Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 4

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4

Image:Gazzareth.jpg

The user uploaded this image back in 2005 (he is now long absent) without any licensing info. A user applied the GFDL-presumed template to the image. The uploader was advised on his talk page to add licensing info. The uploader added the following "I created this image myself in photoshop it is copyrighted to myself and i give permission to wikipedia to use it under licence" which I think makes the image non-free. Non-free images can not be used on User: pages, and it is not being used in any meaningful way on that user page, just as decoration. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Launny Aquatic Centre.JPG

I doubt this design plan (which is no doubt on display at the Council Chambers for the rate payers to view which is required by law but doesn't make it free works) would be in the public domain nor would it be covered by the Freedom of Panorama in Australia Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EVHS01.jpg

See below.

Image:EVHS02.jpg

See below.

Image:EVHS03.jpg

Uploaded by serial copyright violator (and probable sock of PoliticianTexas) User:LamyQ; it's hard to believe that these three aren't free when every other image he's uploaded has been a copyvio. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: User:LamyQ is so far only an accused sock. See the case here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). See a history of images from User:PoliticianTexas and his suspected socks here: User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs. Based on this history I agree that these are probably unfree images. --Uncia (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fictionfamily.jpg

Clearly a publicity photo. GFDL claim is very doubtful. No source for the image is provided.--T-rex 14:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New_escape.jpg

Looks like we only got a "sure feel free to use on Wikipedia" type license here, not PD like it's tagged. Sherool (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:No14chair.jpg

Image is taken from a product listing page, tagged as PD, but only says "Used with permission." in the summary wich is too vague to verify that it has indeed been released as public domain. Sherool (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this copyrightable? If it is, is it fair use? Stifle (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chair itself is not copyrightable (work of utility, plus ~150 year old design); the photograph of the chair is certainly copyrightable. It's not fair use, as it would be straightforward for someone to take a free photo of such a chair. --dave pape (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shironamhin01.jpg

Resolved

– Even though a different image was recreated in its place, but that is a differnt matter. --Amalthea^Talk 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CP. Rationale by User:Gutza:

uploaded by Ukhome, who has an entire history with copyvios. After exploring the matter on his talk page, he ended up with the current setup. Please note that oxyhost.com is a free web hosting service, so the source is entirely dubious. The uploader had been blocked for copyright violations, but I unblocked him when he requested another chance. Since I'm not very experienced in copyright violation matters I'm leaving this into your capable hands -- I would endorse blocking him again, for a month this time, if this proves to be yet another copyvio (which I strongly suspect it is), since he has received yet another final warning after being unblocked and before uploading this last image. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned Ukhome previously, and have very little to add to that. I am almost certain that this page was created in response to the interaction on his talk page, and too have strong doubts that the user owns the copyright to the picture so that he can relase it under the GFDL.
I haven't found it anywhere on the internet, so I'm going to register at the band's forum now and just ask them if they own the copyright to it.
Also note that I'm not convinced that the band Shironamhin is notable in the first place. --Amalthea^Talk 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see here: User talk:Ukhome#about image 3. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per uploader's request. --Gutza ^{T T+} 11:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wheatley Jan 2008.jpg

Flickr source has non-commercial CC license. Since there doesn't seem to be any flickrreview process here, there's no way to know if the claimed BY-SA license was originally correct. dave pape (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first image I ever downloaded from flickr. I seem to have gotten improper licensing. I have contacted the flickr author and requested that they change the licensing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Safiya_Songhai2.jpg

"AmberMag.com Shoot in Manhattan", Not the author creation. O sama K 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]