Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bkell (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 11 August 2006 (→August 11: Image:Asuraye.JPG). 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 necessary 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.

16 May



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.

July 27

  1. Image:Mikhail Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner.jpg no source Pyb 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

*Image:Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah.jpeg License now provided. Bertilvidet 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Comment It is a photo, taken by undersigned, of a billboard. I have licensed the photo. The bilboard complies obviously with Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images, which states that reproduction of billboards - even if they have copyright - is fair use according to US copyright legislation. Bertilvidet 13:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can't license your photo under Creative Commons, because the photo is in effect an exact copy of the image on the billboard. The original copyright applies to this photo also. As such, you need to put on the correct fair-use license in place of the CC license that's currently there. User:Angr 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand two sets of copyright apply 1) the copyright of the photo, which I as the creator have licensed and 2) the copyright of the depicted material, which falls into the regulations of fair use. Please let me know if I am wrong. Bertilvidet 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can only claim copyright on your photograph if there is a significant element of creativity in the photograph itself. —Bkell (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now there is both the CC and the fair use license. Guess the problem is solved. Can I remove the copyvio tag from the page now? Bertilvidet 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

--Icarus (Hi!) 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

From my talk page:
Link Gaetz and Hot Nasties Pictures
I took the Link Gaetz picture. The name you see there is mine. So I am the sole owner of the copyright to this picture and I have NO PROBLEM having it put on Wikipedia. As for the Hot Nasties picture, I took a picture of my old Hot Nasties poster and here it is. For the two other pictures, do as you wish, I don't care. Terveetkadet 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you took that photo yourself, you still need to resubmit it without the watermark; see the link on the image policy on the image site LactoseTI 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has uploaded Image:Linkgaetzpicture.jpg, which is the same picture with the watermark cropped out, not removed. In any case, the watermarked version is now orphaned. —Bkell (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an image made by "an agency". However it is a photo took by a tourist who visited the aerea in 2002.--HappyApple 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it public domain though... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken by an Italian tourist during his trip to Korea named Angelo Toscano, who released the rights to use this picture for promote Korean culture.--HappyApple 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, he has contact information on his site--but so far I haven't seen any licensing info there except for the notice of copyright. I'm hoping he'll be willing to help out with the project. The ideal might be for him to submit/modify it saying he's the owner and is willing to drop all claims to it? LactoseTI 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

August 1

Not sure why, but the uploader removed the tag after providing some dubious copyright updates. I replaced it, but I am unsure if it affects the "timer" here. LactoseTI 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader removed the tag for this one, too; added dubious copyright update here as well. LactoseTI 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

Keep, this page on their website [11] says "you are allowed to use any of the images". That page, incidentally is linked to from the page you cited, using the link word Copyright. Be interested to hear if you had any better wording suggestions. I'm happy to arrange with the Green Party webmaster for an alternative wording to be adopted to avoid this happening in the future. - Drstuey 11:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Changed tag to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} and added conditions from http://www.greens.org.nz/office/copyright.htm. User:Angr 12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I deleted the image as a copyvio (uploader has a history, and I verified Chaos syndrome's description of the copyright policy); the image exists on commons, too, but without the source given. I have removed it from the only article it appears in. Mangojuicetalk 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually initially posted the picture as part of "Titan in fiction", and the image was meant to illustrate the similarities between the fictional moon LV426 and Titan (the thick atmosphere, the ringed gas giant in the background) but someone swapped it out, saying that it wasn't actually about Titan. Fair enough, though the similarities are so strong it's difficult to see how they could be coincidental. Serendipodous 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

