Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TransUtopian (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 23 September 2005 (→Phase I - September 8: houston panoramic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is intended for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or are missing important copyright or licensing information.

How to list

  • 1 - see if the image can be listed at Wikipedia:Images for deletion (if it's unneeded) or at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used by Wikipedia under any license or under the fair use doctrine).
  • 2 - place one of the tags listed below on the image page
  • 3 -contact the user who uploaded the image on their talk page with {{subst:idw-pui|IMAGENAME}} (Be sure that IMAGENAME includes the Image: prefix). For large numbers of images, merely copy a list of images on to their talk page.
  • 4 - place the image under today's section in Phase I.
  • 5 - after 15 days of Phase I, if the issues has not been cleared up, move to the section of Phase II for the date you move it and add {{unverifiedimage}} to the caption on articles the image is on.
  • 6 - after 15 days on Phase II, if the issues have not been cleared up, a judgement is made. If it appears likely that the image is not free, it is deleted, and removed from all articles, otherwise it remains, with the unverified image caption.

General notes

  1. Images are listed here for a total of at least 30 days before they are unlisted.
  2. Images can be unlisted immediately if they are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these).
  3. Images which are claimed fair use must have two people agree to this.
  4. If you see in the contribution history that the editor hasn't visited in a while, it might help to also use the "E-mail this user" link rather than relying only on the talk page. There may also be contact information on the editor's user page.
  5. As always, assume good faith when making contact.


Image tags

Add one of these templates:

  • {{PUI}} (if information on the image's copyright status is missing)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{PUIdisputed}} (if the copyright information is disputed)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{nonfreedelete}} (if the image is only available under a non-free license) to the description page

Template:Nonfreedelete

Once the image is tagged, create a new listing in today's section in Phase I.

Lists

Final

These images have been listed in the #Phase II section for at least 15 days and now need to be dealt with. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

For deletion

These images have been listed at this page for at least 30 days and remain unsourced or unfree. They should be removed from any pages linking to them and deleted.

Possible keep

These images have been listed at this page for at least 30 days, but further time is needed while waiting for a response from the copyright holder or the uploader, or further discussion of fair use or other issues. Please contribute to the discussion of each image, or find replacement images with a clearly free license.
Uploader claims PD. Confirming source. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I put the message below on User talk:Scorilo. I think he may be wrong in his assumptions. -Nv8200p (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The web site of Branislav Manic Law Office and Patent Bureau states that the "former SFR Yugoslavia adhered to Berne Convention, Universal Convention and Satelites Convention." Based on this, I'd say your rationale for the images being public domain are not supported. I cannot find the public domain websites you took these images from. Please provide the links to me as well as links (or references) to material that supports your legal claims for public domain. If I don't hear from you in the next seven days on this matter, I feel the appropriate thing to do will be to delete all but one image from the Soko J-22 Orao article and claim fair use for that one image for educational purposes. Thanks --Nv8200p (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be found at http://www.bugaup.org/gallery.htm. There is no copyright information on the website. This may be especially hard to get since the organisation that "owns" the image is responsible for defacing advertising hoardings - which is obviously an illegal activity - and the image in question is an example of this. When I uploaded the image I sent this email to "Peter" at the organisation on 20 January 2005:
Peter,
I have just written a stub about BUGA UP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Utilising_Graffitists_Against_Unhealthy_Promotions
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can add to or modify, and works under a copyright license that ensures that the intellectual property is considered "Public Domain" in perpetuity.
I inserted a picture I found at your website into the article. If this picture is copyrighted in any way and the holder does not wish it to be published on Wikipedia, then please email me and I will remove it.
Also feel free to modify the article yourself!
Neil Cameron
There has been no reply to this email. --One Salient Oversight 03:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a strong fair use claim for this image, at least the billboard image. The photo itself is copyrighted to its taker, but if it was posted on their site, I think that supports the fair use claim. kmccoy (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how exactly?Geni 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's being used in an article as criticism or an example of the subject's works. It's also a parody of the original billboard, and it's unlikely to cause monetary harm to the interests of the copyright holders. I'm certainly not an expert, though. kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Image] from User:DigiBullet, contacted Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is King Talal of Jordan (1909-1972). According to Photo bank/Hashemite monarchs this is a 1951 photo. According to [1] (§32), Jordan has a copyright term of 25 years, hence image is very very likely PD. Thuresson 14:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 15:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

