Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
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 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.
16 May
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits - issue not yet resolved
20 June
- Image:12_subat_stadi_capacity_15000.jpg, from http://www.kahramanmarasspor.org site claims © 2005 - 2006 Kahramanmarasspor.org. Same problem with Image:Fenerbahce_Sukru_Saracoglu.jpg, Image:Fenerbahce vs Arch Rival Galatasaray Before Match.jpg, Image:Kahramanmaras KibrisMeydani TrabzonCaddesi.jpg, Image:Kahramanmaras Night.jpg, Image:Olimpiyat Stadi.jpg, which are also lifted from various random sites, but tagged PD or GFDL without any assertion of permission. bogdan 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uploader not notified -Nv8200p talk 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
8 July
- Image:UCLlibrary.jpg and Image:Uclh ucl.jpg - while the source states these are for "free use", there's the little addition of "on UCL Web pages." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:UCL 12 April Flares.jpg Image:UCL 12 April Didaincidentbyframed.jpg Image:LibertyFlameOfThe.jpg Image:Sp72af5c.jpg Image:Squitieri02.jpg and Image:63272 lupefiasco.jpg uploaded by User:Canadaolympic989. Images are listed as {{NoRightsReserved}}, but the evidence on the websites they come from suggest otherwise. The website of the first two states "Use of images for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited." [1], the listed source of Image:LibertyFlameOfThe.jpg states "Reproduction, storage or retrieval on a medium other than the visitor's own PC browser cache, translation, redistribution, archival, server caching in excess of 24 hours, publication, and retransmission of any content from this site are all prohibited without the written permission of the webmaster." [2], the source of Image:Squitieri02.jpg reads: " Copyright, 2006 Jerry Capeci... All Rights Reserved" [3] and the source of Image:Sp72af5c.jpg [4] doesn't seem to exist. I cannot read German so can't judge the validity of Image:63272 lupefiasco.jpg, but the source [5] does not seem like the kind of website that gives out images freely to me. --Daduzi talk 12:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Messierobject109.jpg
- Image:N4565hugo.jpg
- Image:N4656.jpg
- Image:N7753.jpg
- Image:NGC3953.jpg
- These images are listed as public domain, however the license at [6] says that permission requests need to be made for publication. Chaos syndrome 14:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Eyesgalaxies.jpg listed as public domain, however image has license: [7] - requires specific acknowledgement for noncommercial use, requires approval for commercial use. Chaos syndrome 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:NGC4321.jpg listed as public domain, however image has license: [8] - requires specific acknowledgement for use and emailing publication details. Chaos syndrome 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:OmegaCentauri.jpg listed as public domain, however image has license: [9] - image is copyrighted - requires specific acknowledgement for use, also has terms limiting education/research/commercial/personal uses. Chaos syndrome 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Piscesdwarf.jpg listed as public domain, however image has license: [10] - source site does not necessarily own copyright. Chaos syndrome 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Stephan'sQuintet.jpg listed as public domain. Original source: [11]. Has license: [12] - is copyrighted, has restrictions on use. Chaos syndrome 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:80606b-comparison.gif
- Image:87sylvia.jpg
- Image:97-BLG-41schematic.jpg
- Image:BetaLyraeSky.jpg
- Image:HD149026b-Jupiter.jpg
- Image:Hd28185hr.gif
- Image:HD80606AB.jpg
- Image:IC1296.jpg
- Image:IotaHorologii-orbit.jpg
- Image:Kirbyvacuums.jpg
- Image:M31pole.jpg
- Image:M81+M82.jpg
- Image:MACHO-1997-BLG-41.gif
- Image:NGC1532.jpg
- Image:Nova-DMLyrae.jpg
- Image:TrES-1.jpg
- Image:Vega--proplyd.gif
- Image:Vega--proplyd2.jpg
- Image:Vega-vs-sun.gif
- Image:Waterjovian.jpg (actual source [13])
- Image:Sulfurjovian.jpg
- These images are listed as being in the public domain, however investigation of the source site provides no indication of this. Uploader is a known copyright violator. Chaos syndrome 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:M31-full.jpg Image source incorrectly identified. Chaos syndrome 15:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Tulasi.gif - claimed as PD but is copied from website which does not release it under that license. Will not qualify for fair use. --Hetar 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PWENTZ.JPG - claimed as PD self, however it seems a promotional picture. No explanation about who took the picture is given. -- ReyBrujo 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
July 9
- Image:Adel panorama.jpg Terms of the image's source site say as follows: "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." This image is pretty much non-commercial then, unless the uploader, Beneaththelandslide says otherwise. Kevin_b_er 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:666.jpg has been copied from [14] and is tagged as GFDL, but according to [15], ‘Images are supplied for teaching and research purposes; beyond that, they should not be used or reproduced without explicit prior consent.’ and while the document in the photograph is not protected by copyright, the entire composition, photographed, may be non-trivial enough to be protected. A prior request for clarification has not been answered by the uploader. —xyzzyn 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
TomTheHand 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see discussion here. TomTheHand 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)- yet we don't have an equivalent image to substitute it, do we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.44.7.188 (talk • contribs) .
- So, what? It’s not crucial to anything, is it? —xyzzyn 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Ohio_state_seal.png has been purported on Wikipedia to be an image of The Great Seal of the State of Ohio. Its source is unknown; it does not match the image available through the online copy of the Ohio Revised Code that Ohio government web sites reference. For more information regarding what image is the correct image of the seal, please read the seal article's talk page. JonathanFreed 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
July 10
- Image:Louiseredknapp.jpg has been tagged as a fair use magazine cover, but it is a copyrighted image from FHM - the article Louise (singer) even states this in the caption! Robwingfield (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it is copyrighted image from FHM. If it weren't a possible copyright infringement, we wouldn't need to claim "fair use". I'm confused by this listing. Jkelly 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Modiin view.jpg - claimed GFDL, but source site is in Hebrew and as such, I cannot verify its status. --BrownCow • (how now?) 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
July 11
- Image:Baku biking.jpg - marked as requiring attribution, but cannot verify it from the source. --BrownCow • (how now?) 00:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Appt.jpg - marked as public domain, but merely publishing a photo in the news doesn't release it to the public domain, and there's no explicit statement of release referenced Agateller 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:OxfordAppt.jpg - marked as public domain, but merely publishing a photo in the news doesn't release it to the public domain, and there's no explicit statement of release referenced Agateller 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:BassineEmportee.jpg - marked as public domain, but merely publishing a photo in the news doesn't release it to the public domain, and there's no explicit statement of release referenced Agateller 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Lionel.jpg - marked as public domain, but merely publishing a photo in the news doesn't release it to the public domain, and there's no explicit statement of release referenced Agateller 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Tamil-cinema-movies-news-ajith.jpg - marked as movie poster and (of you check history) promo picture from a movie, but it it's merely a publishung photo from a news site (see links on picture page if User:Kadavul hasn't changed the information there). --Plumcouch 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Fat_chemistry.jpg - marked as unfree image due to clear ownership by the New York Times, which the original poster misattributed. Does Fair Use apply? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.199.3.130 (talk • contribs) .