Speedied as imagevio explicitly prohibited under WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Child female victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg - it's not a fair use picture. it's stealing from the photographer.
    • All three of the above images have fair-use rationales. Please explain why you consider the rationale invalid. User:Angr 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I use wikipedia for a long time, and that's not a fair-use. Taking pictures from commercial sites or companies that are not related to them (like logos for example) and use pictures that companies like AP took (and other sites have to pay money to them to use the pictures) and excuse it with: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is the same like stealing. That's really don't get inside a "fair use" license. there are several more pictures in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (please check it) that have the same problem. You can't say it's "fair use" just because you don't find free pictures. Thank you, 88.155.198.100 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • The same thing goes to the GoogleEarth maps - it's a unique service that google had to invest a lot of money to build it, and there is specific copyright sign in their programs - of course you can't find similar pictures... you can't use that excuse for stealing the pictres - it's the exact reason why you can't use it. 88.155.198.100 11:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
          • Which specific fair use criteria do you consider these images to violate? Right now your arguments are broad enough that they could be applied against every single image used at Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. User:Angr 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really - Using for example pictures that AP took in the article about AP is fairuse. Using pictures of US presidents, from the US pictures library, is fair use. But using pictures from AP for example for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and use the "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" excuse it the same like stealing. That's really not a fair use. GoogleEarth is even more clear - There is no doubt that you can't use it just beacuse there isn't an alternative. Of course there isn't an alternative - Google had to pay alot of money to build this program and uses a copyright sign everywhere. What you do, is actually permit stealing pictures from each company that has a unique service, and that's of course not a fair use. 88.155.198.100 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Child female victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg at least is exactly an example of the fifth fair use counterexample. —Bkell (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's almost an example (it would be an exact example if the article were about the girl), but I suppose it's close enough. (This is part of the reason I wish Wikipedia wouldn't allow "fair use" images at all; it would make life much easier deciding what is and isn't allowed.) User:Angr 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ??? Are you actually saying that I can use all the pictures that I want from GoogleEarch, AP and other companies if I don't find free pictures? That's absurd! I don't understand that does it mean "it's almost an example" - an example for what? We are taking a product that people need to pay for (like google-earth) and call it "fair use". It's absurd!
    • The use of this image falls under the fifth fair-use counterexample: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." Consequently it cannot be claimed fair use. —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as imagevio explicitly prohibited under WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

August 5

165 uploads by the same editor,

  • About 165 uploads by the same editor, Benzmit (talk • contribs) were all marked self2, but many demonstrably not, and most were highly suspect. One image (already tagged as cv) carried a copyright notice, several were sports trading cards, most seemed to be from catlogues of clothing. None appeared to be linked to. I have taken the liberty of listing them all here. See also WP:AN#Massive_upload_of_possibly_unfree_image.
Several other images the editor contributed had already been tagged. The editor had been previously warned about uploading images with incorrect tags on his/her talk page. --TeaDrinker 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to complies to what's written in Wikipedia:Image description page specifically on the section that says fair use can be claimed for a picture if its justification is accurate. As there is no free equivalent available that could be created which would adequately give the same information. Is used under the terms of "fair use historical". It has to be noted that only one image of fair use kind is claimed on the whole article. (Used on infobox) HappyApple 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples gives "a work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war" as an example not to be acceptable as fair use. Is the picture "so famous as to be iconic"? --Kusunose 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While i respect your opinion about fair use rationale, i disagree with you about what is iconic and what is not. Because this image is used in the article as part of an entry on the infobox included in the article and it is the only material of this kind to be used there. (Not two or three, can't blame it as an abuse of fair use). Your rationale citing Spanish Civil War it doesn't applies here, as a photo of this battle which may replace the painting (that actually happens in Spanish Civil War article-applied to Guernica) would be "unreasonable" as photo cameras were invented three centuries later after this battle happened. Actually it is fair use historical painting which can adecuately describe an event of major relevance to East Asian history (Imjin Wars).
It has to be noted that the copyright of this image it is likely to be part of the Korean navy As stated on this source at the bottom of the page-Korean Naval Academy (state entity and would-if requested-qualify as public domain) and that the original artists made these paintings during the late 1970s as stated on the same page from books of "Yonsei University Press".
Although the issue if this image is if fair use or public domain is not directly addressed here, my justification is that, this image actually should stay under fair use claim (unless public domain stated) could help to describe appropiately a conflict which may not be adecuately understood by the casual reader as if would see an image that would adecuately help him or her to understand how this conflict developed (Emphasizing the fact that it is a highly relevant battle that occured in East Asia during the 16th century). --HappyApple 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Korean Naval Academy simply had a copy of the picture on their website (with permission), it didn't say anything about them creating it. It is a painting made in the last few years, and clearly is not fair use. I'm not sure if you are aware of how "iconic" is being used--this painting is not even famous or well-known, it hardly borders on iconic. I also doubt that the photo really offers something text does not--it's not a map/picture showing how things unfolded, it's simply a modern artist's imagination of how it might have looked. LactoseTI 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are overlooking a rather important part of the fair-use rationale for this image, namely claim #1 (from the image description): In absence of free graphic material which can be used for this purpose Wikipedia admits copyright images in low resolution can be uploaded to Wikipedia. Considering the antiquity of the subject matter covered, as well as its relative notoriety, it shouldn't be difficult to find a public-domain depiction of this subject (or the following two) -- there is certainly no absence of free graphic material that can be used for the same purpose. A little research should turn up at least a few. --Zonath 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the previous image, complies to what's written in Wikipedia:Image description page on the section that says fair use can be claimed for a picture if its justification is accurate. As there is no free equivalent available that could be created which would adequately give the same information. It has to be noted that only one image of fair use kind is claimed on the whole article. (Used on infobox) HappyApple 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto as the previous image. Is it 'so famous as to be iconic'? --Kusunose 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Idem, The image claimed to be fair use, it is the only of its kind to be used in the article and it doesn't reflect an abuse of fair use. As this is part of series of events which were highly relevant in East Asian history during the 16th century.--HappyApple 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the artist painted a photo of what he imagined it was like. See above description. LactoseTI 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to complies to what's written in Wikipedia:Image description page, as the image is claimed fair use historical. As there is no free equivalent available that could be created which would adequately give the same information. Used the same criteria as adove. It has to be noted that only one image of fair use kind is claimed on the whole article. (Used on infobox) HappyApple 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto as the previous images. Is it 'so famous as to be iconic'? --

