Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muchosucko (talk | contribs) at 07:59, 1 February 2006 (→February 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

Place either:

  • {{no source|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

or

  • {{no license|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

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

Please also notify the uploader so they get a change 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 nessesary 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 (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

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.

Note: 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). Images which are 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.

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 19


I’m the copyright holder, please do not delete any of my photographs before someone can answer the below questions and I can then reply, thank you and apologies for not first checking if ‘for this site only’ was good enough.

I do not want to release any of my photographs out of copyright or with Creative Commons etc. But I am willing to release them ‘freely’, free of charge to anyone as long as credit is given, and they are not edited to the extent of alteration for the purpose of distortion.

(minor edits are fine, including normal sizing, moving, burning, colour balancing, spotting, contrast adjustment, and cropping. But no ‘Photoshoping’ adding/removing details such as adding a flying saucer to a skyline or a moustache to a face.)

Would it be acceptable and possible to use something similar to this – Template:ABr? (it’s listed as acceptable, [on this page] under ‘Free licenses’)

How about this…?

Copyright
This image, copyright(C) Cian Ginty.

Cian Ginty has made this photograph available freely and free of charge. This photograph should not be reproduced unless the author is credited and the photograph is not edited to the extent of alteration for the purpose of distortion

.

Monucg 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make up a new tag, use: {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} and replace restrictions with "This photograph should not be reproduced unless the author is credited and the photograph is not edited to the extent of alteration for the purpose of distortion" -Nv8200p talk 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Monucg 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

January 21

Changed to promotional -Nv8200p talk 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to promotional -Nv8200p talk 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

January 23

January 24

January 25

  • Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg and other images by Yousuf Karsh. I believe these are in fact not in the public domain in the U.S. and have been uploaded in error. So far, only one other editor has commented and apparently nobody at Wikipedia:Copyright problems dared take any action whatsoever. As I was the one who uploaded this particular image, I feel kind of responsible to get this situation resolved one way or another. See also Wikipedia:Public domain for an extended discussion on what is in the public domain where, and its talk page for some additional comments on these Karsh images. Note that many of these images are also at the commons, where an extended discussion had taken place after an anon IP had pointed out that CameraPress claims copyright in the UK. The image has remained so far at the commons because I mistakenly asserted that it was in the public domain because the Library and Archives of Canada said so. There is indeed no proof that these Karsh images were in the public domain anywhere else but in Canada. Lupo 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a tricky one, but I am convinced that photo is in the Public Domain in the United States. Comments:
      1. I think you're reading Hirtle's chart wrong. If a work was in the public domain in its home country on Jan 1, 1996, then it's PD in the U.S. now and forever, even if the home country retro-actively restores copyright. (This was done to protect U.S. reusers from retro-active foreign copyright laws.) But if (as in this case) it was copyrighted in 1996, then the U.S. sets 95 years as the maximum time they will respect that copyright. If it falls into the public domain in the home country, the U.S. will not insist that the image is copyrighted. So if the image were first published only in Canada (not in the UK), then it would be PD in the U.S. - the U.S. won't insist that Canada keep an image copyrighted, afterall. However the U.S. would consider the image copyrighted if the UK considers it copyrighted, regardless of what Canada thinks. So what's its status in the UK?
      2. When books are published in two countries in the same year, they are considered "simultaneous" publications under copyright law. So this image was published in both countries simultaneously. According to the law of shorter term, the image would fall into the Public Domain in the UK as soon as it did so in Canada. I know that CameraPress claims copyright, and they have an economic incentive to do so, but I don't think the claim is valid, and I'm pretty sure a UK judge would be unable to respect that copyright under Council Directive 93/98/EEC.
    • Because of this, I think that were CameraPress to sue a reuser, either in the U.S., Canada, or the UK, the suit would be thrown out. I think it's safe to use as PD. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, but the crux is that the EU recognizes the rule of the shorter term only if a work has been originally published outside the EU. Since it was published simultaneously also in the UK, I believe that rule does not come into effect as far as the EU is concerned as the image was also first published in the UK. [this by Lupo, split by Quadell]
      Drat. Looks like you're right. The statute in question says "Where the country of origin of a work, within the meaning of the Berne Convention, is a third country, and the author of the work is not a Community national, the term of protection granted by the Member States shall expire on the date of expiry of the protection granted in the country of origin of the work, but may not exceed the term laid down in Article 1." According to the Berne Convention, "The country of origin shall be considered to be. . . in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country." Sigh. Fine, the U.K. considers the work to be copyrighted, and so the U.S. does too. Sadly. So Delete.
      As for your first point: do you have a source for your statement "If it falls into the public domain in the home country, the U.S. will not insist that the image is copyrighted"?? That would amount to the U.S. honoring the rule of the shorter term. I have been unable to find any such statement. (Though I'd love having a definitive reference confirming that, as it would make many things a lot easier.) Lupo 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't really matter in this case, since it's copyrighted in the UK, and therefore also the U.S. But for other cases, the U.S. is willing to honor another country's copyright, but if that country doesn't claim copyright, there's nothing to honor. The international copyright law is only there for one country to enforse (or choose not to enforce) another copyright held in another country. There is never a case where a resident of Country A took a photo in Country A, and Country A considers the work in the public domain, but Country B claims the photo is copyrighted. Country A would just tell country B to mind its own business. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which copyright tag to use for these two images. From source page (in Swedish):
* Bilderna är fria att publicera. Observera att bilderna inte får användas i kampanjer utan fotografens godkännande.
* Bilderna får beskäras men inte förvanskas.
* Vid publicering måste fotografens namn anges.
Which translates to:
* The images are free to publish. Note that the images may not be used for "campaigns" without the photographer's consent.
* The images may be cropped but not distorted.
* The photographer must be credited when published.
Any ideas which tag could be used? Anlo 08:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to Vägverket and asked if there's any possibility for them to license the images under creative commons. Mats 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Mats! To the admins that might delete this, can we hold off a bit if possible, till this gets clarified. (in the US anyway, government agencies don't always answer in milliseconds!) These are really pretty images, used in an article that was recently featured on the main page DYK, and the license is really quite close to suitable (the problem is that forks of Wikipedia may well be for parody or criticism, which could be construed as "campaigns", although I'm betting they meant advertising or political campaigns in that construct), if it isn't already. If they'd license under CC that would be just awesome but if not, what then? where is a good place to discuss? ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reply, but not really what we wanted. They've changed the text on the page so that the first bullet now says:
* The pictures may be published freely in a news coverage context. Note that they may not be used for commercial purposes without the prior consent of Vägverket and the photographer.
Mats 11:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bother. Looks like we lose the use of them, then. I see no way that Fair Use could be stretched to cover those. Too bad. We still can LINK to them though (and I have in fact put some links in the articles to images not uploaded, that explain process (how the stays and cable conveyors worked during construction)... However I must point out that my comment is subject to Raul's law #4... I would love to be shown to be incorrect by someone who actually knows this area of copyright law. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