- Probably not, because the image’s use does not meet the criteria. Besides, anyone can make a replacement from the USDA data. —xyzzyn 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:2 - Whitby Transit - Exterior Shot 2.JPG Uploader said that it was copyrighted material with no special permission given in his uploading message. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kwimbley.jpg - Uploader claims to have taken this photo, but it's highly doubtful. It looks like a press agency photo and uploader has previously uploaded Getty Images pics claiming them as his own (see Image:Gibson.jpg). --BrownCow • (how now?) 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Its a copyvio, original is at ESPN.com Alemily 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Oil pipeline.PNG - Uploader claims to have created this image himself and has tried to release it as GFDL and PD. It was originally an apparent duplicate of a map section from Google Maps (original version here). When I asked the uploader Pce3@ij.net for source information (since the map looked like a commercial work) he didn't respond, and replaced the map with the current version—which is the same map but with some sort of Photoshop filter applied. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- And here's the exact source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please whack this.TheGrappler 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Razia Sultan.jpg, uploader cites [16] as source, and claims GFDL, but the site mentioned explicitly says "Copyright © 2000-2003 Jin Technologies. All Rights Reserved.". --Ragib 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Firuz Shah Tughluq.jpg gfdl claimed yet copied from a website with a clear copyright notice and no indication of release. --Hetar 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
July 12
- Image:Wikipedia Ali-Frazier I.jpg listed as cc-by-sa but source says all rights reserved. Kotepho 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*Image:Black Hole (2006).jpg listed as web-screenshot, but is not a screen capture of a website and appears to be a copyrighted image. Ytny 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:40mmcornershot.gif, Image:Cornershot.jpg, Image:CornershotAPR.gif and Image:Nicerdicer.jpg are listed as web-screenshot, clearly are not. Ownership listed but does not say if copyright is released. They may be fair use but rationale has to be given. Ytny 11:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- They still need fair use rationale and I'm not sure if all or some of them qualify as fair use. Ytny 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Refixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- They still need fair use rationale and I'm not sure if all or some of them qualify as fair use. Ytny 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Sowers.jpg listed as taken by the uploader, but it looks like an AP photo Alemily 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- A Reuters photo, actually. :) Ytny 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Lhughes.jpg and Image:Larryhughes.jpg listed as taken by uploader, but appear to be team publicity photo. Ytny 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Bradausmus.jpg - source says " © 1998 - 2005 JRA Photography" and nothing to support GNU claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:HPIM0042.JPG - I don't think the uploader's assumption that "no one else would want this photo and I am sure they would be more than willing to give it away." is enough to make the PD. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Image-Archangeling.gif - tagged PD but source states ""All images and content on ratemyserver.net belong to their respective creators." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Joondalupblue.jpg - tagged PD, but source states[17] that images are copyrighted and may be used for non-commercal personal use only. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Liza Weil Ojai Playwrights Conference.jpg - nothing at source supports {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to "promotional" tag, was unsure of meaning of original tag. Hopefully this suffices. Nate 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Sdkyco muramasa 1.jpg and Image:Sdkyco kosuke 1.jpg - these look like scans from a manga, the uploader is probably not the creator. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Shinjiono.jpg - This and pretty much every image uploaded by User:Johnsatchmo belongs to FIFAworldcup.com and they are not promo as the user lists them.
- Image:Jordan man.jpg Looks like a professional picture and doubtful if is fair use, source unknown as of yet. Image for some reason won't link properly Alemily 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Lmp.jpg An anon says they are the photographer and says they have not released it as PD. Kotepho 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was there, and they aren't the photographer. I've reverted them, but will leave the image tagged for a reasonable period of time.
