Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pak21 (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 10 February 2007 (→‎February 9: Definitely copyvio). 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.

January 21

  • Image:Carleth and Steven Keys.jpg source website appears to just be collection of images this user has. Nothing that seems to be that this user has ownership of this image. --MECU≈talk 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that source website isn't even applicable anymore. I used to have the picture there, but it isn't anymore. At any rate, I took the photo myself. If you don't believe me, try and find it online anywhere and you won't. The photo was taken at my house. Please do not delete this image. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide any evidence that you actually took this picture? I couldn't find the image on the source website, though I do believe it is yours, it doesn't explain why you listed it as a source either. In short: Why should we believe you took this picture? --MECU≈talk 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I listed that page (http://www.steevven1.com/pictures.php) as a source mistakenly, as the image used to be hosted there, thinking that it still was. I will remove that site as a source, as it no longer applies. Anyhow, what is a way which I can prove that I took the picture? I mean, nobody can really prove that they took a picture without having video of them taking the picture or something lol. Let me know of a way I can prove that I took the picture, and I will do my best to do so. Again, I encourage you to try to find the image anywhere else. You will not be able to because of the fact that it is my photo; I didn't take it from anywhere. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Searching and not finding the image won't prove anything. I believe that if you can provide the uncropped version of the image, that should be sufficient. The image should contain the exif data. You stated you cropped the image on the description page which is why I'm going this route. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this. --MECU≈talk 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Brandeis shapiro.jpg - No evidence has been presented that this image is indeed GFDL. I asked the uploader some time ago to post the e-mail he received from Brandeis, but he hasn't done so. If he presents unambiguous evidence that this image has indeed been released under the GFDL, I will withdraw this. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:New Tokyo Tower.jpg - Image of the upcoming Sumida Tower. Uploader claims GFDL-self, but it is impossible to take a picture of the thing because it's not even built yet. Tuxide 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged MSNBC Logo as fair use logo. Nardman1 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Dana 102506 30.jpg - A screen capture is marked as self-created. Mosmof 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Logo-bora.jpg: Seems odd that a broadcaster would release a title card to a sitcom into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Lcurve.jpg: Tagged as {{PD-USGov-USGS}}. Apparently this was created by the United States Geological Survey in 1921, so it seems to me that the public domain claim is probably valid. But the licensing e-mail quoted on the image description page says, "The key criteria is: 'educational, non-commercial purposes' and I think this qualifies," which seems to suggest that someone at the Smithsonian Institution believes the image carries usage restrictions. —Bkell (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand what Bkell implies by 'someone at the Smithsonian Institution believes the image carries usage restrictions' (19:16, 21 January 2007). I got specific written permission from a curator at the National Museum of American History to add this image to wikipedia. Doesn't wikipedia fit in the category "educational, non-commercial purposes"? He seems to think so anyhow. I moved the copy of the email text from this curator to the image's discussion page if anyone wants to read it. Billtubbs 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our images also need to be freely-redistributable for anyone and for any purpose, including by commercial entities. —Chowbok ☠ 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That said, I think this is public domain, regardless of what the Smithsonian guy says. It was a work of the federal government and it was published before 1923, so it should be copyright-free on either ground. —Chowbok ☠ 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wrote the above when these responses were mistakenly listed on the bottom of the page, so I hadn't seen Bkell's original comments. I think the Smithsonian guy's comments are irrelevant. He's simply mistaken. —Chowbok ☠ 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source from the Smithsonian website is here: [1]. I think the caption speaks for itself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:MacShipOnLake.jpg: Claimed GFDL-no-disclaimers, but the source URL is a results page from http://images.google.bg/, and the actual source page apparently no longer exists. There is no information about who the actual copyright holder is, and no evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:JeanDeVilliers.jpg. Tagged as GFDL-no-disclaimers, but copyright status is unverifiable. Image is no longer located at source URL, and source URL is a fan-run site with no image copyright info. --Muchness 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Anaximenes 500BC.jpg. Tagged as GFDL but the image shows a source dated 1949. Image doesn't appear to be "own work" at all.--NMajdan•talk 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

