is his wife. Available at Image:LydiaCornell white 2007.JPG. CSD I1. tiZom(2¢) 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Hum, it does seem to me that the image meets the creteria established Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Tony the Marine 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not my personal opinion, they just are really bad reasons. You might have a case to have the image fall under fair use (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). But that an image is used publicly is no indication of Public domain. The fact that an image is not replaceable is really a bad reason to think it is the public domain. Image:TrangBang.jpg is totally irreplaceable but eh.... Garion96 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Garion96 is right - those might be arguments if the image was claimed as fair use but not for public domain. Where PD is concerned its normally a question of fact not argument where as fair use depends on argument. Madmedea 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm begining to understand the situation. It doesn't meet the criteria for a PD, but just might meet the criteria for Free-use. So, how about if I change the "tag" before a final determination is taken? Tony the Marine 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I changed the "PD" which was wrong and added a "fair use" tag with rationale. So, Garion96 would you consider "un-nominating", that way we can see how it will go as far as the "fair use" criteria is concerned?Tony the Marine 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Brangelina.jpg - rationale given for all rights released by copyright holder: "This photograph belongs to a series that was freely distributed thorugh emails in mid January 2006 from an unspecified source within the Dominican P.R. and Arts community, whereby the photographs can be considered as obtained for personal enjoyment, and not by an agency or a freelancing papparazo. It is obvious that the pictures were taken with consent of the celebrities from someone sitting on their table or within their entourage." In short, it was distributed via email by an unspecified source- there's no way that constitutes irrevocably releasing all one's rights to an image. Calliopejen1 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Tonytammaro.jpg - no indication that copyrighter has released the image. User has previously engaged in likely deceptive image tagging (see [[:Image:Robbie Williams Photo

June 27

June 28

June 29

June 30

Image:M0NTENEGRO AIRLINES.jpg Image:Otvaranje aerodroma v.jpg Image:Philharmoniker.jpg Image:Yjht.jpg Image:Adzrenjanin2.jpg Image:Uzice3.jpg Image:54742977344674d57d4adb822835099.jpg Image:Ertr.jpg Image:Crkva389.jpg Image:Swfhs.jpg Image:Rts2.jpg Image:Rts14.jpg Image:Rts12.jpg Image:Veliki5.jpg Image:Wagawg.jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade (old).jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade - exibition.jpg Image:Ethnographic Museum Belgrade - exibition 2.jpg Image:Aerodrom Nis.jpg Image:Hgdk.jpg Image:Lufthansa at Terminal 2.jpg Image:Agx b727 yu akd.jpg Image:278-JAT-YU-AMB-9.jpg Image:01yu-amj.jpg Image:BDvor6.jpg Image:BDvor2.jpg Image:Serbia-p1.jpg Image:Dhjsjhtg.jpg Image:6765676.jpg Image:Wgq.jpg Image:Hethws.jpg Image:Fdhdh.jpg Image:Utk.jpg Image:Xdfgjsfjg.jpg Image:01YUAOR.jpg Image:JatAirways-noveboje.jpg Image:Yu-anv.jpg Image:01yuagl.jpg. Sick of tagging now, will find another way for the rest. Garion96 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The uploader removed the {{PUIdisputed}} tag in spite of the instructions in the template and now appears to claim some strange amalgamation of authorship and fair use arising from the allegedly parodic nature of the work depicted. (Note that the uploader is neither the author of the copyrighted cartoon character nor the parodic work including the character but of the secondary derivative depicting the so-called parody.) Despite the assertion of fair use, the image does not have a fair use template or a fair use rationale. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reply applies to all of TommyNoe's pictures: Google him. The fifth hit is his myspace page where he describes himself as "Model Management and Music, Tommy Noe". I have every reason to believe he took all of the photos himself or otherwise has the rights to the photos. Chris Croy 08:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete it (incidentally, click on Photo gallery on that page for the image), unless it would qualify under fair use given the guy is dead. I uploaded as an early wikipedian, I will dig through my watchlist and see if there is anything else on it but I doubt I watched those pages at that time. IvoShandor 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's an AP photo. You should be able to use it under fair use if you write a rationale. Videmus Omnia 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