- — User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
July 13
- Image:Wikimapia.jpg - said to be released rights, but is a screenshot of Google Maps. Google has most decidedly not released rights, so a different tag at least is necessary. — ceejayoz talk 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Artaxias stele.jpg - was tagged {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} with the provision being that the photographer is credited, but I could find no such indication at the source provided ([18]). In fact, the source does not indicate any terms under which the copyright holder permits the image to be used. Moreover, this disclaimer at the site makes me suspect they themselves are using the image either with permission (although this is not explicitly stated) or under a fair-use claim, in which case the source is invalid. User:Angr 10:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:The Queen.jpg. Source is given only as "Photograph by the Osservatore Romano. Available for public viewing when accompanied by credit" and tagged as CC-BY-2.5, but without a more specific source, it's impossible to verify that the photographer has actually licensed the photograph this way. User:Angr 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:HD28185.gif. Source is given as NASA, however examination of the source page reveals it is from The STScI Digitized Sky Survey. Images from the SDSS are subject to copyright. Chaos syndrome 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:HillsidePark.jpg. Tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.5, and source given is [19], but I can find neither the image nor any indication of CC licensing at that website. User:Angr 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uploader owns the website - see User talk:ScottMainwaring near the bottom. --Liface 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Rosales2003.jpg - Uploader claims that this 2003 photo is public domain according to the copyright law of the Philippines. This law protect photos for 50 years after first publication, eg. photos from 1955 or earlier are public domain. No source was given that the photographer released the photo to the public domain. Thuresson 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Lain.jpg - uploader claims to be the person who took the photo, yet this claim seems suspicious, and the uploader has not yet come back with further details to back claim up. A quick Google Image Search reveals a possible source for this image: here. Yet the source website does not list there how it got the image in the first place, nor can I see any copyright info. Further searching with Google does not reveal any additional info. Tabercil 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Granville Street Map.jpg - uploader lists the image as a web screenshot, but is clearly an image cropped out of a Google Maps page, not of the website itself. And as with the case with all Google Maps images, all rights reserved. Ytny 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
July 14
- Image:Dino Zoff.jpg requires attribution and non-commercial use, yet it has a CC-by tag. Furthemore, I doubt that the site from which the photo was taken has the copyright for it.--Panairjdde 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- All image contributions of User:Realismadder who is uploading photo after photo from websites and claiming "by permission of" and GFDL license. Jkelly 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:GuruTeghBahadurJi FreedomOfReligion2.jpg -- has four different license templates. Likely that none of them are correct. Jkelly 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Youtube alexa graph.png Image copied from Alexa. Image does not qualify for fair use and rationale provided is inadequate and likely false. --Hetar 03:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Ptolemaic th.gif Source is given as http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/, which has a copyright statement. Nevertheless, the tag used is {{NoRightsReserved}}, but there's no evidence this is the case. User:Angr 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Elasmasaur.jpg License was originally given as {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}; that was subsequently removed by an anon editor after I e-mailed User:Talismanhound, the editor who originally uploaded the picture. (The message I sent can be seen on Talismanhound's talk page.) I never received a response. However, as I stated in that message, I very much doubt that Art Adams, the creator of this image, would release it under GFDL, and I think the anon editor is probably Talismanhound, as it would seem otherwise rather bizarre that an anon editor would randomly pop in out of the blue and not only remove the license notice from the image but remove the image from the Art Adams article. Furthermore, the same also applies to Image:Avengers as Gorillas.jpg and Image:JLArcreation.jpg, both of which claim to be licensed by the author under GFDL. Neither image is actually linked to from anywhere in Wikipedia. I don't think that Talismanhound is Art Adams, and thus he's unlikely to be in a position to claim that he can release these items under GFDL. -- Captain Disdain 09:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following images are all licensed as {{GFDL-self}}, but the chances that the uploader (User:Alexandru Busa, who has uploaded a large number of professional-quality photos of celebrities with this tag) is the photographer are very slim. Professional photographers do not license their work under the GFDL as a rule. User:Angr 09:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- And from the same uploader, Image:Ruslana2004.jpg: source given as http://ruslana.jino-net.ru/ and license as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but source web site has no indication of being free use that I can find. (I don't read Russian, though). User:Angr 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Cast.jpg - it seems unlikely that the uploader created this themself. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:JeffBagwell.jpg - nothing supports GFDL claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kronikwcw.jpg - can't see why this should/could be PD. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Megtitl.jpg and Image:Str chart3.gif, both from unfree sources. Where tagged PUI in early June, but apparently tagger forgot to list them here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PostcardOliveBorden.jpg - Listed as GFDL-self, but it's a scanned postcard and the uploader is most likely not the creator. Ytny 11:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The postcard's copywrite has most likely expired (from the mid-1920s) and is most likely in the public domain
- Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg - Marked as web screenshot, but appears to be a downloaded image. And the website stamp make it not so Wiki-friendly. Ytny 11:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- it is screenshot, not downloaded image. site generate them using jscript. Elk Salmon 09:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can confirm this. Of course, that still leaves the issue of the watermark and the fact that it could only be used in articles about the website, rather than the buildings. And there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag.--Daduzi talk 10:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Made a couple of minor errors in the above. Where I wrote "there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be", I should have said "there is an article about the website". And where I said "I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag" I should have said "I've removed the PUI tag but haven't tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, as doing so would be the act of a foolish individual who fails to carefully check search results and/or user contributions." Apologies for any confusion. --Daduzi talk 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- So it's a (or from a) screenshot, but I've visited skyscraperPage.com and it doesn't appear to be a screenshot of a web page, but instead an image taken from a screenshot, which the web-screenshot license covers, and it still needs a fair use rationale. Ytny 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can confirm this. Of course, that still leaves the issue of the watermark and the fact that it could only be used in articles about the website, rather than the buildings. And there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag.--Daduzi talk 10:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Nairobi Towers.jpg - couldn't find anything at source to support {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:RibnicaBridge.jpg, Image:MilleniumBridgeNight.jpg, and Image:RomanSquareNight.jpg - couldn't find anything at source to support {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:SvetiStefan.jpg - page given as source does not seem to exist... Might actually come from [20], but they reserve all copyrights. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Nv tourism.jpg - {{PD-USGov}} explicitly excludes works of U.S. state or local governments, which this apparently is. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg. Note in bottom right corner says "City of Redwood". Seems this was scanned in. Tagged {{PD-inelegible}}, I disagree Dr Zak 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I claim fair use. Scanned image was in a report created for RWC (Redwood City), by RWC for public dissemination. Intentionally scanned with RWC mark to show it was, and is work of RWC. Further, the image is intended to describe the creeks in RWC. Clearly it is for fair use --meatclerk 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:MPCivicCenter2006 500px.jpg.
Another scanned-in map.A photograph of a map used as a map. {{PD-self}} doesn't pull it since this is meant to reproduce the map. Dr Zak 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)- I claim fair use. The map is a photograph of a sign on the civic center grounds. Therefore, it is equivalent as a roadsign, ie. Stop sign and no copyright issue exists. --meatclerk 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Rajput logo.jpg - uploader claims to have created this, but gives external source... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Khmerfood.jpg - Uploader has added a GFDL-self tag, but the image bears a copyright notice from Nawal Zerrouni (the image is indeed found on Nawal Zerrouni's website). The uploader has not responded to a request to clarify whether he is in fact claiming to be Mr Zerrouni. HenryFlower 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:FrankHR.JPG and Image:FrancoeurCover.jpg - marked as fairuse and magazine cover, respectively, but no fair use rationale is used for either and the cover is used to illustrate the cover subject instead of the magazine or the cover itself. Ytny 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Other images uploaded by user without fairuse rationale are: Image:J Finch.jpg, Image:Gulbis.JPG, Image:Francoeur.jpg (misused promo tag), Image:ScottField.jpg, Image:TMKParkNight.jpg and Image:TMKPark.jpg.
