Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

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

Place either:

{{subst:nsd}} for no source

or

{{subst:nld}} for no license

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 criteria 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 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

[[:|WP:PUI]]

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

Instructions

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

None at this time.

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.

February 19

Image:Mjelde.jpg Cant find a (c) status on the site, but its def not all rights released... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Spargett-Birds.jpg, Image:City_hall.png and Image:Japanese_garden.png. All of these were uploaded with the note "all rights reserved". -- Anguis 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:City_hall.png is now relicensed under GFDL, however the other two still have no update. -- Anguis 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Image:NKR Coat of Arms.gif. Uploader claims Gevork Nazaryan allows free use of this image, but source do not verify that. See also Flagspot.net copyright. Thuresson 07:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stamps from India are not released under a free license, see indiapost.gov.in. Works by the Indian government are not free if they were first published after 1946, see commons:Template:PD-IndiaGov.
I believe the rules on the Indian Post website only refer to paper reproductions. The reading of the text makes the intent very clear - paper reproductions could very well be passed off as original stamps. Digital Photographs of stamps however are another matter - especially when they have cancellation marks across them. --Cheeni 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Toi 150 common man.jpg
  - I've taken the picture of the stamp and uploaded it to Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of illustrating a particular stamp design. It goes against my expectation of common sense to see its legitimacy to be questioned; certainly not with a Sword-of-Damocles deadline of 7 days. I don't log into Wikipedia except when I have to make an edit, and this doesn't happen very often. Ergo I don't see deletion messages left on my user page. I was on vacation last month (without Internet access, I might add) for a couple of weeks, and I came back to see two of my images taken off from Wikipedia under the 7-day deadline rule. This is simply unacceptable. I'm just plain lucky to have spotted this message within 7 days. If this goes on, I believe I will have to stop contributing to Wikipedia. There's no point in seeing my legitimate efforts at adding content being thrown out of the window by Wikipedia brass with a rulebook.

--Cheeni 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Really the only reason we do this is because we don't want Wikipedia to be shut down with a copyright infringement lawsuit. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Colachel Stamp.jpg
- Image:Kotnis-Indian stamp.jpg
- Thuresson 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. Thanks for the clarification. Have deleted references on the articles for Colachel and Kotnis. Please delete the two images. mkamat15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If required the stamps could be used as a fair use to that extent. Idleguy 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CatOnChaise1.JPG is from [1] - website says Copyright © 1998-2006 by Kittie Krafts. All Rights Reserved. while 'All rights released' is claimed on the image file -SCEhard T 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chris DiMarco.jpg - Tagged as Copyrightedfreeuse, but the website it is taken from says [2] Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you are not authorized to and may not reproduce, copy, transmit, alter, frame, distribute, perform, prepare derivative works based upon, or display the Materials in whole or in part without first obtaining the prior written permission of TSN. // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jim Furyk.jpg - [3] does not allow commercial and non-private purposes without the prior written consent of SuperSport Zone // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Retief Goosen.jpg - [4] no form of distribution or making available to the public (whether in print or electronic form) of any of this website's content is permitted. // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vijay Singh.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sergio Garcia.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adam Scott.jpg - It is tagged CopyrightedFreeUse, but contains no evidence why this image from msn.com is free use // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:FisherH.jpg - no explanation is given why the image is copyrightedfreeuse. I have not been able to enter the website, but that might be temporary problems // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is copyrighted [5] from here --Dystopos 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:275px-FisherH.jpg - same as Image:FisherH.jpg // Habj 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is copyrighted [6] from here --Dystopos 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Image:Tayshaun Prince Block.jpg - no explanation given why free use // —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Milleniumstadiumcardiff.jpg Image:Milleniumstadiumcardiff2.jpg Image:Millenium stadium4.jpg All released under the GFDL. User has a history of uploading non-free images with incorrect licencing (see talk page) No claim that user has created these images. Agnte 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:T-84 l.jpg. Uploader claims CopyrightedFreeUse from globalsecurity.org but that web site is not that generous, "reuse strictly prohibited", "for informational and noncommercial uses offline only" etc etc (copyright policy). Thuresson 19:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is ironic, because globalsecurity.org probably grabs the images from other sources and republishes them under "fair use". Oh well. —Michael Z. 2006-02-21 20:14 Z