  • Image:AND Using NAND diagram.png. Labeled "Made in LiveWire 1.10" (link mine), yet also marked as {{PD-old}} —Remember the dot (t) 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, {{PD-old}} is probably wrong, but it seems likely that the uploader was the creator of the image and meant to release it into the public domain with a tag like {{PD-self}}. (It might even be trivial enough to be uncopyrightable.) —Bkell (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has only been 70 years since this sort of thing became trivial. Anyway, the PNG version can go—it’s been automatically converted from a JPEG and I’ll make an SVG version with Xcircuit as soon as I find the time. —xyzzyn 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how old the idea is. You can't copyright ideas; you can only copyright expressions of ideas, and only creative and original expressions at that. I'm not exactly sure what you say is 70 years old: the idea that AND can be constructed from NAND, or the actual symbols used to represent NAND gates. The former is uncopyrightable, whereas the latter could conceivably be copyrighted. But these symbols are used universally, so I'd say there's a pretty strong reason to believe that the creator of a circuit diagram using these gate symbols is not infringing anyone's copyright and can freely release the diagram into the public domain. The question here really boils down to the idea-expression divide and the merger doctrine. The idea illustrated in this image cannot itself be copyrighted. If this idea is capable of intelligible expression in only one or a limited number of ways, then even the expression of the idea cannot be copyrighted, since doing so would in effect be placing a copyright on an uncopyrightable idea. This is why I say that this circuit diagram is probably so trivial as to be uncopyrightable: It is the most straightforward way to express this idea, this expression of the idea does not show any creativity or originality (the idea itself may be creative, but the expression is not), and there are no other equally intelligible expressions. —Bkell (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only objecting to calling the concept trivial. Anyway, Image:AND from NAND.svg already exists, so we really don’t need the PNG; I’ve updated the JPEG version’s description page to point at the SVG. —xyzzyn 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:1974kissin.JPG is clearly a professional photograph with no information. It's probably not a 'promotional' image, and besides that, there are plenty of other images that can be used (as of right now, it doesn't have any articles linked to it) Verloren Hoop 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:BigRedWKU.jpg is credited to a now defunct page on the Western Kentucky University athletics site, but there is no evidence that the image is actually in the public domain. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Giodm.jpg: Claimed {{Attribution}}, but source [2] doesn't seem to have any kind of statement allowing unlimited use of the photo as long as the copyright holder is attributed. —Bkell (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

January 24

January 25

GMA-7 allows free use of their images on websites and blogs. I've screencapped those images to show the controversial costume rip-off (Jepoy 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I was referring to the Sailor Moon drawings, but just the same, the sources of the pics (all of them) must be appended to the image description page. --Howard the Duck 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the images are now orphaned perhaps the admins can speedily delete these. --Howard the Duck 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Battle-1t.jpg, Image:Battle-2t.jpg, Image:Battle-3t.jpg - No evidence for ‘irrevocably released all rights’. —xyzzyn 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go to http://navysite.de/index.htm and there it is stated that all the photos on the site from which the image was taken are property of the US Navy, that like photos of the US Army and the Marines, which is actualy in one whole part of the DoD is in the public domain, free use. So just change the tag don't always just jump at the chance to delete the image Xyzzy.—Top Gun15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have little doubt that this applies to images on other pages on navysite.de. As for the specific page, however, there is one that is nearly identical at [14]. Since the latter has references, I think it’s likely that the former is a copy; the latter, however, has no copyright information. One week ago, I wrote the webmaster of navysite.de an e-mail asking about the source of the images and have received no reply, which is the reason why I’m asking for opinions here. Who’s jumping? —xyzzyn 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever, it doesn't matter which page is which, the only ones that could have taken those pictures could have been only US Marines or some other US military unit, and all images provided by the US military are within the public domain, again fair use. Only US military personel could have taken the images there were no embeded reporters with the soldiers during the street fighting. These sites use these images probably under the same free use licence like we will use. —Top Gun06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • AFAIK, back then, reporters tended to be slightly more independent—and that didn’t stop them from taking copyrighted pictures during combat. —xyzzyn 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AMATI-sfumato small eng.jpg Logo from a company, yet released under GFDL-self. No way to verify this. -- ReyBrujo 20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Sean McIlvenna.jpg- states free use- but it is not listed on the website stated- and even if it was- the website asserts copyright over all images. Astrotrain 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from a political poster and flyer and is used freely on placards and banners at political rallies and political rememberance rathering aswell as websites.--Vintagekits 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use is the same as this image and this--Vintagekits 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Patrick kelly.jpg - states created by themselve- but links to a website that doesn't even have the image. Given the type of photo it is- I doubt it was created by this user. Astrotrain 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ditto--Vintagekits 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