- Image:BaileyMagnet.jpg - uploader claims fair use as it is a work of art and that copyright owner has released it, but fails on both rationale. There is nothing to indicate the copyright is released and the postcard is used to illustrate the subject and not the postcard itself. Ytny 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:MississippiStateCapitol.jpg - uploaded claims GFDL but it's a scan of a postcard. Ytny 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
July 15
- Image:S'mores.jpg Page is copyrighted and in Japanese so no way to confirm (and it is doubtful) that the image is copyright free use -Nv8200p talk 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Twoflue 2.GIF - Image does not qualify for fair use (see my talk page for dispute details). Also, no fair use rationale provided. --Hetar 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it does. The source is clearly provided, links and copyrights are provided. I checked everything out and it is easily fair use. The image is clearly used on the harpoon article, since it is a harpoon and that is all. From reading User_talk:Hetar#Image:Twoflue_2.GIF, I do think it has to be used on the museum page, since the only way that this image is connected to the musuem is just that the image came from that museums's website. I do not think the musuem even has an article. Besides that, this image, IMHO, meets all of the requirements of fair use and has a lot better fair use rationale than many of the photos we have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the crux of the matter here is "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Are two-flue harpoons so rare that it would be impossible to find or create a free image of one? User:Angr 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or can a gif image of the harpoon work, assuming one of us recreates it by hand? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- One final thought before I sleep, I notice some public domain photos at [21], since there is a drawing from the 1600's showing the harpoon clearly in action. [22] should be public domain, since it was made in 1677. How does that sound? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or can a gif image of the harpoon work, assuming one of us recreates it by hand? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the crux of the matter here is "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Are two-flue harpoons so rare that it would be impossible to find or create a free image of one? User:Angr 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still a bit boggled by this. We've agreed that the image is well sourced, and yet there is a template on the image and article page saying that it's not sourced, and soon to be deleted. We've agreed that (like many other images from museums on Wikipedia), it's used with a carefully written justification of fair use rationale with respect to a specific article. Hetar has gone from topic to topic to topic, each time changing the suggestion of what it is that he's concerned about. First it was that the image had no copyright information. Then it was that the image violated counter-example 2 in WP:FAIR. Then it was that the image had a copyright notice that was not a template. Now, it's a claim that there are other images to use. My head is spinning, and I'm left wondering: if the original reason for concern is refuted, then how long do I have to spend on this one minor image? If we're looking to combat unfree images, then I think we're done, and we can go back to working on improving Wikipedia. -Harmil 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I uploaded Image:Early two flue.png, which is public domain due to its' age. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it does. The source is clearly provided, links and copyrights are provided. I checked everything out and it is easily fair use. The image is clearly used on the harpoon article, since it is a harpoon and that is all. From reading User_talk:Hetar#Image:Twoflue_2.GIF, I do think it has to be used on the museum page, since the only way that this image is connected to the musuem is just that the image came from that museums's website. I do not think the musuem even has an article. Besides that, this image, IMHO, meets all of the requirements of fair use and has a lot better fair use rationale than many of the photos we have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Longewala.jpg - Two conflicting licenses, I don't believe the uploader knows what license (if any) it is released under. --Hetar 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the user has changed the licensing. Source certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .
- CommentSource certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .
- It’s not about the source. By which fair use criteria does the image qualify? (Strikeout removed and tag restored, by the way, until this is really cleared up.) — xyzzyn 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Fair Use rationale provided certainly qualifies. I would say that is fair-use image
ranam—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.207.112.194 (talk • contribs) .- The fair use rationale provided certainly qualifies as a very strong indication that whoever wrote the rationale had not previously read and understood WP:FU. That the image is useful, unique or otherwise desirable does not, per se, enable its use under United States copyright law (or, for that matter, equivalent laws in many other places) and no other reason why fair use would apply is given. —xyzzy n 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment According preceding comment by user xyzzy, Heading titled General of WP:FU article states the following: Briefly, these indicate that 1. The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical. 2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as the quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original). 3. The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work for instance by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work though not through criticism or parody.
- The image Image:Longewala.jpg seems to me to attempt to be descriptive and educational with regards to the object of the original (i.e, attempt to desribe a.The impact of the Indian Air Force's operations on the Pakistani Armoured thrust in the Longewala Sector during the Indo-Pak War of 1971, b. That these actions were instrumental in preventing the same column in achieveing it's objectives, and c. That the force under consideration was soundly and resolutely defeated by the Indian Air Force as a paricipant in the Battle of Longewala. The image does not attempt to supercede the object of the image. It certainly does not infringe on the copyright owner's (Indian Air Force's) ability to exploit his original work by acting either as a direct market substitute for the original work or through criticism or parody.
- I believe that qualifies as Fair Use, other opinions welcome.- ranam.
