Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thuresson (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 4 June 2006 (→4 June). 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:

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 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 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.

March 17

  • In fact the tag itself contain the link to the source of all the pictures, so there's no need to claim the pics are unsourced. They are sourced, just follow the link and go one level up. The page is in English, so you won't have trouble locating the right picture. Other than that, I'm currently negotiating the commercial use of those pics with the Polish ministry. I wonder why is wikipedia interested in doing that as it is not us to use them commercially, but it's another story. Halibutt 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo says that noncommercial images aren't to be used on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 May

  • Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg. Photo of the Warsaw Uprising. Uploader did not leave any information that verifies that this photo was authored by Soviet union citizens or that it was first published in the Soviet Union. Thuresson 14:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you have read the linked source page and are sure there is no such information?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page has no information on the photographer and no statement about the rights to the photograph except an ‘All rights reserved’ for the entire page. —xyzzyn 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image was published in Soviet Union in late '40s and republished in 50's in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. It was not published anywhere else, AFAIK. The publication is PD. I suggest that Thuresson be more careful. This is not the first time that this very user takes an effort that results in nothing but time wasting for Wikipedians who would rather write content than defend absolutely harmless images. Instead of encouraging contribution to grossly underrepresanted East European topics such activity is a huge discouragement. If there are problem images that may threaten a legal action against the Wiki foundation, this mid-40s image published in now defuncts USSR isn't one of them. --Irpen 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know I should have expected a heartbreaking story from Irpen but either choose a more appropriate tag, like Template:PD-Poland or give the name of the Soviet Union citizen who took the photograph. Thuresson 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, your sarcasm is misplaced. I stand by my words that your umpteenth attempt to delete this or that clearly harmless image is disruptive, potentially damaging for Wikiepdia and discouraging for contributors who would like to give the Easter European topics at least some coverage, which is grossly underrepresnted for now. But I am not going to fight over this one any more than I've already explained. I uploaded this image to improve the Poland-related article and this topic is not my primary consern. I mostly contribute to Ukraine and Russia-related articles. I will leave it to Polish colleagues to justify PD-Poland if you view PD-USSR inaplicable. I simply made a case for a PD based on the PD-USSR tag which relates to "All works published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973". The image fits this description. You are welcome to join the users who support a more restrictive version of the tag. Here is the place for it. --Irpen 21:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever deleted the image, as it turned above to the red link, please elaborate on how the deletion followed from this discussion, who deleted it, based on what and how the deletion was decided as warranted from the discussion above. Please reply here rather than at my talk. --Irpen 06:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see this removed from here again without being addressed. The user who deleted the images, please care to answer here how the deletion was derived from the above discussion. --Irpen 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

15 May

Oh dear, I am silly - I assumed for some reason Wikipedia wasn't commercial :-S Could you help find a GFDL equivalent of this image, otherwise that drastically reduces what I can use on Column of Antoninus Pius. Molto grazie. Neddyseagoon 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]

16 May

C 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits

18 May

19 May

  • Image:MullaSadra.jpg — I placed a "no source" tag on this, and seven days later deleted it. It's now been re-uploaded, with a source that's merely a Web page that uses it with no indication as to copyright status. The up-loader claims that it's out of copyright because it's older than a century, but there's no evidence for this (and it doesn't look anything like that old). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete them all? you are too dumbo the clown not to understand "use is not transferable" sso you delee them? it's the same olf sixez and sevens around herre! persecute 0waldo and all he does. refused to clarify what? not transferrable? it's like asking you to clairfy what Carnildo means! some type of carnival/dildhoe or something like that? clarify what? that you don't understand what I mean!? NO THE ANSWER IS "p-e-r-s-e-c-u-t-e W-a-l-d-o" OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. 0waldo 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo, please stop. You're not helping the situation. Nobody is out to get you and the constant point-making that they are, is not helping and is counterproductive. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? English please. Also, if the "use is not transferable" then the images can't be used on wikipedia. Images here MUST be transferable to other projects... even commercial for-profit uses. There is a plan to sell a paper dictionary after all. So either releace the photos under GFDL or PD... ---J.S (t|c) 20:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you want, you can license the images under an acceptable Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 May

  • Image:Eisenhower's Uncle.jpg - photograph of a copyrighted newspaper claiming to be pd. This is no more PD because the uploader took the photograph than me being allowed to take photographs of every page of a book and selling it as PD. --pgk(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AcdcAngusyoung.jpg - claimed as gfdl-self. I doubt this is the case given the subject, proximity, and quality of the photograph, as well as this users history of neglecting copyright. --Hetar 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Marbled cat.gif tagged as PD without sufficient rationale or source. Tagged subsequently as speedy delete, but not a speedy candidate. Thus, I bring it to you folks. Chick Bowen 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images in Category:Soccer-europe images, except those uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com. This user has released the copyright to some of his images, however, other people have uploaded additional images and used the {{SocEur}} tag. He has said that some, but not all, of these additional images fall under the free use license. Per the user's request, the images he identified as copyright violations have been deleted. As it stands, he states that he will "probably" identify more images that are not actually released from copyright. This is not acceptable since he can basically revoke the license to any of the images at any time he wants. I propose that all of the images uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com be changed to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|http://soccer-europe.com is credited}} and the remainder (those uploaded by other users) be deleted. -SCEhardT 21:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 May