ditto again, this is bordering on stalking and at least wikibullying. All the details of the use is outlined in on the images page--Vintagekits 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Frilled shark.jpg - individual who licensed image as pd-self claims to have been a part of the investigation crew, however in my view this does not grant him/her the rights to this image. From what I can gather [15] this image was first seen in a handout by the Awashima Marine Park, the image was then picked up by the AP newswire. Also the uploader claims this image is "free for educational use" however that doesn't mean the same as being in the public domain. -- malo (tlk)(cntrbtns) 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is copyrighted by getty images. Chikanamakalaka 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the photograph must be removed, the remaining pictures in the 'frilled shark' article seem to represent a different/immature animal, and fail to convey the similarity to ancient drawings of sea-monsters. If this is the level of education and openness resulting from obeying the law, give me crime! >:D

January 27

Why they are fake tags? I am new to Wikipedia and except the flute image is from Nature, all other bronze pictures are from bronzes.cn and the website does not have any copyright statement about the pictures. I search all the possible tags and decide to use the free picture tag. Do I need to send them a letter asking an autherization? What should be the right procedure to show these pictures here to the world? What is the requirement for verification of the source? Can you tell me and show some pictures you have uploaded and show the autherizaton letter from the picture taker? thanks. Dongwenliang 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a copyright notice on that website (admittedly I can't read Chinese.) I have emailed the admin of bronzes.cn to see what kind of copyright is on those images. If you could provide a link to the copyright page of that website it'd help. Nardman1 04:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Xia-marking.jpg is from www.huaxia.com and Music-Bell.jpg appears to be hosted on an image host, with no other source info available. I'm looking for a way to contact the administrator of www.huaxia.com for copyright info but I can't find it yet. Nardman1 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also sent an email to bronzes_cn@yahoo.com.cn. I wonder how did you find this email address if you can not read Chinese. But these tags are not fake tags, it is the best assumption I can get. Thanks for your understanding, if there are ways that I will be 100% responsile for any voiations of the copyright law. My email address is dongwenliang@gmail.com. Ask the layer of Wikipedia to contact me directly. Thanks. Dongwenliang 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this"© 2000 By www.viewcn.com & www.huaxia.com 版权所有 华夏经纬网" at the bottom of every huaxia.com page (except the portal, ironically, and it says 2000 even on new stuff). The Chinese text translates as "all rights reserved China latitude and longitude network". Are you still going to claim that Xia-marking.jpg is free? And Music-Bell.jpg is from an image host, with no provenance info (ie a source further back.) Are you going to claim the rights to that? How about Jiahu-flutes.jpg, from Nature? Their website plainly states their stuff is copyrighted. There's 3 fake free use tags I've PROVEN you've put on images. You've also uploaded copyrighted articles such as Xiaochangliang which had to be deleted *twice*. Wikipedia is user-run...there's no way for you to be held "100% responsible" for violations of copyright except via the user process I'm trying to use. Also I did find the email address to the admin of bronzes.cn by using babelfish on this page. Nardman1 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might these images qualify under fair use? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, although someone who speak's Dongwenliang's native language should explain Wikipedia's policies to him. And you'd have to find the ultimate source of Music-Bell.jpg before fair use could be established. And the copyrighted text from [16] on its page should be deleted. Nardman1 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don’t think the website viewcn.com and huaxia.com is the original creator of this image, the original author is difficult to find thus this picture also may qualify fair use since they put it on the public domain. The same situation applies to the music bell image. The only image of jiahu flute, did I put a free copyright tag? No. The tag I put is "This work has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by the copyright holder", not "This screenshot either does not contain parts or visuals of copyrighted programs, ...". The problem in your link of the music bell is the text, not the image, since your link provided a different image. You cannot understand my language, but I can understand English, why it’s necessary that must be the one who speak my native language to explain the policies? Given the grammar and complicated procedures of Wilipedia, I did not use the right tags, also it is even hard for me to find the talk page. In any condition, it is inappropriate to call them "fake tags", I would accept your comments on “Xiaochangliang”, but I also ask an apology of “fake tags”, if you are well educated and understand what I am saying. Dongwenliang 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got an email from the webmaster, he said that he can not access Wilipedia from China, but he still need to understand what happened here. Did you get any feedback? I will follow up if there will be new emails.Dongwenliang 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got an email today,