- See counterexamples 4, 5. —xyzzyn 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Attack Lebanon 2006.JPG - from the biggest norwegian newspaper, who for sure does not post under GNU Røed 16:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Garda Jeep Cherokee.jpg and Image:Garda Ford Mondeo.jpg -- uploader contends that images can be used for any purpose because the website instructs users how to save images. No mention at website that commercial and derivative use is acceptable. Jkelly 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment uploader is now asserting "with permission" on the individual description pages. Jkelly 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC). Tag removed
July 16
- Image:EricGarcetti.jpg and Image:JackWeiss.jpg. Claimed as works of the federal government but they are obviously not. --Hetar 00:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Foxybrokensilence.jpg There is no source information, and the image looks as though it's been lifted from a website. --JD[don't talk|email] 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a digital image of an album cover. Jkelly 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- This image is fine. Source is only needed to determine the copyright holder. It doesn't matter who scanned the album cover, since the copyright holder is the record company, and the {{albumcover}} tag is sufficient. —Bkell (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Valentin Ivanov Red Card.jpg - marked as {{newspapercover}} but it's only a picture. No fair use for either of its uses. Ytny 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Republicanguard.jpg - From [23]. The lower right corner is clearly marked "AFP/INA", two commercial news agencies. Uploader claims that the copyright owner has released all rights to the photo but the source has no licensing information. Thuresson 10:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Iraqi News Agency photo. was a government controlled news agency under saddam. since his government was overthrown, i assumed copyright claims became null.Anthonymendoza 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- If possible, show that the overthrow of the Iraqi government had any effect on copyright law. Thank you. Thuresson 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another user, Jkelly, updated the licensing section of the photo. this user believes the photo is in the public domain based on some research. Anthonymendoza 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- If possible, show that the overthrow of the Iraqi government had any effect on copyright law. Thank you. Thuresson 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Iraqi News Agency photo. was a government controlled news agency under saddam. since his government was overthrown, i assumed copyright claims became null.Anthonymendoza 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Bishopjohnemory.jpg - couldn't find anything at source to support GFDL claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Washingtonplace.jpg Source insufficient to verify PD status. -Nv8200p talk 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Vagov.jpg From a commercial website. No evidence of PD and certainly not PD-US -Nv8200p talk 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
July 17
- Image:Duke bill.svg, Image:Duke bill2.svg From a copyrighted website -Nv8200p talk 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- That;s some funky SVG photos. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Drennan stc.jpg, Image:Drennan stn.GIF From a copyrighted website -Nv8200p talk 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Drink.jpg From a copyrighted website -Nv8200p talk 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Dr-SuperCropped.jpg Uploader claims to be copyright holder but, there is no support for his claim -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Referee Graham Poll.jpg Marked as promo but no evidence indicating as such at the source. Fair use rationale not given. Ytny 05:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Manastir 02.jpg, see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Images_copyright for more. Looks like a {{permission}} only. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Howard02.jpg - tagged with {{NoRightsReserved}}, but source gives no indication this is the case. User:Angr 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:No Filipinos sign.jpg - tagged with {{Copyrighted free use}}, but source gives no indication this is the case. User:Angr 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PulaPuti.jpg - tagged as all rights released, but the summary information seems to contradict that. In addition, there is no source and the uploader makes a claim to be the copyright holder, with no other proof given. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
July 18
- Image:Bhutto5.jpg - uploader mentions only "Pakistani Public Photography Press" as the source, and added a GFDL Tag. No proof of permission presented. Since copyright in Pakistan is enforced for 50 years after publication, the 1971 photo is very likely to be copyrighted. The dubious image GFDL claim is most probably false. --Ragib 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Gloria57damage.jpg - tagged with {{NoRightsReserved}}; source is in Chinese (which I can't read) but doesn't seem to have anything resembling a copyright statement. User:Angr 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Upkampus.jpg - tagged with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but source has no indication this is the case. User:Angr 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Buddha-rupakaya.jpg - tagged with {{NoRightsReserved}}, but the source merely says "dhammakaya foundation" with no link or anything, making it impossible to verify the claim. User:Angr 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:MSINGH.jpg - Tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}, but then provides a link to an international news story as a source. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Product-Development.jpg tagged as gfdl-self, but also says "use with permission only." all over. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:KatieMelua.jpg - no licensing info provided. Would fail WP:FAIR as it is a userpage graphic. Computerjoe's talk 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:SBY Pramuka2.jpg taken from copyrighted website, tagged as GFDL. *drew 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:GlenwoodChurch1.jpg - Photo of Glenwood United Methodist Church. Uploader claims to have created this 200x170 px photo but I find it at the official website, [24]. Thuresson 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
July 19
- Image:Padraig mckearney1.jpg From a commercial website that is unavailable to verify GFDL -Nv8200p talk 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Reaganhiro.jpg User:Mr Tan tagged this image as "1980s, and Public domain due to age". Images would need to be much much older than this if they were to be public domain due to age. It also has no source information. --Kevin Breitenstein 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest replacing this image with Image:Reagan hirohito.jpg. Thuresson 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PCH.jpg Like the above, the image has been tagged as "Public domain due to age." Unfortunatly, we can't be sure when that is, and the source link doesn't have the image in context. The image may not be old enough that the author has died. The source link has "/afp/20050111/" in it, which implies its for a story in 2005 either on the 1st of november or the 11th of january and that its an AP story. Such images are not automatically in the public domain, and, in most cases, are not under any sort of free or semi-free license. Kevin_b_er 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Zia-ul-Haq Portrait.jpg uploader claims it is under GFDL but hasn't provided any proof that the photographer actually released it under GFDL. Other images from the same uploader have similar claims not supported by any proof. The image seems to be from an official govt. image, and under Pakistan's copyright laws, Government images are not in PD. --Ragib 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Haengju Mountain Fortress.jpg User:Taeguk Warrior tagged this image as "PD-Art, since over 100 years after artist died", but he changed tag to "Art". And he explained the copyright problem about this image as "Use some common sense. The very fact that this image can be found on other websites is a good reason to believe the image is in fair use". He does not know "copyright" or "fair-use" in wikipedia, probably.--Questionfromjapan 05:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Frankhardy.jpg appears to be a scan from a copyrighted book. And Image:David Kennedy 032.jpg Uploder has a problematic upload history.--Peta 05:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PacquiaoVSMorales.jpeg, Image:PacquiaoKnockout.jpeg, Image:PacquiaoVictory.jpeg, Image:BHop.jpg, Image:RoyJ1.jpg, Image:RoyJ2.jpg - all tagged as sportsposter but none are event posters and they are all used to illustrate boxers. No fair use rationale given for any. Ytny 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- And also Image:Jordan-scottie.jpg by the same user, marked as promo. Ytny 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Seanlennonguitar.jpg - taken from IMDb. Probably not PD. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Bob-close.jpg, Image:Emmakev.jpg, Image:Jaynbob.gif, Image:Kevinvthon1998.jpg, Image:Mosierjacksklein.jpg, Image:Scottmosier2006.jpg, and Image:Video.jpg - all from the same uploader, tagged PD (or NoRightsReserved), which seems false. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Emmakev, at least, is not a movie shot and not from a copyrighted production. I cannot vouch for the actual source, but the pic is *not* movie footage.