seems to be modified version of [2] Possibly fair use as a promotional image? No indication of permission from creator.
Has a decent fair use claim. kmccoy (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a fair use claim for this image. While we might have a good fair use claim for the original image because it was promotional material released by the creator of the movie, the modified image was not released separately by the movie's creator and so IMHO doesn't qualify. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother keeping this. With the DVD out in the UK, and due out in the USA this week, this logo would be useful if it were on any of the DVD/CD soundtrack/tie-in book packaging, but it isn't. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Lung fingered.jpg uploader provided source (actually I think this may be a still photo, rather than an image from the film). Asked uploader for copyright info on July 7; no response. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is clearly a screenshot, so where's the problem? <KF> 21:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I don't think this is a screen shot (i.e. I don't think it's an image from the film itself), based on how that particular scene is set up (the POV is supposed to be from the side window of a car). I think it is a still photo taken during production, in which case I don't know how free use etc. applies (or not). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

) -- JesseW 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Earlybodybuildingportraitofarny.jpg is nudity, not porn. It appeared in the pages of the defunct Spy magazine. It shows that Spy cheerfully published embarrassing pictures of powerful celebrities at a time when no other U.S. magazine would do so (which contributed to its going bankrupt). Probably fair use. ProhibitOnions 23:49:35, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
Image:Jackearlystudioportraitwithpoll.jpg is not porn either. It is an early physique modeling portrait, which was common in that era (the 1930-50s) for body builders. This picture is so old that the copyright is believed to be expired. More information about this picture can be found at: http://www.v-m-p.org/lalanne01.html

Phase II

These images have been listed in the #Phase I section for at least 15 days, and have been marked in any articles that contain them with boilerplate text: "{{unverifiedimage}}" Remember to use today's date when moving images into Phase II, not the previous date used in Phase I.

Phase II - September 2

Images uploaded by User:Zereshk
Proper tag was replaced.--Zereshk 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Roozbeh has his own opinion on what I mean what I say. Nevertheless, I am in the process of replacing images, and/or providing proper tags. I admit I was kind of lost between PD and GFDL at first. The UTenn images can be deleted, because I have replaced them with better images. The same is for images listed by Roozbeh below.--Zereshk 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Yar alone.gif: the uploader originally claimd PD [5] and later claimed GFDL [6]. He claims that the photo has come from the photographed person's website and "It doesnt have any copyright tags, claims, or notices about the images." He then assumes the image is free because there are no copyright notices on the website. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
clarified.--Zereshk 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Alamoot.jpg: the uploader originally claimed PD [7], providing no source. He later claimed that the provision of the photograph has been "with permission of Iran's Heritage Organization" [8] (if it was already in public domain, it wouldn't have needed the organization's permission). He later claimed that "The picture is actually PD because there are several independent organizations using the same picture, all claiming it is their picture" [9]. But that doesn't make the picture PD either. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Clarified.--Zereshk 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:28mordad1332.jpg: the uploader originally claimed PD [10], later claimed that "The photo is Public Domain for educational and informational use", but finally removed the previous claim and tagged the image as GFDL [11]. He mentions that the image "is from CHN Archives of Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization", but does not provide the organization's license. Uploader is notified. roozbeh 13:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
clarified.--Zereshk 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
clarified.--Zereshk 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Zereshk 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Images uploaded by User:Amir85 (uploader notified)
  • Image:Persepolis 100.jpg, Image:Parthian art 1.jpg: uploader claims contradictory things about the license. He uses the tag that says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright holder is attributed." But then mentions that it's only for non-commercial purposes. He doesn't mention the source either. Possibly a copyvio. roozbeh 15:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Source for Image:Parthian art 1.jpg (http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_5_11.html) Usage allowed with mention of the refernce site --Amir85 (original uploader)
      • Unfortunately that ("usage allowed with mention of the refernce site") is not true. That website explicitly mentions that "The contents of this site may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without the written permission of the State Hermitage Museum." [13]. That means that we don't have any permission to use this image. roozbeh 21:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • i've contacted their respected reference source for permission before uploading but to no answer or avail.So as a common trend for gallery or museum images its been used solely non-commercially with mention of its reference source which doesnt violate their policies. --Amir85 (original uploader)
          • I don't agree that using the images with mention of the source does not violate their copyright. It does violate their copyright. roozbeh 20:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:07b.jpg: uploader claims fairuse, but does not give the source or any information about the copyright holder. roozbeh 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Source for Image:07b.jpg (http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/aany2002/mainpages/07b.html) Usage allowed with mention of the refernce site. --Amir85 (original uploader)
      • Unfortunately I cannot confirm that ("usage allowed with mention of the refernce site"). The website does not mention anything like that. They only mention "all text and images © John Eskenazi Ltd." [14]. roozbeh 21:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • i've contacted their respected reference source for permission before uploading but to no answer or avail.So as a common trend for gallery or museum images its been used solely non-commercially with mention of its reference source which doesnt violate their policies. --Amir85 (original uploader)
          • Unfortunately there is no policies on their website that I could find. I don't agree that using the images with mention of the source does not violate their copyright. It does violate their copyright. roozbeh 20:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The uploader has provided comments, and the text of his communication with Iran Chamber, which I moved to User:Amir85/Permission from Iran Chamber. It seems that the images from Iran Chamber should really be "{{NoncommercialProvided}} the source is mentioned." I have removed the parts acted upon and also removed the original PUI disputed for them from above, to reduce the page size. I have also moved his comments to the appropriate section. roozbeh 20:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