from

hong xu <bronzes_cn@yahoo.com.cn> hide details 9:27 am (7 hours ago) to William Dong <dongwenliang@gmail.com> date Feb 6, 2007 9:27 AM subject 回复： 请您帮忙！ signed-by yahoo.com.cn 您好！原来是这个图。您放心用吧，没有问题，按照惯例您写明出处不是就可以了吗？至少中国的著作权法是这样说的。

Translation: "Howdy, now I understand what happened. You can use these images freely if you specify the source of image, according to copyright law of P.R. China."

Please remove your question tag, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.110.46 (talk • contribs)

    • I haven't received any emails from bronzes.cn, but then again I sent my email in English. I'm not sure as to the original source of the bronzes.cn images, and permission to use images on Wikipedia is a touchy subject, so I will wait for an admin to close this discussion. Note that the huaxia and other disputed images are still unaccounted for. Nardman1 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to copyright law of P.R. China, you only need to quote the source of the picture you got from, it does not say you must quote the "original source". So if you traced back to huaxia, that is enough. Please again remove your question tag. Thanks.Dongwenliang 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which law? I looked at [17] and couldn’t find anything like that; in fact, it looks like the usual Berne convention style text. —xyzzyn 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea from the webmaster of bronzes.cn. It is very likely that this website is the owner of these pictures, as far I can search, I found that bronzes.cn is the original website host these images, unless you can provide a different owner of these picture. Also I get the email from the owner of the website to use these picture.

Actually it does not matter if bronzes.cn is the author of these picture according to the copyright law of China, see Section 4, (3), (8) and (9): Similiar to fair use or public domain in US, why someone like you try to delete these pictures? What really upset you? However I may not put right tag, in that case just advise what kind tag is suitable in this condition.

"Section 4 Limitations on Rights

Article 22 In the following cases, a work may be exploited without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced:

(3) reuse or citation, for any unavoidable reason, of a published work in newspapers, periodicals, at radio stations, television stations or any other media for the purpose of reporting current events;

(8) reproduction of a work in its collections by a library, archive, memorial hall, museum, art gallery or any similar institution, for the purposes of the display, or preservation of a copy, of the work;

(9) free-of-charge live performance of a published work and said performance neither collects any fees from the members of the public nor pays remuneration to the performers; " Dongwenliang 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this is true perhaps we should come up with a new template for images copyrighted in China. I'll have a look at it later. And if someone could tell me where new templates are proposed it'd be appreciated. Nardman1 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s a standard fair use clause. We keep fair use images only where it is not possible to make a free replacement; how is that the case here? —xyzzyn 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Nardman1 for creating this tag! :)) Dongwenliang 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing this nomination. Nardman1 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