- Image:JeffLOTR.jpg - claimed to be public domain, definitely not true --HarryCane 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Dowodca2PSP.jpg Looks like a studio portrait and no evidence uploader is copyright holder or has rights to release as GFDL. -Nv8200p talk 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
July 20
- Image:Hwangbig.jpg It says: "Photo of Hwang from a 1970s movie. PD due to age.". PD due to being over 30 years old?! This is a bad justification of public domain. The image also lacks a source. Kevin_b_er 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Images uploaded by user Manzil are all marked as GFDL-self but all appear to be copyrighted images:
- Image:Guti.jpg, Image:Xaura.image.jpg, Image:Aamna.jpg and , Image:Carlos.jpg Ytny 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Found a copy of Image:Xaura.image.jpg here. Image:Paresh Rawal2.jpg can be found here. Image:Aamna.jpg mentions where it's from, but the source page doesn't readily mention copyright status. Tabercil 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Tompa.jpg, Image:Killua.PNG, Image:Leorio.png, Image:Gereda.jpg - usage suggests that these were not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:03.23.jpg - looks like a promo shot to me... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:0,,2006320938,00.jpg - unlikely to have been created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:042406bush1Ford200.jpg.jpeg - taken from abc website. Probably not GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:R krampf.jpgThe "personal communication" granting permission is not supplied anywhere so no idea of what type of "permission" was granted. -Nv8200p talk 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nomination Withdrawn. Uploader provided supporting documentation for free use of image. -Nv8200p talk 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg From ISNA News Agency, copyrighted and not in the public domain as alleged by uploader.--Cerejota 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone removed the notice, alleging the copyright from Iran is invalid. This is not true as per Jimbo himself: Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Material_copyrighted_in_Iran
- Someone again insisted the image it is in the public domain, when it is actually copyrighted by a news agency.--Cerejota 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran and here. This ought to be justified by writing a fair use rationale. KWH 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, if we where to do that, then we would be able to write fair use rationales for AP, Reuters etc.ISNA is a news agency.--Cerejota 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe you disagree with me. I was stating that, at the least it should be tagged as {{fairusein}} and a rationale must be written to meet Wikipedia policy, not that it would automatically be acceptable. KWH 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, if we where to do that, then we would be able to write fair use rationales for AP, Reuters etc.ISNA is a news agency.--Cerejota 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran and here. This ought to be justified by writing a fair use rationale. KWH 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone again insisted the image it is in the public domain, when it is actually copyrighted by a news agency.--Cerejota 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone removed the notice, alleging the copyright from Iran is invalid. This is not true as per Jimbo himself: Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Material_copyrighted_in_Iran
- AP, Reuters, AFP, et cetera can bring an infringement lawsuit. Additionally, these world news agencies are neither run nor censored by any government. Comparing these reputable and independent news agencies to those in Iran is factually inaccurate. Aside from this, the Islamic Republic has shown so much respect to the international laws that the U.S. doesn't even dare to have an American representative there.--Patchouli 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is the original uploader. I had claimed fair use on the image and now I understand that it was probably not fair use. Someone else has claimed public domain, and it's definitely not public domain. roozbeh 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Roozbeh, in reality fair use is not even required in the U.S. for this picture and I urge you to thoroughly peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg. Jimbo has made a blanket statement advocating courtesy. He hasn't reviewed this specific case.--Patchouli 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand the viewpoint that Iran's censorship and/or lack of respect for international laws means that Wikipedia should feel righteous about infringing on the intellectual property rights of Iranian people.
- Please re-read the email from Jimbo, especially at "Simply saying '"Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it' is not a very compelling argument." and "we should generally respect Iranian copyright law … the same (emph. added) as we do for other countries around the world."
- This isn't a game where, if we find a really good loophole, we win a free image. It's about respecting rights. KWH 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Roozbeh, in reality fair use is not even required in the U.S. for this picture and I urge you to thoroughly peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg. Jimbo has made a blanket statement advocating courtesy. He hasn't reviewed this specific case.--Patchouli 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I who was born in Iran firmly believe that you are disrespecting the rights of the Iranian people. To me — and many other who are against the mullah oligarchy — "Iran" and the "Islamic Republic of Iran" are very different.
- The fact that the Islamic Republic violates copyrights of other nations and Shirin Ebadi's question of "Why were foreign media not allowed to attend at the hearing?" is extremely relevant. Please read about "Zahra Kazemi, a Montreal-based photojournalist, died in July 2003 after her skull was split after being arrested for taking photographs outside Tehran's Evin prison where many political dissidents are held." Go to Iran Focus's Reuters story]. Because foreign journalists do not have the opportunity to freely go to different Iranian locations and report, then the only way to record other important historical events is to use that government's. In this case, the Iranian mullahs think it is okay to channel money to Hezbollah rather than spend it on the Iranian people as Khomeini had promised. Here is another article: "In Iran’s streets, aid for an ally stirs resentment and anxieties".
- Another example is execution for homosexuality which seems fine and dandy to Islamic officials. ::
Okay, let us say that you delete pictures of historical value. Next, the Islamic Republic is overthrown tommorrow. Then in a few generations from now young Iranians might feel nostalgia about the Islamic regime because of a potential lack of incontrovertible evidence about the evils of this regime.
- At the end of the day, you are doing a great disservice to the Iranian people if you delete noteworthy historical images. This is not a porn image or one intended to lampoon a particular person for no good reason.--Patchouli 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is neither a platform for counterrevolutionary propaganda nor a library. It is an encyclopedia and bound by copyright law, specifically the American version. While that does not currently necessarily entail protection of works created in Iran, we do have a quite clear guideline and rationale to respect Iranian copyright anyway and a third party’s political convenience is certainly no reason to review that (regardless of how much one wants to see some major changes in Tehran), and no amount of political rhetoric is going to constitute such a reason. —xyzzyn 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Preserving historical evidence isn't unencyclopedic. You're have a bias against facts and do not deem a picture as a necessary source of information. Your standards and interpretion of history is dubious. Dost thou dub record keeping "propanganda"?--Patchouli 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are definitely entitled to record-keeping. Exhibition of such records for the purpose of supporting a political agendum, however, is propaganda. Semantics aside, material that is subject to copyright and for which no permission has been granted by the copyright holder to use said material freely does not belong on Wikipedia, except in cases of justified fair use. (By the way, please direct future comments regarding my standards and interpretation of history and related matters to /dev/null.) —xyzzyn 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is neither a platform for counterrevolutionary propaganda nor a library. It is an encyclopedia and bound by copyright law, specifically the American version. While that does not currently necessarily entail protection of works created in Iran, we do have a quite clear guideline and rationale to respect Iranian copyright anyway and a third party’s political convenience is certainly no reason to review that (regardless of how much one wants to see some major changes in Tehran), and no amount of political rhetoric is going to constitute such a reason. —xyzzyn 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a place whereby factual information is developed which explains the innumerable media files on it irrespective of whether it happens to bolster any regime or detract from its power. It resembles a library very much with a reference desk.