Simply too much of a beautiful pic to let it go. I'd leave it where it is. Lohe

February 22

Image:29 09 RORY JENNINGS 14a.jpg Complicated, it's orphaned so it probably doesn't matter anyway. See page history for upload details which was blanked by the oploader (it seems to me). I'm not sure what the terms of the license for the photo are but I suspect that it doesn't meet WPs criteria. Matt 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mdew.png This is currently tagged as PD. It apparently was created in an attempt to get around the fair use issue of using the actual, copyrighted Mountain Dew logo Image:Mountain dewLogo.JPG. However, a close copy of a copyrighted work still may qualify as a copyright violation. I don't think it's fair to just re-draw this and claim PD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not a copyrighted work, it's similar enough to a trademark that people who know what it is supposed to look like recognise it. Much like if I made my own swoop, Nike could not sue me for copyright infringement. If you're thinking that this is trademark infringement, that would be a matter for a judge - this is definately not a copyright issue. Janizary 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christopher Hughes.jpg. Claimed to be PD, but the site given lists it as belonging to either the family or Associated Press, with no indication of public domain status. It's only used in the Kevin Cooper article, which barely touches upon the subject, so fair use isn't applicable. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fir0002-1yr.jpg, Wikimedia logos are protected by copyright, not licensed under GFDL. Thuresson 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? What's with that!--Fir0002 www 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polish nurse.jpg Copyrighted advertisement work added with a fairuse tag. But this doesn't fit. The image neither illustrates the work or product in question nor is the article Polish Plumber in the absence of other pictures that could serve such a purpose. The image is superfluous.--Neutrality Plumber 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Image:Stephen Harper.jpg - Tagged GFDL but with no evidence; uploader has been tagging all uploads GFDL when most aren't -SCEhard T 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Usa suburb.jpg - No evidence of released copyright found at source website; uploader has a history of improperly tagged images. -SCEhard T 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Press Dec 19 03 (Basra).JPG -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2004 bremer CPADinnerOrchestra.jpg -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:June 30 2004 at White House.jpg -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ave Maria U. Commencement June 19 2005 (2).JPG -- no source, uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sept 13 2005.jpg -- uploader attributes image to -By Darren Mccollester -- Getty Images / For The Washington Post)- but hasn't shown any effort to get permission from the copyright holder, asserts {promotional} -- Geo Swan 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bureaucrat man.jpg -- uploader tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:May 18 2003.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Crazy dog.GIF -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hopping kangaroo.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{somewebsite}} -- Image has an embedded copyright notice -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rudolph Reindeer.JPG -- unsourced image tagged with {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Catinhat.gif -- unsourced, untagged image -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hearts.gif -- unsourced image untagged -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Merry christmas.gif -- unsourced image -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg -- unsourced image tagged with {{Promotional}} -- Geo Swan 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Image:Einstein.jpg -- tagged as screenshot, is clearly not one. No need for this low-quality, copyrighted image in an article which already has plenty of good images. Uploaded has a history of uploading copyvio images. --Fastfission 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a speedy (re-upload of previously deleted content). We had deleted back in October 2004 a way better reproduction of Halsman's image as a copyvio; see Special:Undelete/Image:Albert_Einstein.jpg. Lupo 19:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Space buddy2.gif - This image has been floating around the internet without an author for some time. It seems to me that we can't use it on Wikipedia because the author may still reserve his/her copyright. (That is, the websites currently hosting the image may be 'stealing' it.) -SCEhard T 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This is free clip art. This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif. Here are some free clip art websites which lists it for free use: [[7]][[8]]

Please advise on my talk page. Thank you. |||Miles.D.|||^{02-28-2006 17:33 (UTC)}