January 28

January 29

It probably falls under "fair use" since it is the intro photo on the mayoral office's official website (public). I also think that it is preferable to the temporary replacement image that you put in the article. --Holdek (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fair use, then it definitely is not preferable to the image currently in the article, as that one is Creative Commons–licensed.—Chowbok ☠ 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I find the original to look more professional, it's larger, has better lighting, and White's face isn't obstructed by the microphone. --Holdek (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The free image is larger than this one, satisfactory in terms of showing what the guy looks like and, well, free. The microphone is a bit annoying, but not a reason to keep this one. —xyzzyn 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a pretty unoriginal photograph to me. I'd say the pd-ineligible tag might be right. Possibly fair use if that claim fails. Nardman1 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is the uploader thought they could license their screenshot as GDFL. Tagged as fair use instead. Nardman1 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a sailor uploaded an image he took in the line of duty. Definitely pd under {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} and tagging as such. Nardman1 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Renaultlogo.jpg - certainly not a user-created public domain image. We already have a Renault logo available with the correct tags and a fairuse claim. Bob talk 10:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Aston-Martin-V12-Vanquish.jpg - not a film poster, and likely to be an Aston Martin promotional photograph for the car. However, the Vanquish page already has a user contributed GNU image, so this cannot be claimed as fair-use. Bob talk 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:18210.jpg - not a software screenshot, but copied from a website, it should be easy to find a replacement. Bob talk 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:CitroenXantia.jpg - another image with an incorrect tag, this time listed as a Windows screenshot. This one looks like a user-created image, but it's difficult to tell. Bob talk 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Schinty-six_number.JPG - Summary contradics license. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a backwards number 5 next to a 6, I think that {{PD-ineligible}} will do. Anyway, this should put the matter to rest. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look hard enough. I expanded the rationale a bit and changed the tag. The image should be suitable for Wikipedia now. Nardman1 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, withdrawing this. —Chowbok ☠ 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader changed tag back, so I'm re-listing this. —Chowbok ☠ 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you've re-listed? Has the issue not been sufficiently resolved by Nardman1? BFD1 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's back to being tagged {{attribution}}, and there's nothing on the source page that warrants that tag. For a while, it was tagged fair use, so I removed it. —Chowbok ☠ 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:FBHW HW.jpg - Appears to be a derivative work of a copyrighted promotional photo and a copyrighted television screenshot. Khatru2 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:DelPieroJuventusCaptain.jpg - claims fair use, "source" is a different image. Mosmof 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:NAdkins.jpg - all of this user's uploads in the past 2 days appear to be professional images the user is claiming ownership of. It is unlikely this user is a professional photographer with the rights to field level access and the rights of ownership to the images in order to release them. I am putting all of this user's images here at PUI (without actually listing them, there are at least 20), see [19] for 29 and 27 Jan MECU≈talk 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

  • Image:8393.jpg — It's a professional headshot and while the uploader provided the name of the photographer, it appears to be somebody other than himself. Taken directly from subject's website. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Aus Vs Uru Crowd.jpg - Claims PD, but unable to confirm because the source requires registration to view. Somehow, I don't think a site tht won't let you even look at an image without registering would give its images away freely. Ytny 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Jovovich Hawk Milla.jpg unverifiable and improbable upload by suspected WP:SPA. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LeoStraussfairuse.jpg, despite a request and much explanation on the image page, still no confirmation that this image is pre-1923. Chick Bowen 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Samuelson.gif; tagged as GFDL, which is implausible; status is unclear. Chick Bowen 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:RookieOrton.jpg - uploader claims GFDL-self, but then says "free use picture", don't believe the source, but could be used under fair use since it's from his "rookie days" which would need to be rationale'd why that was critical to show (is he different now?) MECU≈talk 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

