Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 18
| < October 17 | October 19 > |
|---|
October 18
[edit]
Authorship claimed by uploader, who is absent, yet this appears to have been scanned in when framed. Surely the author/copyright holder would have the original...? The JPStalk to me 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is absent, but the restrictions applied by the uploader state "no fee is charged for distribution" which would limit commercial usage. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is absent, who states that the "date, photographer and other information is unknown" and the restrictions on the image is that it is for non-commercial purposes. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
image licese restrictions state that material can not be used for advertising, used in parodies... these restictions make the image non-free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely this is non-free. It's a particularly laughable license because parody is probably the most protected form of fair use there is. Still, no good for Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Questionable recording, no indication of release of copyright by telemarketer or actual source of recording. MBisanz talk 02:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks a non-free anime screenshot. OsamaK 02:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks a non-free album cover. OsamaK 03:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Image is tagged as self-created - I find it incredibly doubtful that someone with the means to provide an aerial view of a cat 5 hurricane would elect to save it as a 205x182 pixel JPG with no metadata. Potential speedy, but would feel more comfortable with sanity check. Contributor is possibly a non-native speaker of English. Badger Drink (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or why it is not in colour like his other 'created' images Image:Pablo.jpg and Image:Merkhala.JPG. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Claims that it is public domain as a press release, I suspect that the uploader has confused "publicly available" with "not copyrighted". Can't find anything saying that South African court documents are in the public domain. Hut 8.5 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims this isn't eligible for copyright (obviously not true), can't find anything saying that documents from this organisation are in the public domain. Hut 8.5 12:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This image was listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 18, but images are no longer addressed there. The lister, User:Banzoo, noted this potential publisher of first instance: [1]. The uploader vaguely claims a different source, REDDITDOTCOM, and asserts Free Art license. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The poster did get it from reddit.com, someone asked what it was and so he posted it to wikipedia. However, it's clearly listed as "All Rights Reserved" on Flickr. --TIB (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploader does not appear to be the copyright holder Stifle (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason to assume bad faith with this image. Camera metadata is present, and the user has no history of questionable uploads. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about this - I would suggest an OTRS be submitted because it is questionable. In looking over the users other uploads you will find File:Kuk sm.jpg which is watermarked and whose summary says "taken by Angela Morris and used by permission". As with the above image "Camera metadata is present". We could assume good faith here but there is File:TrickyStewart.jpg, with no credit as well as File:Monti, Tricky, Kuk and Mark.jpg which is the uncropped version of Image:Tricky,KukandMark.jpg. But rather than simply go off of those images take a close look at File:J.Que.jpg and you will see it is "self-made" and it does appear to be, implying that "Kidfrost08" is also "J.Que". But now look at File:Kuk Promo Shot 2.jpg which starts off with "I hereby assert that I, Dimitry Loiseau aka Dimitry L., am the creator and/or sole owner...." which now seems to imply the uploader is "Dimitry Loiseau aka Dimitry L." And finally look at File:Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell.jpg which is credited to "Julie Frost". Out of all of these that one seems to be closest to the user name "Kidfrost08". So I would say delete unless an OTRS comes in on any of these. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what an "OTRS" is, but I will submit it if that will resolve this. I don't what else to provide regarding this image, which I have the rights to. I got written permission from Dimitry L. and Angela Morris to use their work. I in fact made sure their versions had reference to them within the image itself. I am somewhat new to this, and am protecting everyone's work to the best of my ability...it's actually quite important to me. if I could just a specific request for something I need to provide, I'm sure I could do it. thanks. Thanks.kidfrost08 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept No reason, for now, to assume uploader is not the copyright holder. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Image is allowed only for educational purposes; therefore non-free image Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Blaze Away, by Abe Holzmann was first published in 1901. This is clearly in the public domain. Duke's claim seems like copyfraud (or at least a carelessly worded copyright statement) to me. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- This appears to have been dealt with -- will remove notices.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
License states it is only for non-commercial purposes Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed Naturenet | Talk 11:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just take out the part that states non-commercial and think its all fine. There is no indication that you as uploader are the photographer. In fact, the information provided at upload states "Taken by the Isle of Wight Council". How an image is taken by a whole Council I am not sure, perhaps it was a for-hire shot, not sure; but there is no link to a source. Wikipedia needs to confirm either the original non-commerical license or this new and improved version. I could not find anything about image releasing on either of the two external sites listed in the Isle of Wight Council article. Perhaps you could provide more information about why you can change the licnese. Thanks.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The source provided is not working, but the root page's terms of use at [2] state "You are also permitted to make copies of reasonable extracts from the site for your personal use or private study and to save reasonable extracts to your local hard disk for your personal use or private study. It is strictly forbidden to copy any material from this website for commercial use (other than as necessary for the purpose of viewing the site in the course of business). You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any BirdLife International content except for your own personal, non-commercial use." it does not qualify as free-use. Given the claim that the species is rare, it may be one of those few cases that would qualify as fair use (if a rationale and such was done) Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This image licnese states that it can not be altered, which would prohibit derivatives. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
a) The image (or diagram) is a statement of fact. If it was altered, it would then be a different statement. b) Creating random diagrams with gnuplot or doodles on a blank canvas representing other facts isn't really that hard, probably easier than editing this one into something it is not. MX44 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This image licnese states that it can not be altered, which would prohibit derivatives. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
a) The image (or diagram) is a statement of fact. If it was altered, it would then be a different statement. b) Creating random diagrams with gnuplot or doodles on a blank canvas representing other facts isn't really that hard, probably easier than editing this one into something it is not. MX44 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image was uploaded by User:Stadium08 but the source and license was added by User:just64helpin. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
One of a long-list of official looking picture of Thailand cabinet members from this user. Per User talk:Rootje, was asked in February and still no response. Will be using this as precedent to go after all the other images he has uploaded. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The license indicates that any derivative works can not alter the appearance of the subject so should be tagged as non-free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
License states "image may be used for personal, non-profit and educational purposes but not for commercial purposes"; image would be non-free Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I located the source at here and it states "Permission is granted to use the enlargement for any personal or academic purposes as long as notification of use is sent to manzanita@calacademy.org and the image is clearly credited with T. W. Davies © California Academy of Sciences...For higher resolution images or commercial use, contact The Manzanita Project: manzanita@calacademy.org"--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Same issue and quote for Image:Checkerspot 3.jpeg at this source [3]]--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
the license added to the image states free with credit, but I tracked down the source image at here and it states "The thumbnail photo (128x192 pixels) on this page may be freely used for personal or academic purposes without prior permission under the Fair Use provisions of US copyright law as long as notification of use is sent to manzanita@calacademy.org and the image is clearly credited with T. W. Davies © California Academy of Sciences. For other uses, or if you have questions, contact The Manzanita Project manzanita@calacademy.org. " and note that this image is *not* the thumbnail its the full size. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The same issue and quote for Image:Checkerspot larvae Davies.jpeg at this source [4]--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is licensed as free use provided credit, but the source website (as quoted on the image page) states "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS"; therefore this image is non-free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