  • The reason a fair use image cannot be used in this article is that a free alternative is avaialble. Any Wikipedia near that location can easily photograph it an release it under a free license. The JPStalk to me 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Image:Qjdbmfmrt.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AIverson.jpg - Current copyright tag claims that it is a promotional photo, but it clearly is not. The given source for this is photostore.nba.com. That site says quite explicitly that: Copyright 2006 NBA Media Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of NBA.com may be duplicated, redistributed or manipulated in any form. Images from photostore.nba.com are for sale commercially. They are not promotional photos. User who uploaded has a history of not tagging or mis-tagging images. Mwelch 11:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 May

  • Image:Alfred Spiro Moisiu.jpg (Alfred Moisiu), uploader claims that this 2003 United Nations photo is PD but www.un.org claims that photos can only be used for editorial purposes. No commercial use. Thuresson 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Clinton.jpg, Image:Fordportrait.gif - As noted here, official paintings are commissioned works, and since they are not the work of a federal government employee, they are not public domain. A fair use rationale is unnecessary as photographs taken by government hired photographers already exist.--Jiang 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disgree You're wrong on this issue. Rather than wrecking havoc, why don't you start a new topic at the village pump and get some clarity on the issue. --evrik 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are plenty of PD photos of Clinton and Ford that can be used instead. This topic is discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Thuresson 14:34, 23 May 2006
      • It's quite clear from the text of the Copyright Act that paintings commissioned by the federal government are not public domain, as spelled out in the link Jiang points to above. Evrik continues to dispute this without presenting a coherent and logical argument for his lone position, let alone substantively responding to anyone else's comments. Postdlf 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evrik, in order for anyone to take you seriously, you have to demonstrate that you understand and can rebut the arguments for why commissioned paintings are ot PD-gov. Thus far, this hasn't happened, and the arguments on the other side are persuasive (I won't repeat them). It looks, unfortunately, like these images need to be deleted (unless we can get permission from the painter). —Steven G. Johnson 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steve -I understand the arguments. The crux of the issue is this - when the paintings are commissioned, it is with the understanding that this is going to be a gift to the American people (and into the public domain). The artists know this when they are commissioned to do the work. This understanding is so ingrained in the process, that trying to find something that clearly states this online has been difficult. Sadly, it's much easier to misquote a small section of the law and misapply it to these paintings. I have made some queries about this, but have not received anything concrete yet. It is frustrating that no one who is an expert in the arae has been brought into the debate, just a few armchair attorneys. I am also amazed that two or three users, with limited knowledge of the law are going to try and force such a broad change. Since many of these same issues have been posted to the commons, it would seem to me that we need someone who is an expert and an authority. --evrik 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evrik, how do you know this? Have you seen it in writing? "Understanding" is not the way copyright law works...copyright law requires that transfer of copyright be made in writing. (§204: "transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing") You haven't provided any evidence to back up your arguments—bald assertions are not persuasive. (Can you give an example of someone who has "misquoted" the law?) Wikipedia has to be conservative and assume every image is copyrighted and unusable (except by fair use) unless we have explicit evidence to the contrary. —Steven G. Johnson 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said elsewhere, I spoke to the curator at the White House. Now please stop your wanton vandalism of all the portraits. --evrik 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Shaqheat.jpg - This would appear to be the source: [2] The notes at the bottom seem to contradict the claim that this is a released promotional photo. Mwelch 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Aquilini.jpg - copied from canucks.com and claimed as norightsreserved. I can find nothing on the site that releases this image under said license. --Hetar 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:20050928000024 00.jpg - given this articles subject, i doubt it is gfdl-self as the uploader claims. --Hetar 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 May

24 May

25 May

26 May

Well fix it then, I don't mind Comradeash 02:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27 May

Johnleemk | Talk 17:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 May

29 May

30 May

  • The article states that HMS Vanguard sank in 1917, so as a pre-1923 photograph it has fallen out of copyright. Dr Zak 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HMS Queen, the article states was broken up in 1921. Pre-1923 photograph, too. Dr Zak
The age of the photograph doesn't matter, it's the date of publication... which we don't know and have no source for. Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. However, Image:HMS Vanguard (1909)a.gif is probably OK. "Rotary Photo, EC" was a British postcard publishing company ([10], [11]), and according to the source (it's "Vanguard (battleship)") the image shows the ship shortly after completion which would be 1909/1910. We may thus assume that it was published shortly after 1910, and hence {{PD-US}} would be fine. In the UK, the work might be PD if an anonymous photograph; but if the author is known (might be mentioned on the backside), it would be coyprighted until 70 years after the photographer's death. See [12]. Also note that the Naval Historical Center has some more images of that ship, stating they were PD to the best of their knowledge. On Image:HMS Queen.jpg, I have not found any information (but see [13] for info on the ship.) Lupo 09:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

31 May

  • This is absurd. Every DVD cover, every screenshot, and so forth, is used to illustrate a point about the article. None of those are used to discuss the image themselves. -M

1 June

Is there any evidence that all sixty-year old Croatian images are in the PD? Or does it just seem to you like this should be true? Jkelly 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you lived during the Tito era? Ask your parents, if not. -- serbiana - talk 04:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WWII images from Germany and SFRY. In public domain. SavaSarich

From the Croatian Copyright law:

TRAJANJE AUTORSKOGA PRAVA Članak 83. Autorsko imovinsko pravo na fotografsko djelo, na djelo proizvedeno slicnim postupkom i na djelo primijenjene umjetnosti prestaje nakon isteka dvadeset pet godina od objave djela.

Translation: Copyright law to a photographic work, or work in similar medium or work of applied art expires 25 years after publication. So, this pretty much closes the issue. Maayaa 13:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 June

3 June

  • It appears there were none listed on 3 June. — Jun. 4, '06 [09:51] <freak|talk>

4 June

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=56844759"