  • Image:LeoBeenhakker.jpg - Granted, I can't read Polish, but looking at the originating site (uploader didn't give URL of originating page), it looks like a standard news site and there's no evidence of No Rights Reserved. Ytny 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Kampilan.jpg. The source cannot be accessed. And it isn't indicated why the tempate used (PD-Phillipine) is valid. I don't have the best possibility right now, but I'd like someone to check through the uploades other uploaded images. Many seem suspicious. / Fred-Chess 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:VBelmont.png - Contributer claims {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} "with explicit permission". No source for licensing given, no information at WP:COPYREQ found. URL source states: "© 2002 – 2007 Last.fm Ltd.". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:JeriJeopardy.jpg - Screencap that is obviously not public domain. Dismas|(talk) 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pachulia.jpg - Yahoo/Getty images are never no rights reserved. Photo no longer at the source though. Mosmof 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has changed the source to fibaeurope.com and the license to CC-by-2.0, which still doesn't make sense. Mosmof 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

February 2

  • Image:Lake Peigneur Waterfall.png - tagged as {{PD-Australia}}, but it was obviously not created in Australia (it's a photo of an event that happened at Lake Peigneur (Louisiana) in 1980), so IMHO Australian copyright laws don't apply here. Maybe it can be used as Fair Use. --88.134.44.28 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fair-use rationale, by User:Oden was fairly complete, and I agree with it. Furthermore the article does discuss the appearance. (You yourself restored the mention of the cover after it was removed by an editor who does not like Playboy.) Said appearance was timed to match one of Teri Polo's most notable roles, with text on the cover taking advantage of said film role "One hot Fokker". —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploader also is claiming images found on web as photos he took himself: Image:Newworldtower.jpg compared to [23] (note flags waving exactly same position). ccwaters 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't you just add the right tag? Tagged as {{bookcover}} because it says it's a cover girl. Get it? All you had to do was remove the "comic" from the tag to get the right tag. Nardman1 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Peacockthrone small.jpg Uploaded by infrequent contributor in January 2005. I tagged it as unsourced in July 2005. Nv8200p added the PD-US tag in Sept. 2005. Malaiya added the following comment to my talk page in Feb. 2006:

I must mention that this image

  • is a modern painting. It is not historical.
  • the throne is not the peacock-throne (takht-e-taus) of Shah Jahan. Historical paintings of takht-e-taus with Shaha Jahan exist.
  • Person sitting on it does not resemble Shah Jahan.

I suggest that this image be deleted.

For the real peacock throne See: http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearch?id=11092&&idx=1&startid=31593

I asked Nv8200p why he tagged it PD-US and he responded on my talk page:
"I just made the assumption that the image was created during the lifetime of Shah Jahan (January 5, 1592 – January 22, 1666), which would qualify it for the tag. Could be wrong."
Since the uploader did not provide a source, the copyright is in doubt and the image is orphaned, it should be deleted. RedWolf 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