Image:Breanna Lynn.jpg - tagged {{GFDL}}, but no indication that the photographer has indeed released it under the GFDL. Uploader notified. Chick Bowen 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the photographer and a representative of the Web site at which the photograph is hosted have indeed confirmed their agreement with release under the GFDL and the use of the photograph in Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart. BobbyLee 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you mind asking them either to e-mail permissions at wikimedia dot org, or to put a note on the source website releasing it under the GFDL, so we can get this thing cleared up once and for all? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will do. BobbyLee 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gretchen bleiler.jpg - no evidence of {{promophoto}} status -SCEhard T 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Image:Ahn.jpg - It says "Reuters" on the corner, so how can the uploader claim "The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it ...." Does the uploader own Reuters ? Or did Reuters steal this pic from the uploader ? -- PFHLai 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ethier2.jpg - Uploader of the image asserts that the image is copyrighted and The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. The website terms of use agreement (mlb.com) states in part:All materials distributed in the Website (the "Materials") are either owned by or licensed to MLBAM. MLBAM and its licensors retain all proprietary rights to the Materials. Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you must not reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, perform or display the Materials without first obtaining the written permission of MLBAM. Materials must not be used in any unauthorized manner. [9] No Guru 18:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BradThomas.jpg - suffers from same copyright restrictions as previous image. The MLB terms of use page severly restricts use of their content. - No Guru 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Image:Amy Jo Johnson.jpg - uploader claims public domain, but no indication of that at listed source. Chick Bowen 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The listed source says that all of its pictures "are considered to be in the public domain, as they were found in various places on the Internet." So, yes, the listed source does claim public domain, but more than likely does so illegally. The picture in question is labeled with "Picture copyright information: Not Available". I think this is grounds for a speedy delete. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Laila Rouass.jpg - uploader claims public domain, but no indication of that at listed source. Chick Bowen 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out this one was listed at WP:CP but the {{imagevio}} tag had been removed, so I deleted it. Chick Bowen 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Neelam.jpg - uploader as two above, claims public domain Chick Bowen 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mexicana early timetable.JPG - claims copyright but allowing use for any purpose, but the website it's taken from says "allows users to use their photos on other websites", but GFDL requires use in published (written) works as well, no? Also requires attribution but website is down (509) so can't determine if author is webiste owner or another contributor (in which case the license quoted doesn't (necessarily) apply). Telso 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The source website shouldn't really be relevant since Mexicana actually owns the copyright. Since we know Mexicana published it, it should fall under a fair use claim. -SCEhard T 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Three_right_feet.jpg - Claimed pd/no restrictions, but it seems thats's not true. --Apoc2400 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Order5gy.gif. Uploader claimed self-made. This image consists of a still of Michael Martin (Speaker of the United Kingdom House of Commons) which has originally come from Parliamentary TV transmissions, overlaid with a red and yellow flashing "ORDER ORDER". Parliamentary TV is copyright held by the Parliamentary Recording Unit. I doubt that this really qualifies as self made. David | Talk 10:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cancel that entry - image speedily deleted after request from uploader. David | Talk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cocoheadshot.jpg is from mlb.com. The uploader asserts that the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it. The terms of usage agreement page states that mlb.com reserves all rights.[10] No Guru 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

Image:Jerryrice.jpg The website of the image doesn't say it uses Creative Commons. Also who took and owns the photo? It doesn't look like a sports memorabilia online store "owns" the photo. The user seems has not contributed to Wikipedia in a while. --J. Nguyen 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adamlopez promoshot.JPG - after being tagged as 'no source', uploader now claims we have permission to use it. Isn't there a procedure for this? Someone may like to counsel the uploader (I don't think the source in it's current state is a healthy precedent). I wonder why permission wasn't claimed in the first place? The JPS 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ice spike.jpg - Tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but the source site[11] seems to only permit non-commercial use of the images unless we buy a license. --Sherool (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

You tagged Image:Ice spike.jpg as a possibly-unfree image, but I believe we have permission to use the photograph.

  To: kgl@caltech.edu
  Subject: Ice spike photographs

  Hi there.

  I just read your fascinating page on ice spike formation, and was
  wondering if you'd mind if I uploaded one of the photographs to the
  Wikipedia community encyclopedia?  The credit would read:

    This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use 
    it for any purpose.

    Photographer: Kenneth G. Libbrecht <kgl@caltech.edu>

  My thanks in advance.