Kusunose 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idem, The image claimed to be fair use, it is the only of its kind to be used in the article and it doesn't reflect an abuse of fair use. As this is part of series of events which were highly relevant in East Asian history during the 16th century.--HappyApple 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above two; it's also not famous/well-known--how can it be iconic? LactoseTI 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:KimSunAh_2.jpg - Seems to be some kind of publicity shot; appears on the source page with "all rights reserved." Fair use rationale claims "no free image available"--seems odd/unreasonable that there might be _no_ free image available for an actress... LactoseTI 06:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion this image although it is a publicity shot it is used on the article of the korean actress under the terms of fair use promotional for media personalities. It is the only picture of this kind used on the article and it seems to complies to what's stated on Wikipedia:Image description page. Other images used on the same critera (which were kept) includes portraits of Charles Gibson, Bob Woodruff, including other media personalities.--HappyApple 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the very best the license is wrong; publicity shots don't use that license. At worst, the image is not a public publicity shot at all--while it does appear to be a publicity shot, there is no justification--it just came from some website which says copyright... LactoseTI 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the license tag is wrong, i would suggest to change it to an appropiate tag (which you may consider is correct). I emphasize the fact that many other media personalities portraits don't include such "fair use rationale" on their description pages. (and they dont seem to be prosecuted-strange isn't it?). As i said adove, Portraits of media personalities can be claimed fair use as they are used only for critical comentary and for identification (as fair use suggests). And it is the only one image of its kind used in the article. (no fair use abuse). I belive that if there is a public domain shot (such in the case of Robin Williams image) of this actress that can be replaced to this one, i would vote for "speedied" this, but meanwhile there isn't i belive this image should stay.--HappyApple 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a screenshot of some work she was in? I agree this may be an iffy delete, but it would be nice if you could at least get the right copyright tag on it. LactoseTI 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a screenshot of some work she was in and applied the proper tag to the picture. I hope this may settle down this dispute.--HappyApple 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You wrote in the fair use rationale, ‘It is used solely for critical commentary and for identification,’ but it isn’t—you don’t even give the programme’s name in the image caption in Kim Sun Ah (and using the image as a portrait is not fair use in any case; comment on the programme if you want the image in the article). —xyzzyn 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, the caption of the image was changed, stating she is performing the role of Kim Sam Soon at MBC TV's drama. And emphasizing the fact the image is used for identification and critical comentary of the actress.--HappyApple 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c