This image has been released into the public domain. I have obtained permissions from the creators to do so. The 'terms of use' that you reference are valid in general, but exceptions can be made, as were made with the fetus image. Hopefully the 'terms of use' page will be updated to made this clear. Medlat 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please forward both your request and the answer received to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, preferably together as one message. Note that for images to be used by permission on Wikipedia, the copyright owner must know and agree to the conditions that the image may be redistributed, modified, and used for any other purpose including, but not limited to, commercial uses. --Iamunknown 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'terms of use' page was subsequently updated to say that screenshots are public domain. The fetus pic is a screenshot and hence is in the public domain. Medlat 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the information and removed the template. --Iamunknown 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LSkimerald.jpg, Image:LSChristmas.jpg, Image:Lshsh.jpg, Image:LSwmf.JPG, User:Mikomouse claimed to be the creator, but is certainly a promotional material for a TV program. User is consistent copyright violator, as evidence by a long list of deletion notices on his/her talkpage. --Howard the Duck 07:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:BENJAMINCAYETANO.jpg - claimed as a public domain license as a work of the federal government, but the source web site has a copyright at the bottom the page: Copyright © 2004 National Governors Association. All rights reserved. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Saferco.jpg - appears to be professional image, user is absent from WP, the image is orphaned MECU≈talk 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Sprite.JPG - Derivative work of copyrighted design. Ineligible for release under any license by the photographer nor release into public domain.--Jeff 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This (and all the similar nominations below) are completely wrong-headed. I defy Jeffness to cite any case law that states that photos of trademarked items cannot be copyrighted by the photographer. Furthermore, knowing Jeffness's history I find it difficult to believe these are good-faith nominations. He has in the past nominated images for deletion for the sole purpose of getting people on his side in the various fair-use debates (and has said so on his talk page). As before, this is a clear violation of WP:POINT and an admin should discuss this with him. —Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here I thought you'd be proud of me. How weird!--Jeff 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your answer demonstrates your lack of seriousness with these nominations.—Chowbok ☠ 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • hahaha. Well, I can be serious and also have a sense of humour, sorry. I just find it hilarious you, of all people, are disagreeing with my the reasoning behind these noms. You don't see the irony? I assure you, there's no ill will or sinister motive behind my nominating these images for deletion. Thanks to our little discourse, I've learned a great deal about copyrights and proper applications of licenses. In the course, I've learned that photographs of copyrighted material are derivatives and are simply ineligible for re-license by people who take photographs of them. If you want an example, simply look at the case of statues or other works of art. We have a template for it, even, template:statue--Jeff 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a followup to my last post, I'd like to point out that section 106 of the US Code, as linked from the statue template, has to do with detailing that the original copyright holder has exclusive rights to authorizing any derivatives. It has nothing to do with statues or anything; it just so happens that statues are a lot like copyrighted pop cans. Just because you take a picture of something does not mean you have the right to license that image; only the original copyright holder has that right. That's what the section is about.--Jeff 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Keep and restore photographers' licenses to this and all Jeff's nominees below. The design of a can or bottle itself is no more eligible for copyright than that of a car is. There is no creative work for these photographs to be derivative of. —Angr 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) There is a relevant court case, Ets-Hokin vs. Skyy Spirits, whose ramifications are being discussed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pepsi cappuccino.jpg. Basically the court found that a photograph of this bottle is not a derivative work, because the bottle itself is purely functional and the label consists solely of text with no graphic element. The decision says "Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, 'textual matter' is not--at least not unless the text 'aid[s] or augment[s]' an accompanying graphical illustration." Also, the photograph in question was of the bottle as a whole, not just the label. IANAL, but I think with some common sense we can decide which of these images show labels that include a graphic element, and which don't, and which are photographs of copyrightable labels, and which are photographs of uncopyrightable bottle designs. For Image:Sprite.JPG I say delete because the entire can is the label, which includes graphic elements. —Angr 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pepsi Fire limited edition.jpg - Derivative work of copyrighted design. same as above.--Jeff 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I'm going to download, resize, and retag this image with appropriate fair-use rationale.--Jeff 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, label includes graphical elements, and Jeffness has not included an appropriate fair-use rationale as he stated above. —Angr 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pepsi_cappuccino.jpg - Derivative work. Copyvio.--Jeff 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, photograph is only of the label, which includes a graphic element. —Angr 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:CokeII.jpg - Derivative work. Copyvio.--Jeff 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, no significant graphic element to this label. —Angr 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

All of these may be PD. See [24]. An administrator would need to evaluate this. In the meantime I'm tagging all of them with {{statue}}. Nardman1 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at the Commons discussion, since I find the approach by citing people who know better compelling. —xyzzyn 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