Phase II - September 7

Phase II - September 8

Images uploaded by User:Scottfisher (has been notified)
  • Attention Craigy
  • Please see response note RE:Images

I draw your attention to pictures of old post cards on Wikipedia, a legality here in the United States.

At your convenience please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. :

The following note appears on User talk RHaworth *A minor template problem

Interesting about Corel Scott 15:47:20, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
  • Be advised, I would check the law on the pictures of post cards here in the United States before tagging such. If you wish, we could consider all pictures unverified on Wikipedia.
  • I do appreciate your considerate means of commenting, CraigyCraigy144, a fair approach, before deletion though. I also understand you are attempting to clean house on the deletion back log page.

How does one prove that a picture is unverified, as you tagged?

Thanks,

Scott 01:32:57, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

The following images have been uploaded by the above listed user under PD-"creator". All images have no source information. User has been notified.

  • User uploaded Image:Yuengling sign2.jpg claims PD-user that he took the picture, which i contend is invald, and logo, which while it contains the logo it's a promo piece. The picture orginiates from [16], a site run by a beer tray seller and collector named Mark, i am fairly certain that Mark is not User:Scottfisher. I think this might bee a keeper but based that the photo was not released by the company and the wording on Promotional, i am not sure how it could be tagged.

Also 3 addation images have been listed as image vios, Image:Former yuengling mansion.jpg, Image:The old Yorkville Hose Bldg.jpg, Image:Center street School.jpg. I expect the imagevios and this section to increase in size in the coming days. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Phase II - September 14

The uploader remembers that the author wrote in her website that she released the images to public domain. There are now three possibilities: the permission has really changed, the uploader misunderstood it or remembers it incorrectly. -Hapsiainen 06:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

German images

Acronyms BStU and Mfs in the photos refer to the East German secret police. My understanding of German copyright law is that even if the photographer is employed by the government, that doesn't mean the photos are PD. Delete unless somebody can find a source for claiming PD. Thuresson 16:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is idiot simple to see that these are public domain. http://www.bstu.de contains all photos from the defunct stasi and these are old east german government made photos. Go to the website and see for yourself. --Fahrenheit451 19:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, did that, bought the t-shirt, didn't see any evidence that this is PD. Thuresson

I take your reply as glib and sarcastic. The page is right here--Fahrenheit451 21:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't {{GermanGov}} apply then? —Ilmari Karonen 22:19:43, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Yes, that would apply here under the category of "panorama" permission to use it provided credit is given and the image is not modified. Both of these conditions are met as credit is listed in the photo caption and the images are intact. I consider these questions resolved to retain these images.--Fahrenheit451 23:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC) - That "BStU" is an official authority of the FRG. That photograph *shows* the MfS HA II (HA = Hauptabteilung, meaning Main Department.) I don't think the BStU (http://www.bstu.de/home.htm) claims that picture to be copyright protected.[reply]

- There is a particular law within the FRG which dictates how the records of the former Stasi are used. It is available here: (http://www.bstu.de/seiten_ausland/englisch/gesetz_eng.htm). Section 32 of said law states that the BStU's commissioner shall provide Stasi records "for research related to the political and historical reappraisal of the activities of the State Security Service and for political education" as long as they contain no personal data. (There are a few exceptions to this.) This clause would appear to imply that the image may be used freely in a context such as Wikipedia, without regard even to the German "Panorama permission." -Some random guy


Images uploaded by User:Otebig

Unsourced images of Muslim architecture for the page I created back in July:

Feel free to use my own personal image if useful instead; Taken and owned by me: [17] Its not great quality but is fine for a thumb-nail and I can provide a higher quality image if asked. disasterboy 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other
Huh?? these don't look professional at all. There is no reason to doubt the poster's GDFL claim.--Rogerd 03:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The uploader has had several of his images questioned: see User talk:Alexk001 Alr 03:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Images uploaded by User:Lemonade51

Unsourced, no tags. History of imagevios.