January 27

January 28

delete. Period.--Lacatosias 09:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a misunderstanding. This is a photograph of a product (a philosophical joke/toy) where the physical product photographed has a copyright notice on it. A low res image of the physical object should still be fair use, even if the physical object happens to have writing on it including "(c)" (that symbol may or may not itself be part of the joke, but perhaps the other text accompanying the toy is indeed copyrighted). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that no articles link to this image, a definite requirement for keeping pics. Nscheffey 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

January 30

January 31

  • These pictures have been uploaded under a tag stating "This copyrighted image was published by an official agency of the Federal Republic of Germany or of its predecessor states ... . According to the Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright Laws) of Germany (§ 5(2)), it may be reproduced with a credited citation of its source ... ." This an incorrect interpretation of the German law; § 5(2) UrhG refers to laws promulgated by the government and the like, and all legal commentaries interpret this in a very strict sense. Many of these images can probably be re-tagged as copyrighted images used under the fair use doctrine, but they do need to have their provenance examined.

Pilatus 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With two exceptions (and two more possible exceptions) as noted above, this is material from the Nazi era. Does anyone have a suggestion what would be the appropriate copyright claim? While copyright may technically persist, I've never noticed anyone (even in print) hesitate to use such materials. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we begin respecting Nazi era copyright and start using free images. One would think that the copyright of Nazi era government-commissioned works is with the German government. (That's incidentally why Mein Kampf is not available in German, the text is owned by the Bavarian government and they refuse to license it.) Likely enough, the German Historical Museum has material available, they just might agree to release some under the GFDL. I notice that there is much American material on Nazi war criminals from the Nuremberg trials, being commissioned by the US government it's PD and free. Pilatus 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi-era copyright is still enforceable, both in Germany and in other Berne Convention states. Unfortunately, it is covered by the 1901 law and not the current version of the Urherberrechtsgesetz. Under current policy, a fair use claim is impossible if we do not know who the copyright holder is. Physchim62 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

These images are from www.sportsattic.com. Like two I've used from the site, these probably violate copyright laws, despite claims they're in public domain:

I'll check to see if there's more... --- transaspie 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:NoRand.png - you can't take a copyrighted image, draw a big red x on it, and call it GFDL or a parody, either one. —Cryptic (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In its current location, this pretty clearly falls under the "Comment and criticism" aspect of fair use. Putting a red X over someone's likeness is an effective way of instantly communicating opposition, and given the fact that this is political criticism, First Amendment concerns would probably trump any copyright claims, especially given that the use of the picture in this manner does not in any way impede the profitability of Rand's works. Note that pictures modified in this and similar manners are extremely common at rallies and protests. To my knowledge, no one has ever made an infringement claim under such circumstances. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't know if the images use in the little box qualifies as "comment and criticism". -Nv8200p talk
    • Parody is possible (it would still have no place on Wikipedia, of course -- unusable in both article and user space). But the claim of the uploader that it is under the GFDL is clearly bunk. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the inaccurate GFDL claim and replaced it with a custom tag (since none of the existing fair use tags made sense in this context) that explains the uploader's justification. I also cited an external source (Stanford.edu) for the fair use criteria in question. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It does not fall under fair use. It is copyright infringement because it appropriates the original. The image decreases the opportunities of licensing this picture, and diminishes its commerciability. But, keeping it on here will only be an nuisance instead of really breaking the law. The case law for this type of parody is Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986)--Muchosucko 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Atlaspuked.jpg - incorporates portions of a copyrighted work, the cover of Atlas Shrugged. By the same user as the above; looking on the image description page, it is clear he is deliberately flouting copyright law. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These images have been tagged as "unknown copyright" for quite some time:

--SarekOfVulcan 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=37647010"