February 6

February 7

  • Image:Pellesc.png - If correctly sourced and licensed, this image would be used under the doctrine of fair use. There is no indication that the source code and thus the program output is licensed under the GNU GPL license. Furthermore, the uploader omitted what license he/she intended for the displayed code. --Iamunknown 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am attempting to establish contact with the uploader via e-mail. --Iamunknown 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

  • Image:PaulHendersonSig.jpg clearly must have been scanned from a document signed by Henderson, thus "PD-self" doesn't really make any sense unless the uploader is Paul Henderson, which I doubt. — CharlotteWebb 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:OsceolaOcala.JPG - photographer has released photograph into the public domain, but does not address the copyright status of the sculpture depicted. -- Donald Albury 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I uploaded the picture from my own collection. The picture was taken by me on holiday in Florida. I don't know what is meant by the copyright status of the sculpture.--NeilEvans 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Photographs of sculptures that are not in the public domain by virtue of age are considered derivative works, and as such are subject to the copyright of the sculpture. See Commons:Derivative works for more information. --Iamunknown 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tagged the image with {{statue}}, what else can I do to ensure the picture is not deleted?--NeilEvans 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Osceola2.jpg - photographer has released photograph into the public domain, but does not address the copyright status of the portrait on painted tile that is depicted. -- Donald Albury 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:7_inch_picture_disc.jpg - CD cover. BJTalk 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: image not used in an entry, nor likely to be used, so no fair use justification possible. If you think that this image is unfree, or at least incorrectly licensed, then perhaps you'd like to review similar such images in the Unusual types of gramophone records entry. (It's a 7" picture disc, not a CD cover, by the way.) Burn the asylum 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Carl's_Jr._&_Green_Burrito.gif - Logo, not tagged fair use. BJTalk 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:JCfd.jpg - Model. BJTalk 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Adda Gleason.png. Uploader tagged it as "PD-US", which implies that it was published before 1923. I tagged this as "no source". Uploader said he got it from "www.silentladies.com", but did not give a precise URL. I cannot find this image and that site, nor can google [25]. Also, this image is in PNG format, but the photos on that site appear to all be in the more appropriate JPG format. Uploader says the picture was taken "around 1916", but we have no evidence of this, and the actress in the photo lived until 1971. The image has a caption "Courtesy of Santa Barbara Historical Society", so as a last resort I googled for +"Adda Gleason" +"Santa Barbara" +Historical +Society and found only page and it had no pictures on it. — CharlotteWebb 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Genesis does.jpg - Onoff456 (talk · contribs) claims {{PD-self}} for an Sega Genesis advertisement still. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Skagen Station.jpg - someone who reads Danish will have to help us out here, but I can't locate any copyright notice at source site, and the uploader hasn't verified that everything at the site is public domain, which I find hard to believe. Ytny (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Unitedcenter.jpg – Permission for Wikipedia only. Kjetil_r 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Smalltoothsandtiger.jpg is clearly watermarked as (c)SeaPics.com, which states "All photographs, graphics, text, design, content on this web site are copyrighted, and should not be copied, downloaded, transferred, and re-created in any way without express consent of SeaPics.com.", which is not indicated on the image (tagged {{No rights reserved}} and bogus {{PD-self}}). ~ BigrTex 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Goblin shark1.jpg from image link, shown at page link, site does not have any copyright or source info for the photo. I doubt the uploader's {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-self}} tagging of the image with no indication of rights release. ~ BigrTex 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Goblin shark2.jpg Image from image link, shown at page link, home page states " Replica 3D Object Libraries and Texture Libraries © 2007 Replica Technology. All rights reserved." no sign of any release. image tagged {{No rights reserved}} and bogus {{PD-self}}. ~ BigrTex 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

  • Comment. That's because it's posted on a social networking site. That doesn't mean that Multiply owns the copyright to the image. IMHO, the question is, is the uploader the same person with that Multiply account? Shrumster 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Several screenshots
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=107058867"