Image uploaded by User:User458
Image uploaded by User:Sinjanin
  • Image:Arambas.jpg — They'd like to use this image in the Wikibooks Cookbook, which means that they'd like it to be on Commons. Unfortunately, this user hasn't tagged any of the images that xe uploaded. So we don't even know whether it can be on Commons. Uncle G 11:05:59, 2005-08-23 (UTC)


User:rktect

And no value in keeping any of these: Image:3ht.jpg Image:Sailors.jpg Image:Ekgdz.jpg -- Egil 07:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add Image:Egyptian circles.jpg - no source given -- Egil 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC) All of these photos were taken by me and I have made them freely available Rktect 20:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded by User:Hitek5000

Phase II - September 9

Phase II - September 11

Comment: the source is http://www.joanandstevesjubilantukjournal.co.uk/images/diana1frml.jpg, you can find it from the page history. But I can find nothing about the copyright status from the source site. -Hapsiainen 13:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Phase II - September 12

See also my comment on August 29. -Hapsiainen 06:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Phase II - September 15

Phase II - September 18

Phase I

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.


Phase I - September 2

  • These images were not tagged until now. In any case, obviously, the uploader does not totally understand copyright. The images came from tehran24.com and the copyright terms do not allow non-commercial use. Just because uploader supplied it by taking it from that site does not give the uploader the right to release it under GFDL. RedWolf 04:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - September 3

  • Image:Ghirshman team.jpg: Uploader has not mentioned the source, but only that "Photo provided by Zereshk". Please note that by "provided" he doesn't necessarily mean that he has taken the photo himself, as the photo is from 1934. Uploader notified. roozbeh 00:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Uploader later updated the image page to say "Photo taken by Zereshk from original print by The Louvre and ICHO during 3 day conference in Tehran." Still no mention of the photographer, original copyright holder, or a verifiable source. roozbeh 22:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:SialkCAD.jpg: Uploader has claimed public domain, without mentioning the reason. He has mentioned the original author but nothing about a possible permission. Please note that the copyright holder residing in Iran is not enough reason for the image being in public domain (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran). Uploader notified. roozbeh 00:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Iranian-life.jpg: Uploader has claimed PD without providing the exact source or reason. He only mentions "Picture from an old text of Omar Khayam's Ruba'iyat". Please note that the copyright holder residing in Iran is not enough reason for the image being in public domain (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran). Uploader notified. roozbeh 01:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Shazdeh.jpg: Uploader first claimed {{fairuse}} and named an author, then removed the author's name and claimed GFDL. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Saadi.jpg: Uploader claims {{fairuse}} and mentions an author, but not the source or rationale. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Milad.jpg: Uploader claims PD and that "image has been released to public by the government of Iran". But does not provide any source or proof. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Ilam-bridge.jpg: Uploader claims PD and that "Photo is released into PD by Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization". But does not provide any source or proof. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Stephanus.jpg: Uploader first claimed PD and provided an verifiable source but no reason why it is PD. He then removed the source and claimed GFDL. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Newconst acb 050404.jpg: Uploader first claimed {{fairuse}}, then switched to GFDL, and finally mentioned that "Image is from their own website". No reason why this is GFDL. Uploader notified. roozbeh 03:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Elizabeth Smart.jpg - the page claims this picture is a US federal govt. work & hence public domain. I don't know, but that seems to me highly unlikely. When someone is abducted, the police generally distribute photos taken before the abduction by the abductees own family. Thus, those photos are copyrighted by their family, and assumably this photo is copyrighted by te Smart family. Just because the US fed govt. redistributes it does not make it public domain -- it would only be a public domain fed govt work if the original photographer was a US government employee or contractor taking the photo as part of their official duties. That seems to me highly implausible. Basically, to use this image I think the Smart family's permission is required. --137.111.7.231 12:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Newconst acb 050404.jpg: Uploader originally claimed fair use. He later changed that GFDL, and finally provided an unverifiable source ("their own website"). License or source cannot be confirmed. roozbeh 23:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Stephanus.jpg: Uploader originally claimed PD and that "Photo belongs to Iran Cultural Heritage Organization", and that he has scanned it "from one of their publications". But he later removed the scanning claim and changed the licence to GFDL. License or source cannot be confirmed. roozbeh 23:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:ArthurMillspaugh.jpg: The source is mentioned only as "from original text". Uploader claims GFDL, without mentioning the photographer, name of the source, or reasoning for the GFDL claim. roozbeh 23:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Arg-Tabriz.jpg: No source. Uploader claims GFDL and "Photo taken by Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization". roozbeh 23:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:LilyAfshar1.jpg: Unverifiable source ("her website"). Uploader claims GFDL that can't be verified either. roozbeh 23:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Arg-Tabriz-USA.jpg: Uploader claims "Photo is from original by Morgan Shuster", who died in 1960 (which makes the photo copyrighted). He claims GFDL. roozbeh 23:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:LilyAfshar2.jpg: Uploader claims "Photo taken from a concert poster in London, 2005", but not the original author or copyright holder. He then claims GFDL. May be fair use. roozbeh 23:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Haghighatjoo.jpg: Uploader provides an unverifiable source ("Photo was taken from AFP and Iranmania") and claims GFDL. It's improbable that AFP would release a photo under GFDL. roozbeh 23:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - September 4

