Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Madmedea~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 14 May 2007 (→‎May 14: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied"

If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion G12. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}.

If an image is missing source or license information, 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 user.

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. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page.

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.

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.

April 30

May 1

The above image was modified by me, original image sourced from [2] Please either remove the notice from the image page or notify me so as I can do so. Thankyou.
Happy to accept it's free. It's still redundant with Image:Stewart_Island-Rakiura.png, but that is not an issue for here.--Limegreen 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

May 3

  • While obviously not pd-self the image itself was taken from the Heroes Wiki. Fair use in its entirety. –– Lid(Talk) 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

May 5

May 6

  • Image:RobinsonBear.JPG is tagged as {{PD-self}} even though it is clearly a screenshot of copyrighted game. - Super48 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:CWMcD1997.jpg and Image:CWMcD+SheepDolly.jpg have been uploaded as GFDL by the copyright holder, but with the proviso that "The image may be used as long as the name and reputation of Capers W. McDonald are treated with respect. The image's inclusion on Wikipedia will not result in financial loss to any copyright holder." This is incompatible with the GFDL licence. --kingboyk 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uploader is Capers McDonald himself. At worst, the image is multilicensed under the GFDL and a separate "use it as long as it is respectful" use. At any rate, if the article stays deleted, it's rather moot. --BigDT 05:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Anuj_smart.jpg - Looks like a promo photo, probably not free BigDT 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

  • Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg Image taken from [6], i.e. the Thinkquest website. Well, they are a website for student essays, not the source of the picture. Dr Zak 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an example of Nazi propaganda, dated around 1938. [7] We don't claim it as a free image, but as an historic poster, so I'm unclear about the point of this entry. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from the Library of Congress, according to this source, [8] which says "Antisemitic cartoon by Seppla (Josef Plank)--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompassing a globe. Credit: Library of Congress, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives. Date: Circa 1938" SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, and suddenly it's more credible. Dr Zak 01:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in future, you could take a quick look on Google before tagging images for deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps even you can properly source and credit images when you upload them. Dr Zak 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some aspects of human history would make some people feel uncomfortable. WP has many historic political posters, I don't see any problem with this one. Doesn't seem like a good faith nomination. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pbpic907668.jpg is tagged as PD-self, however it clearly has a website logo on it. Also uploader claims that because it was on display at an event it is public domain. Personally, I'm not convinced of that statement. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:DerSturmer stand.jpg. Picture of a Stürmerkasten. Source given are two websites, none of which tell who the photographer might be or what archive this might have come from. Dr Zak 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humus sapiens questions Dr Zak's attempt to delete a Nazi image above, so now Dr Zak has found a Nazi image uploaded by Humus sapiens' to nominate for deletion. This isn't the first time he's done this. These are probably PD images, but for our purposes are labeled non-free historical images; and we're using them for educational purposes, not simply to illustrate pages for frivolous reasons. If you want to help track down the original source or the author, Dr Zak, please do; the help would be welcome. But please stop the vindictive WP:POINTs. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we now get back to discussing the image, please?! When you have nothing to say about the issue you have a go at the contributor instead, and others have observed that as well. Dr Zak 04:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, and another thing: it's not my fault that stuff from That Era hasn't fallen out of copyright yet. By the way, the Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz [10] has a couple Stürmerkāsten online. All of them watermarked unfortunately; if they hadn't been, I'd have uploaded one myself. Dr Zak 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A historic photo - why suddenly so much strictness to expose Nazi propaganda? See the item above - another bad faith nomination by Dr Zak. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historic photo of a unique event, like the sinking of the Titanic? Not in this case. Repeat: there are plenty of images of that thing around. And please lay off the accusations of whitewashing and stuff. Dr Zak 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Coats of arms are generally copyright and tagged with {{seal}}. There's no indication in any of these cases that the author died 100 years or ago or more, or that the copyright owner (the owner of the original seal in the case of derivative art) released into the public domain under a free licence. I recommend retagging with {{seal}} if no details are provided to confirm the free status of these images. --kingboyk 14:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Added flags; same rationale. --kingboyk 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gene Poole removed the notices with an edit summary of "i am the creator of the image and released it under GFDL" (e.g. [11]). Unfortunately he didn't post here and has now been blocked, but what's not clear to me is in what way he's the creator:

  1. If he created the image as a copy of a copyright seal, it's presumably still copyright
  2. If he actually originally created all these seals one has to assume they're not encyclopedic and merely the output of a fan.