You are deftly espousing censorship in the name of removing propaganda.--Patchouli 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and deleted it, along with a few other photos from IRNA. My reasoning is that we should not be using watermakred images at all on Wikipedia. Not only they are distracting for Wikipedia users and editors and readers, they are clear signs that they are copyright violations. Usually, when most of the watermarks are moved, that usually makes the image more a copyvio, since the source of the image is removed and the picture is damaged. Don't upload it again, or let alone any photos from IRNA. Jimbo has said to respect Iranian copyright, let's do it, regardless of whose politics is right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the image again and shall continue until Jimbo Wales comments on deleting Iranian photographs with clear historical value or some sort of arbitration committee of at least 8 administrators reviews the arguments from both sides and issues an injunction.--Patchouli
- And I've restored the {{pui}} template. Whatever your opinions as to the validity of the Iranian regime there is simply no possible legal justification for licensing the image under GFDL if you didn't create it and don't have permission. --Daduzi talk 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Inasmuch as the image is in public domain in the US, the talk about legality is redundant. It is about respecting mullahs like Ali Khamenei.--Patchouli 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whether it is in the public domain in the US is debatable, and even if it is you are still not entitled to release it under GFDL. --Daduzi talk 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:R390 GT1.jpg No evidence to support image is released under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Caius_shield.png Coat of arms. Probably stolen from a website. See image page for details. Bluap 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Horenstein.gif. Uploader claims this picture is PD US. However, Jascha Horenstein died in 1973 when he was 75, and the picture shows a man in his 70s, so it was probably taken at that time. It looks as if it's a promotional picture from his record label, so it's possible that it can be tagged as Promophoto. Thomas Blomberg 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
July 21
- Image:Watershed.gif Uploader claims fair use for this, but doesn't give a rationale. This is a work of the New York City government and thus copyrighted.[25] We have deleted this particular image, useful as it is (I should really find a way to do one for us), at least twice before. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Raven-bill_reid.jpg Creator of the sculpture, Bill Reid died in 1998 and there is no evidence his sculpture is out of copyright, so the image of it would be a derivative work. Kevin_b_er 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's not a two dimensional work so their is original artistry involved... so, it's not like a copyrighted painting. It's like an photograph of any modern building. gren グレン 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As above. I took the photo, and its not a painting. And don't blame me for the tagging. August 2002 predates the concept of tagging. -- GWO
- Relicense with {{statue}}. This came up last month and apparently images of other people's statues and sculptures do not have the same blanket fair use protection as images of buildings and clothing do. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've already done this. As I said above, this images existence on wikipedia predates image tagging by about two years. Frankly, it'd be a lot more useful if the people who have appointed themselves deleters-in-chief of non-free images would do this obvious stuff themselves. Does it rely require a comment from the photographer to point out that this is self-evidently a photo of a statue... -- GWO
Series of noncommercial images on Sartorial hijab are listed here because they were uploaded way before the May 19, 2005 date for speediablity. Their source is here with "The materials on this page are written by Al-Muhajabah. You may copy, display, or distribute these materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you give me proper attribution as the author." as the license. I dispute any in this list as being anything but noncommercial due to the source licensing.Image:Abaya.jpg NoncommercialImage:Boushiya.jpg NoncommercialImage:Buknuk.jpg NoncommercialImage:Burqa_(1).jpg License says GFDL, but same source as the others with noncommercial license.Image:Burqa_(2).jpg License says GFDL, but same source as the others with noncommercial license.Image:Dupatta.jpg NoncommercialImage:Hijab_(3).jpg Listed as attribution required, but its the same source with a noncommercial license.Image:Jilbab_(2).jpg NoncommercialImage:Khimar_(2).jpg NoncommercialImage:Niqab_(2).jpg NoncommercialImage:Shalwar_kameez.jpg Noncommercial
The above listed by me. Uploader is Grenavitar and has been notified. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, all of those copyright tags are wrong. Some user changed to GFDL, free use and whatnot. That is a copyright violation. I didn't tag them properly apparently but they all belong under Template:Noncommercial and since they were uploaded before May 19, 2005. So, you are right that they are non-commercial... but, they were uploaded before non-commercial wasn't allowed. In any case, my solution would be to find free images and replace the ones that we can and slowly phase these bad images out. These were before the days of CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr where I can find plenty of good pictures. gren グレン 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Replacements:
Image:Burqa_(1).jpg → [26] CC-BY-SA-2.0 image from Flickr (that I need to upload) and cropthe replacement had mesh and wasn't open eyes- Image:Burqa_(2).jpg → Image:Woman walking in Afghanistan.jpg (need to crop)
Image:Niqab_(2).jpg → Image:Muslim woman in Yemen.jpgthe replacement wasn't tied on at the head.