  • Image:Grizzlies.jpg: Uploader says "The opwner of this picture, MemphisTravel.com, has given permission to distribute this photo under GFDL terms. (see: http://www.memphistravel.com/image_library.asp )". But the license available at the URL is not GFDL-compatible. It explicitly excludes the use of image in post cards and posters, for examples. I couldn't verify the source either. roozbeh 00:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Donny-Hathaway.jpg: Uploader claims PD and that "It is more than 25 yrs old. Its copyright has expired." But that is not true in the United States, at least. roozbeh 00:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Hosein.jpg: Uploader claims PD and mentioned the author ("Photo of painting by Mirza-Beigi"), but not why this is in public domain. roozbeh 00:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:ImamAli.jpg: Uploader claims GFDL but at the same time says "Artist is unknown". roozbeh 00:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - September 5

Phase I - September 6

Phase I - September 7

Phase I - September 8

Boothy I'll ask Shawn Mullins tommorrow night when I see him whether or not I can use his picture. Then what? Scott 23:28:53, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Coffee 14:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Houston Panoramic.jpg was taken by James Blakeway. See [29]. It's probably not public domain. Could fair use be applied, given attribution, to promote the photographer's work and since it's a degraded version?

Phase I - September 9

  • Image:King Tut Death Mask.jpg. The commentary states it is used with explicit permission, and only for Wikimedia.
    • Is this site not owned by the Wikimedia Foundation? Obvious keep, especially since the user got permission. --Revolución (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to familiarize yourself with the policy then, as it has long been established that we cannot use images where permission is granted to us only. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, so our content has to be freely-licensed, which this photo is not. The permission extends to us and to others falling within some confused definition, and specifies not-for-profit. Delete. — Trilobite 02:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - September 10

Phase I - September 11

Uploaded by Toryboy:

Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 11:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

    • The one of Thatcher looks like a scan of part of the cover of her memoris.
    • The Bill Cash shot is almost certainly one of a series of official Conservative Party (UK) photographs taken in 2001 of the-then Shadow Cabinet. It probably comes from the party website. The party gave permission for a number of the other shots to be used on the relevant pages and I suspect this one would be covered by that.
    • The "Kent air" shot is the University of Kent campus and appears to be from the mid 1990s at the latest (several buildings are missing that were established if not aging when I started there in 1998). I've sent an enquiry to the alumni email list to see if anyone has more information on it. Timrollpickering 12:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus so far on the alumni mailing list is that the Kent air shot dates from about 1988 (judging by the lack of some buildings and the foundation work for another), but no information on copyright yet. However it may be possible to obtain an alternative shot with permission to replace this one. Timrollpickering 11:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - September 12

Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 07:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I - September 13

Phase I - September 14

Boxing photos

None of the following photos have a source. They are tagged as GFDL but no sources to verify this. Neither are the photographers / copyright owners credited in any way. The uploader has on an earlier occasion replied that he/she doesn't remember the source of a particular photo.

Thuresson 04:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I - September 15

Phase I - September 16

Phase I - September 17

Phase I - September 18

Phase I - September 19

Phase 1 - September 20

NOTE: I listed this two days ago, but an unregistered user removed it from this page (without removing the copyvio notice from the image or giving any reasons for claiming fair use) Cynical 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like it's a good candidate for fair use---a photograph of Pat Robertson illustrating an article on him. It would be nice if we had one with the source better identified though (for example, a news photo would be an easier fair use claim than some sort of artistic photo). --Delirium 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RedWolf 05:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 1 - September 21

Phase 1 - September 23

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=23861552"