--kingboyk 12:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this image myself and grant its use on Wikipedia. - The Daddy 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't "create" it yourself; you took a screenshot. It says "Sky Sport" in the corner! The copyright belongs to the broadcaster. --kingboyk 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did "create" the jpg myself. Sky Sports did not give it to me, its my own work. See, David Beckham article for similar use of such an image that a user created. - The Daddy 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it say Sky Sports 1 in the top right hand corner then? --kingboyk 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it feature Mauro Camoranesi?... I didn't create him, but I did create this jpg which features him. - The Daddy 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Cliffburtonfree.jpg Faulty license. At best, the image is licensed as "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0", on Flickr, which makes it an unsuitable license. At worst, the image is actually copyrighted (which I think is pretty likely), and the license on Flickr is wrong. In either case, the 'non commercial' means it can't be used. --JoanneB 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

  • Image:GirneMarina.jpg - quoted e-mail correspondence between uploader and third-party photographer doesn't support GFDL/cc-by-2.5 as claimed by uploader. What the photographer said in his mail constituted a license "for use on Wikipedia only" ("yanlız söylediğiniz sitenizde kullanabilirsiniz"); also he insisted on keeping the margin text intact ("alt üst yazılarına dokunmadıgınız sürece"), hence restricting the production of derivative works. The uploader did write him back notifying him of the first issue, but not of the second, and we don't know how the photographer reacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Home Nations.jpg - uploader claims to be the creator of the work. However, it is a photograph of an advertisement, so unless they are the owner of the company and/or the creator of the original ad artwork, they are not the creator. --Mais oui! 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image is free of copyright. Sports Fan 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to disprove the contention of the User. Leave pro tem. 86.134.147.22 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irwell Sculpture Trail images

All of these are used by permission only, low quality, and replaceable.

—Remember the dot (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Fife Symington III official.jpg - Uploader claimed that the image was public domain image created by the U.S. government, yet the image source is a web site that shows no affiliation with the U.S. government and provides no form of release indicating anything on the site is in the public domain. --Allen3 talk 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pulaski Day Parade images

All of these are used by permission only and will be replaceable the next time there is a Pulaski Day Parade.

—Remember the dot (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Tasmanian-pademelon-eating-apple.jpg - PanBK originally uploaded as {{GFDL-self}}, but then restricted use to Wikipedia only. I do not think the GFDL permits this. However, if PanBK does not wish the image to be licensed freely, then we should honor that wish and delete the image because the image is replaceable. We can only use images that would qualify as fair use or are under a free license. Explicit permission from the copyright holder to use the image is a plus but is not good enough on its own. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

May 11

The following images were uploaded by User:Gene Poole. He was informed of the last batch of nominations, and is currently blocked.

--kingboyk 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

I don't think an image has to be deleted as soon as the source goes. But the problem I see is that this is a historic image and the source provided was only to a link. Without a specific source/rough date/location, etc that can be verified I think it gets a bit tricky. Historical images have to be used very carefully and, unfortunately, they often aren't. John Smith's 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an image because the source website has gone seems pretty ridiculous to me. Assume good faith, and leave it unless there's been an ORTS complaint. --kingboyk 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source web site is actually still accessible through the Internet Archive's Wayback machine: [21]. But even if it wasn't, like Kingboyk said we should still assume good faith and keep the image. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like a completely credible argument just to assume good faith. I never said it was bad faith, only that there was no information on the source to make it a reliable picture. If these are to be used specifically, rather than "here are some Chinese soldiers during some war" then surely concrete information is required on where it happened, when it happened, etc. The fact that the website archive shows a description makes it fine, but without that how could you know there was ever a proper reference? This isn't just about copyright, it's also about reliability.
Anyway, all that needs to be done is for the picture description to be updated. John Smith's 10:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Rafael Hernandez Airport.jpg - Used by permission only, replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Jiahu Flutes.jpg - uploader claims that the image is copyright-ineligible, but I see no reason to think that's true. It's a photograph of a grouping of 3-dimensional objects; such photographs are generally considered to have creative content and be subject to copyright, since Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. explicitly denies copyright only to reproductions of 2-dimensional objects. Chick Bowen 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not relying on Bridgeman v Corel. I'm relying on the utilitarian article exception. See COMMONS:Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? and the federal code cited on the description page. Nardman1 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very weird reasoning. No one is saying here that the designs of the flute are copyrighted. The question should be if it depends on Bridgeman v Corel to see if the image is public domain, which clearly it is not. If you can go to the place where the flutes are, take a picture and upload it, no one would complain. Garion96 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This image is not ineligible for copyright. Both the Commons and U.S. Government citations do not apply. The Commons citation works, for example, like this: I take a photograph of a car. If the car were copyrighted and the car manufacturer did not freely license the car, then I could not freely license my photograph of the car. The "derivative works have no copyright if there is no new authorship" U.S. Government citation does not apply, because these are three-dimensional objects and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the only case law I am aware of surrounding things ineligible for copyright, only applies to two-dimensional works. --Iamunknown 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Julian_And_Sandy_excerpt.ogg - BBC (C) - Also isn't BBC7 still airing the show? ShakespeareFan00 10:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Pet skunk images

All of these are used by permission only and replaceable. They should be deleted unless the copyright holders are willing to relicense them under a free license.

—Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Abu.jpg - copyright claiming PD-art but the image is a colour, modern photographic image. More oddly it replaced a completely different image! But as this was is currently used in wikipedia it definitely needs looking at rather than just reverting. Madmedea 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=130744722"