  • Image:Ana_Milena_Lamus_Rodríguez.jpg - No evidence permission was granted by copyright holder to release under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AnatolyEmelin.jpg - No evidence permissin was grante to rlease under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AnneliesTanghe.jpg - No evidence permission was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Anngora.png - No evidence permision was given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Annieclark1.jpg - Victoria Potter's photos are marked All Rights Reserved. Nv8200p talk 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:GABLE01.jpg, Image:NATCOLE01.jpg Image:ARMST01.jpg, Image:JDEAN1.jpg, Image:MMONROE1.jpg, Image:BOGART01.jpg, Image:TAYLORF2.jpg, Image:CAGNEY01.jpg, Image:JCAGNEY2.jpg, Image:Lucy10.jpg, Image:Lucy7.jpg, Image:FSINATRA1.jpg, Image:FSINATR2.jpg, Image:FSINATR4.jpg, Image:JLENN01.jpg, Image:PMCCTY1.jpg, Image:MRSIL01.jpg, Image:MRSIL02.jpg, Image:OZ-07.jpg, Image:BONZACAST.jpg, Image:Image-103B.jpg, Image:MMONROE2.jpg, Image:UNCLE.jpg, Image:CANGELS.jpg, Image:BARRYM.jpg, and Image:MCNVY.jpg— All these images were uploaded with the licensing given as under Creative Commons. Most seem to be publicity photos that would likely still be the property of the photographers and/or studios they were made for, there are a couple of baby pictures that may be in the public domain. While Fair Use may apply to some of these images, the uploader's assertion of ownership by licensing under the Creative Commons seems unlikely even though they come from a gallery website he runs. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Howard Frank Archives has been in business for over thirty years as an image archive and supplier of images to major publications and other media outlets. We have aproximately 1 million images in our inventory. Mostly in the entretainment industry. The bulk of the collection was at one time the property of Louis "doc" Shurr, Mr. Howard Frank's cousin and a respected Hollywood agent whose clients included, Bob Hope, Kim Novak, Ginger Rogers, Burt Lahr, Betty Grable, Debbie Reynolds, George Murphy, Andy Devine, Broderick Crawford, Larry Hagman, Barbara Eden among many others.
    We have been major contributors of images to major books on Hollywood personalities. Including:
    Lucy : A Life in Pictures by Tim Frew and Howard Frank Archives/Personality Photos Staff
    Dreaming of Jeannie: TV's Prime Time in a Bottle by Stephen Cox and Howard Frank
    Ball of Fire, Lucille Ball By Stefan Kanfer
    Loving Lucy By Bart Andrews and Thomas Watson
    Lucy & Desi By Warren G. Harris
    The "I LOve Lucy" Book By Bart Andrews
    Elvis, A life in pictures By Tim Frew
    Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball By Kathleen Brady
    The Century By Peter Jennings and Tom Brewster
    You can do a search on Google, Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble to confirm our claims.
    And many many other publications and magazines. Our clients include all major television networks such as CBS, ABC, NBC, E Entretainment, E!, PBS and others. Major publications such as TV Guide, People, US, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Globe, The enquirer, Reader's Digest, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Medical Journal, Scientific American, Ladies Home Journal and many others too numerous to mention here. We have never had our right to rent or use these images disputed. As with any large inventory such as ours, it is possible that we may inadvertently by accident have posted an image to which someone may claim intellectual property rights. In such cases we will be more than willing to comply in removing such an image provided the standard provisions are met as stated below by contacting our intellectual property rights department
    Anyone who believes that their intellectual property rights have been infringed, must provide our Intellectual Property Rights Agent with a notification that contains the following information:
    1. A physical signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other rights that have been allegedly infringed.
    2. Identification of the copyright, trademark or other rights that have been allegedly infringed.
    3. The URL or product number(s).
    4. Your name, address, telephone number and email address.
    5. A statement that you have a good-faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the rights owner, its agent or the law.
    6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other right that is allegedly infringed.
    You may reach our Intellectual Property Rights Agent, via email at sales@personalityphotos.com --PersonalityPhotos 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for your detailed reply and also thank you for helping us to improve Wikipedia. This case will likely need people better versed in these things than I, but as I understand it the issue is not that of disputing your renting or using the images, but rather that you've uploaded the images onto Wikipedia's servers and have released them under Creative Commons licenses. Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain. Wikipedia has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Wikipedia's servers, Wikipedia has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license. Wikipedia needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images. There is a method using the Wikipedia:OTRS by which you can forward your documentation to the foundation, but as I am not familiar with it, I will leave it to one of the others who regularly edit this page to help you with that. Thank you again for helping out and for your note. —Elipongo (Talk

contribs) 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Reply to the above by Elipongo

      • Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain.
        Our images come in several categories. We have the negatives to most of the images in our inventory. In other cases we have the "Master Negatives" or in the case of other images the in-camera chromes from which they are printed. In some cases we have the only known original prints of the images. Until 1990 most studios discarded rather than archived massive amounts of imgaes literaly in the garbage. Thus most images taken during that period are lost to history except in cases where collectors like howard Frank through family contacts and friends acquired many of them. Being that we have the onl;y images in many of these cases we do claim copyright ownership of them. We have selectively uploaded imgaes of which we are sure of the provenance.
      • Wikipedia has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Wikipedia's servers, Wikipedia has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license.
        Wikipedia has no liabilty since they are neither the owners nor the source of the images, we are. We have a procedure as does Corbis or Getty for settling claims to Intelectual property claims as stipulated in my previous post.
      • Wikipedia needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images.
        That does not present a problem, we can issue a standard open ended release of our images to Wikipedia as we do to television broadcasters, publications and other entities that use our images. They can keep it on file and forward copies to whoever "claims" to be the copyright holder of the image. All we need is an e-mail address where to send a signed PDF document release. Be aware that claiming to be the copyright holder and actually posessing such rights are two distinct things. Corporate lawyers will often issue threatening letters claiming intelectual property rights. They mainly do this to discourage legitimate use of images in an editorial or fair use context and in order to attempt to control the editorial context in which these images appear.. That is why we require as do the courts extensive documentation to back up such claims. After thirty plus years in this business we have yet to appear in court to dispute any of our images.--PersonalityPhotos 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]





  • Relicense - it probably is a screenshot so the existing licence is wrong. However, it satisfies fair-use criteria. It is non-repeatable and informative in that article. I have relicensed ir with a fair-use rationale. TerriersFan 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free photos of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu

These images are used only by permission and probably do not meet the non-free content criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=142095636"