The reply:

  You can use an ice spike picture, but with a different credit line:
  Photo provided by Kenneth Libbrecht (http://www.snowcrystals.com)

  ********************************************************** 
  Kenneth G. Libbrecht
  Professor of Physics and Physics Executive Officer
  Office: 263 W. Bridge
  Address: 264-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
  e-mail: kgl@caltech.edu
  URL: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/
  **********************************************************

--Ghakko 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but permission to use is one thing (unfortunately we don't allow "exclusive" permission only images), permission to re-publish under a free license is something else entierly and as far as I can tell he did not agree to actualy do that. Unless you can convince him to explicitly release the photo under the GFDL, or a compatable CC license or whatever (see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission) I'd suggest we just delete this image and have someone make a free photo of an ice spike instead. Alternatively tag this as {{fairusein|Ice spike}}{{withpermission}}{{fairusereplace}}, but we are not rely supposed to use fair use images unless it's impossible to make a free alternative, wich should not be all that hard in this case. --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

Image:Athabaskan R79.jpg: 1960s Royal Canadian Navy image, still under Crown copyright. Lupo 08:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Charles Avery Dunning.jpg apparently still under Canadian Crown copyright. Lupo 12:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nubus-slot.gif - Source stated is a commercial website that, while not stating any copyright claim, does not show any indication that this image is really public domain either. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

Image:Cephalonia and Ithaca elevation.jpg - Possibly scanned from a book [12], says is copyrighted and used by permission. Nonfree license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Uploader now indicates copyright owner has authorized licensing under the GFDL and has tagged accordingly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Miss Iceland.jpg - This is either a TV screen shot from the Miss Word beauty pageant, or its a publicity still. Either way, it's very likely to be copyrighted. Technically, the uploader did give a source (the pageant) and the license ({{CopyrightedFreeUse}}), so it may not be a speedy. --Rob 08:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1stBatBW.jpg - Probably an AP or Reuters image - was incorrectly tagged as a newspaper page scan - either way it's a copyright violation.

Found it - it's an AP image http://web.ripnet.com/~nimmos/under_the_kilt.html so clearly a violation. Trapper 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Image:Tiny Tove.jpg - This is a promotiional image, used with permission, with a few restrictions. This seems to beyond what's allowed. Given the full sized/commercial quality, it seems it doesn't meet fairuse requirements. --Rob 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest scaling down to size used in article and deleting other revisions. -SCEhard T 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only restriction given is that the image maintain the Color Climax Corporation logo. They have no problem with global reproduction as long as the image maintains the logo, hell they dont even have a problem with commercial use of said image. As such its a "used with permission notwithstanding we claim fair use" situation. Quite clearly they dont give a crap what we do with it as long as their logo is attached. ALKIVAR™ 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see permission for derivitative works. Also, regardless of that, even a trivial restriction, like a mark on the image itseslf, is to much for Wikipedia. Jimbo has (it seems) opted to treat "use with permission" in the same boat as unlicensed images. It has to be used under WP:FAIR, which means it must have a rationale, and it must be low resolution. Legally, Wikipedia could use this image if it wanted to, but by policy, Wikipedia has opted to delete huge numbers of images it's been permitted to use, due to its insistence on a type free license. So, really, we're not talking about the restrictions of the copyright holder, but the restrictions imposed by Wikipedia policy. --Rob 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Elton John 2.jpg - False licence, not an album cover. feydey 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Image:Indiapornstar.jpg - False licence, not a web page. feydey 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web site: http://www.indiasplayhouse.com/hosted/racecar/?affiliate=960449 - Was a shot from this page. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Untitledjes0yd.png - Claimed to be {{PD-ineligible}}. But, this is a professional quality modern picture of a famous person. The chances, it's PD are slim to none. --Rob 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nick3.jpg - Text "Picture sent to me for personal use.", and tag {{PD-ineligible}}. Even if the image was sent to him, that doesn't make it ineligble. --Rob 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Javanese.gif - This was taken from here. The uploader properly cited the source, but the web site has a very clear copyright notice, that makes no allowances or exceptions. --Rob 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ibm 1130 at osaka.jpg it says in it's talk page that the owner of the site the image was taken from believes that is it public domain, but having been taken in 1970 that seems unlikely to me. --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images Image:31 JPG.jpg and Image:Iarline.jpg uploader claims that as images from the former socialist Romania they are not covered by copyright, however Romania is a signatory of the Bene convention, and even has a bilateral copyright treaty with the US from 1928[13] so this PD claim could need a review IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Devitoph.jpg --listed as "used by permission" but tag is GFDL-self. These are, of course, not compatible. Chick Bowen 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bigcypress.jpg -- confusing image summary, no evidence given that Burlington Free Press "released to public domain." Seems unlikely. Chick Bowen 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]