Keep Captain PJs Disco Business card, taken and uploaded by Kiwi Musician. Captain PJ's Disco was the name of a musical group entertainment business, based in the Waikato, New Zealand from 1970 to 1981. Programmes was the name of the light-show operated in conjunction with the disco, and live bands. The company name was Grafix Programmes Limited. The disco operation started out operating under the name Spectra Studios. The graphic was designed and commissioned by the company, and created by a contracted layout artist. The copyright was owned by the company, until dissolution in 1983, and the original company owner and managing director, Paul Moss, has released the image to wikipedia, for free use. The phone number shown was widely advertised for many years in the local newspaper The Waikato Times for this business, and is verifiable at any library holding copies. The phone number shown belonged to the managing director of the company, and still exists in all the records of the period, the Telecom_New_Zealand phone books, newspapers, entertainment diaries. The image has been published since Sun 11 Nov GMT+1300 at 2001 at nzreward/Music. More cross references and also info about Paul Moss can be found at User:Paul_Moss and User:Mozasaur. Further verification has been published at Paul Moss CV for 6 years, last update Dec 2004.KIwiMusician 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Photo of Captain PJ (aka Paul Moss), taken by employeee on my camera and my film, processing paid for my me! and uploaded by Kiwi Musician. Captain PJ's Disco was the name of a musical group entertainment business, based in the Waikato, New Zealand from 1970 to 1981. Programmes was the name of the light-show operated in conjunction with the disco, and live bands. The company name was Grafix Programmes Limited. The disco operation started out operating under the name Spectra Studios. The photo was designed and commissioned by the company, and created by a contracted disc jockey. The copyright was owned by the company, until dissolution in 1983, and the original company owner and managing director, Paul Moss, has released the image to wikipedia, for free use. The business was widely advertised for many years in the local newspaper The Waikato Times for this business, and is verifiable at any library holding copies. The business belonged to the managing director of the company, and still exists in all the records of the period, the Telecom_New_Zealand phone books, newspapers, entertainment diaries. More cross references and also info about Paul Moss can be found at User:Paul_Moss and User:Mozasaur. Further verification has been published at Paul Moss CV for 6 years, last update Dec 2004.KIwiMusician 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brochure cover was designed and commissioned by Paul Moss, and created by a contracted layout artist. Recently scanned and uploaded by Kiwi Musician. Captain PJ's Disco was the name of a musical group entertainment business, based in the Waikato, New Zealand from 1970 to 1981. Programmes was the name of the light-show operated in conjunction with the disco, and live bands. The company name was Grafix Programmes Limited. The disco operation started out operating under the name Spectra Studios. The copyright was owned by the company, until dissolution in 1983, and the original company owner and managing director, Paul Moss, has released the image to wikipedia, for free use. The phone number and business was widely advertised for many years in the local newspaper The Waikato Times for this business, and is verifiable at any library holding copies. The phone number belonged to the managing director of the company, and still exists in all the records of the period, the Telecom_New_Zealand phone books, newspapers, entertainment diaries. More cross references and also info about Paul Moss can be found at User:Paul_Moss and User:Mozasaur. Further verification has been published at Paul Moss CV for 6 years, last update Dec 2004. The graphic is 30 years old!!!.KIwiMusician 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What else do you call it when a local government agency releases pictures for public use at a press conference and never intends to have, use, or maintain copyright? Also, you've listed a hundred or more images here, have you notified any of the uploaders? SchmuckyTheCat 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show and tell. Copyright is not contingent on intent of enforcement. (By the way, who exactly took the picture?) —xyzzyn 19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simmilar to promo pictures. For instance see Template talk:Mugshot. // Liftarn
Keep though it may need better tagging. I'd suggest a {{fairusein}} with an explanation that the photo was released to the press with reference to the Capitol Hill Massacre. My own guess is that once the police have given that kind of press release they have effectively given up all rights, and the image could be arbitrarily reappropriated, but we don't need to make a claim that strong for our purposes. - Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base your guess? —xyzzyn 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dubt that NoRightsReserved applies. // Liftarn