- gren グレン 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stiked-out until I figure out proper procedure for old noncommercial only images. Kevin_b_er 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- gren グレン 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:MillerMed.gif and Image:Shalala.jpg- nothing at source supports Creative Commons claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)- The former is likely a copyvio... the second has been remedied and a fair use claim is being used (which I think is proper). gren グレン 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have both been fixed now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Will self.jpg - tagged as PD-user, but it wasn't tagged so by the uploader and I couldn't find any indication that he wished to release this under PD. It's even watermarked... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion as an exact duplicate of Image:Willselfauthor.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:1004.jpg - uploader claims to be creator, but gives URL (which is no personal website) as source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:22005126-20052.jpg - uploader claims to be creator, but image is watermarked www.fuji.com.tw. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:5Thugs.jpg - looks like a promoshot to me... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:A7xpromo2.jpg.w300h250.jpg - looks like a promoshot to me... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Tfing.jpg - says "I took this picture of my girlfriend and myself (using timered camera) as an illustrative image for relevant article", but, *ahem*, I don't claim to be an expert on the field of commercial pornography, but this looks like something grabbed from a commercial site. Call it a hunch. Plus, it was apparently deleted before as Image:00001.jpg (which can't be 100% verified because it was deleted back in February) and are among the uploading user's very few contributions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- And FWIW there's some discussion on this topic on Talk:Mammary intercourse#Image removal (also discussing some unrelated drawings, but this one is the one referred to as the photograph)... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Jolin Tsai.jpg No evidence uploader is copyright holder. -Nv8200p talk 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Brown.jpg — tagged with {{pui}} for a month now, I guess the user tagging it forgot to put it here. Clear copyvio. Kjetil_r 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
July 22
- Image:Cbp 210x125f.jpg Not a {{web-screenshot}}, free images available so fair use doesn't apply. Ytny 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Connie-Mack-stadium-1909.jpg Marked as {{PD-old}} but image is less than 100 years old. Ytny 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was taken in 1909, though, so unless we know that it remained unpublished until 1923 or later (which seems unlikely) it is safe to assume it qualifies for {{PD-US}} at least. The image is almost certainly in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:El Toro Y Sat.PNG and Image:Irvine Sat View.jpg - Google Map photos incorrectly tagged as {{web-screenshot}}. Ytny 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Patrick J Frawley.jpg - Not a {{web-screenshot}}, no fair use. Ytny 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:AmoriumKroki.jpg: No evidence that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Stephen stills.jpg: Seems to be a photo by a professional photographer, not a promotional photograph. —Bkell (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following images have been uploaded by Coolkid13, who claims to be the author; however, most of them are logos. The copyright holder is probably MediaCorp. —Bkell (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Suria Logo.gif
- Image:ArtsCentral.jpg (orphan)
- Image:MissVasantham.jpg
- Image:Kids Central.jpg (orphan)
- Image:Anugerah'05.jpg
- Image:ArtsCentralGlobe.jpg: not a logo, but I question the claim of authorship based on the uploader's other contributions.
- Image:KidsU.jpg: also not a logo, but questionable.
- Image:BB-1.jpg: At the bottom of http://www.pppusa.org/, which is acknowledged as the source, is the notice: "Copyright © 2004-06 PPP USA. All rights reserved". There is no indication that the copyright holder has released all rights, as claimed. —Bkell (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Lebanon harat hreik neighbourhood.jpg. The photo is all rights reserved on flickr. I did ask the author to release it into CC-BY or CC-BY-SA... but, pending that response the image is in violation of his copyright. gren グレン 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Engie 01.jpg,
Image:Brickell 01.jpg, Image:DaySouth.jpg, Image:Casadellibertador.jpg,and Image:Italiachampions.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to have created them, which seems unlikely. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those I striked were actually created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Pokeicon.gif - From Geopgeop's edit summary when tagging it {{wronglicense}}: "Nintendo owns Poké ball, derivative work, can't be used in template namespace, sorry." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Nasrollah.jpgThis picture has been picked from [[27]], a non-offical site for pictures covering anything relating to Shia. There is nothing indicating that it can be tagged as promotional, which the uploader has done, and we must assume that the picture has neither a fair use or a free use status. Thomas Blomberg 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Eisenhorn.jpg: claimed as PD, but I see no evidence for this, especially as the claimed source link is dead. Cheers --Pak21 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Park ji-sung.jpg and Image:Nemanja vidic.jpg tagged as free image but the source's terms of service say otherwise. Ytny 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:2006LebIsraelpic.jpg is a compilation of one picture that is okay to use (the IDF released one) and one very questionable picture of bombed buildings in Beirut, pulled from a website with a claim that the owner of the website (no name added) has given permission. However, given the nature of that website it is very questionable that the website actually owns the copyright to the picture (looks as if it's a news agency picture), and it's also unclear what kind of the permission the anonymous owner has given. Thomas Blomberg 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded wanted the pics gone, so I went ahead and speedied it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Erictrophy.jpg - Nothing to justify {{Promotional}} and the source appears to show copyright photos without license. Ytny 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Republica-federative-do-bra.jpg marked as GFDL-self but appears to be a screenshot. Replaced Image:Fca332absfs2004.jpg in Microsoft Flight Simulator. blameless 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Chelsea home shirt.JPG - Image is tagged as {{self}}, but the source website doesn't appear to allow for such use. SteveO 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
July 23
- Image:Hi no Kuni Symbol.gif - I'm not sure about this, but this seems to be a derivative work of the logo that appears on the headband of the character Uzumaki Naruto and as such is probably copyrighted by the company who owns the character. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Chieko001.jpg, Image:Moko000.jpg, Image:Blackmoko.jpg, Image:M19.JPG, Image:Moko002.jpg, Image:Mekkyon.jpg, and Image:Mokona001.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to be the creator, but these are obviously promo shots/screenshots. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:ANWeb-Link.jpg - Tagged as {{PD-self}} but obviously a logo taken from http://www.alnabad.com/. BigNate37T·C 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:1978 wnt mpf.jpg - seems unlikely that ABC would release this under GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I went ahead and put a promotional image tag on the image, because the description states it is a publicity shot. If you don't think the image could be kept with that licensing tag, then delete it. After all, the original uploader didn't put the right tag anyway. --Jonyyeh 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:20060524174316 0.jpg - Source makes no mentioning of release under GFDL. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:2bzig.jpg - lloks like some kind of promo photo, probably not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Mueller_Kanone_1969.jpg - Marked as promotional, but from the image description, seems unlikely. The copyright notice (in German) explicitly forbids duplication, etc. Ytny 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Hakeem olajuwon olympian.gif and Image:Olajuwon.jpg - incorrectly marked as promo. Ytny 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Tour de France'23.07.06'.jpg - This looks like the screenshot of a television program showing the 2006 Tour de France. Thus, the uploader should not be able to claim it as his own creation and release it under the GFDL license. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)