rest

August 6


  • Image:Chief Minister Penang.jpg: Claimed GFDL. Source is given as [44], which says at the bottom: "© Copyright 1992-2006 Barisan Nasional". No evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe official portraits of public office-bearers in Malaysia are available for fair-use purposes.
        Of course they are. Everything is available for fair-use purposes. The question is whether this image is available under the GFDL. There's no indication that it is. —Bkell (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Ydn pp.jpg: Claimed GFDL. Source is given as [45], which does not appear to be a valid URL. No evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe official portraits of public office-bearers in Malaysia are available for fair-use purposes.
  • Image:Suffolkhouse.jpg: Claimed GFDL. Source is [46], which says at the bottom: "Copyright 2004 Methodist Boys' School Penang". No evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is in the public archives which I have reason to believe is valid to be used in Wikipedia. It has repeatedly appeared in the Methodist Boys' School yearbooks without any copyright infringements of any sorts.
        There would obviously be no copyright infringement if the Methodist Boys' School owned the copyright. The question is whether this image is licensed under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

This picture is available through creative commons website and is flagged as free to adapt and use. Its origin is http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/WasteDisposal.htm. I incorrectly detailed the original website of origin --Alex 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that page doesn't say anything about a CC license either. User:Angr 09:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's probably not a dispute. You always need a source - put a speedy tag on it. John Smith's 12:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's no evidence that it isn't in the PD -- no copyright info was specified when I copied the picture. I'm certainly not going to scour the web to find another copy of the picture, but it seems rather asinine to assume a dispute exists just because a wiki editor on picture cleanup got a 404. •Jim62sch• 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright exists automatically and the burden of proving the absence of copyright is generally on the uploader. Who took the picture? Where was it published? —xyzzyn 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


August 8

Similarly, photos recently uploaded by this user are all hosted on the same personal site and use team portraits that are apparently from official sites. Ytny 08:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

Quite possibly unfree. The original authors intentions are clear even if his actual license is a bit muddled (they would probably like cc licensing if they knew). In anycase, we have other images of white feathers now. -- Solipsist 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Desktop icons aren't free, generally. I would say delete. — Scm83x hook 'em 06:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To hell with it -- delete the thing -- I uploaded it in the first place -- see if I care. --Jason Palpatine 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence on the copyright page is: "The Computer History Museum allows anyone to use or copy content from this site consistent with the defined fair use exceptions of United States copyright laws." It goes on to request credit be given, which it is, both in the article and on the image page. As the museum is practically the only source available of images of some rare computers, fair use certainly applies; we have sourced other images from the site, such as Xerox NoteTaker. One point of concern is that it also requests written permission for commercial use. ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then tag them with {{fairuse}} instead. // Liftarn
Is it fair use, though? —xyzzyn 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy. There's no granting of permission for fair use. It is inheirent to US copyright law. "Allowing" it is just BS to confuse people into thinking its something that is given by the good graces of the copyright holder, when its not. With that said, it still would need valid rationale to be used on wikipedia under fair use. Kevin_b_er 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

  • Image:Cliff burnout.jpg - This photo seems hard to believe and the quality is not really indicative of a standard camera (although indeed possible). Given that the description says it was the user's first picture uploaded, this could have potentially been a mistake by a new user. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong with this picture. It doesn't look like a professional-quality photo; it looks more like something my digital camera would take. —Bkell (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:McClelland (Bradburn).jpg: Claimed self-created and GFDL, but it seems odd to include a photo of a woman with a stack of books in a graph you created for Wikipedia. The caption in the article on quantitative history says, "Fig. 7. Results of the Bradburn and Berlew (1961) study, relating the content analysis of British children's readers (bottom) with respect to nAch themes with the Britain's economic growth (top) a generation later." Is this graph taken directly from this study? —Bkell (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Kalflag.gif: Claimed NoRightsReserved, but source site [55] says at the bottom: "Copyright (c) 2001 Chaldean Flag Author". No indication that the author has released all rights. History page [56] says: "The artist worked hard and professionally to modify his creation, the Chaldean flag, whose latest and final version was registered in Dec. 1999 and adopted by ICA the only legitimate Chaldean authority for approving artistic, cultural and heritage projects." It sounds like the author of the flag went to significant lengths to protect his work. —Bkell (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Yomataya.jpg: Claimed PD-self. Summary says: "Every Assyrian has this painting." Seems like a bold statement for the painter to make, but something that might seem reasonable for someone trying to make a PD claim. Same uploader as the above five images. —Bkell (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=69108313"