Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

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: {{subst:nsd}} for no source or {{subst:nld}} for no license 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.

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

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.

February 27

• Images claimed to be in Public Domain under {{PD-India-Gov}}. According to the guidelines for IT managers of GoI websites, they are expected to state the copyright status of the works (text/images/media) published in them. However, the images listed below have been taken from websites that don't publish any copyright information about the works available in them, and assume them to be "Public Domain" in the absence of the contrary. Many of these also claim the images to be in public domain on the basis of the Right to Information Act (India), which only grants the right to access information and does not indicate the information being in public domain. I have not edited the template to indicate the correct copyright status of such images, and will do it as soon as the fate of these images is decided.
  • Images from Ministry of Defence.
    • Arjun tank.GIF. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Wing Commander Jayashankar hanging on inverted biplane.png. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary.citing non-commercial, education-related use
      • Could you please tell me what part of the summary are you referring to? I'm not seeing it. —Remember the dot (t) 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The summary I am talking about is in the "Licensing" section just before the {{PD-India-Gov}} template. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Images from Indian Navy
    • Indian Navy crest.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • INS Tabar.jpeg.
    • Tarangini passage.jpg.
  • Images from Press Information Bureau. The website states that "[...]This, along with reasonably high quality photographs are provided on the website for free download by anyone." This does not mean out of copyright.
    • Pinaka launcher.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Pinaka replenishment vehicle.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Pinaka loader.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • IAF Rank.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • IAF Prithvi.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indian Para Commandos march.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indian Para Commandos.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Sukhoi-30 MKI flight.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Sukhoi Trishul.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • SUKHOI-30MKI.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • President's bodyguard.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Akash.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Agni-I.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Rapid Action Force.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Shishumar submarine.jpeg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Srakshak.jpeg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Samyukta Jammer.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Samyukta direction finder.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.
    • Indra MK-II.jpg. Image claimed PD in template and fair-use in summary citing non-commercial, education-related use.

  — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Additional note: The images were uploaded by multiple editors. Each editor has been notified at least once. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you read this part about the basic rules of nic websites.
  • "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged.

However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

and if there is any work is copyrighted it will be mentioned as in http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/NewPfr06/index2.htm

and

• • However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

• • So the rules clearly states that the images are in public domain and is copyrighted if specifically stated as such. I would expect you to remove all unnecessary tags added to the images immediately.

Thanking you. Chanakyathegreat 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. Read the sentence in context and don't quote things out of context. The page says: "The information, material and documents made available on a government website have to be backed up with proper copyright policies explaining the terms and conditions of their usage and reference by others. In cases where the document is in public domain and there is no restriction on its reproduction, the copyright statement could be worded as follows: ". The copyright notice that you quoted follows. Hope you see that in context now. You can help speedy up the deletion process my marking all the files you uploaded as {{db-author}}. It will be appreciated. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you state a single government webpage that contains the policy directive. The website designers did not follow the directive to post the information that it is in public domain. But that does not make the information not to be in public domain unless they state it specifically it to be Copyrighted as in the President's fleet review link provided. The Navy want's to put the high resolution images of the fleet review which is an important event and in that page they specifically say that it is copyrighted. Otherwise the front page must have contained the copyright information. There is no mention of copyright in any of the government websites making it very clear that the Government of India websites are all in public domain unless specifically stated as in the Navy website case. The links provided by me is enough evidence to prove the above. Even the guidelines state that if any information is copyrighted it need to be properly mentioned in that webpage. Since all the pages that contain the images that you are trying to remove did not contain any copyright information it is in public domain. Chanakyathegreat 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to bring to your notice a very important point that will put to rest all your suspicions. http://nicsu.up.nic.in/guidelines.pdf states

In cases where the nature of information/document calls for a restriction on its reproduction, the copyright statement would indicate the following terms

Material on this site is subjected to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material is subjected to the approval of -----. Application for obtaining permission should be made to (email and complete postal address of the concerned department)

This statement is absent from the pages from the images are downloaded clearly indicating the image is in public domain.

Now you can remove the unnecessary tags, that you added.

Chanakyathegreat 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is totally wrong. You have totally misunderstood copyright principles. Images are always assumed copyrighted unless specifically stated to be in public domain. You cannot force public domain to any work. I rest my case for the closing admin. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heron Indian Navy.gif. Reason same as given for these images. Missed tagging them in previous session. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

March 2

• Image:Durand Line Border Between Afghanistan And Pakistan.jpg - I do not beleive that this image has been created by the user as he attests. I am of the reasonable beleif that after looking at the full sized image it has been lifted from a map book or other similar source of geographic materias by methods of scanning or similar, before being passed off as his own work. thewinchester 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It’s CIA (the ‘Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative.’ note is a good indication for that). I’ve fixed the description page. —xyzzy_n 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Many images uploaded by Polypmaster (talk · contribs) including:

  Image:Rickenbacker warehouse.jpg

  Image:Rickenbacker tower.jpg

  Image:Port columbus timeline.jpg

  Image:Columbus terminal map.jpg

  Image:Port columbus ultimate site plan.JPG

  Image:Port columbus terminal.jpg

  Image:Port columbus tower.jpg

  Image:Port columbus new terminal.JPG

  All images appear to come from http://www.columbusairports.com. The website's "statement" of use is at this page and states, "The images below are available in high resolution for print publications and low resolution for Internet publications and presentations." I don't interpret this statement to mean that the copyright owner is irrevocably releasing all rights to the photo, as the uploader states. Unless the uploaded can get an email from the copyright owner stating the image is released into the PD, then I think these need to be deleted. It also might be worthwhile for an admin to peruse this user's photo contribs a bit more to see if there are any that I missed.↔NMajdan•talk 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, the website does state the images are available in low resolution for internet publications. It is my understanding that this is what Wikipedia is. If that is not the case then it seems silly that I can use information from the same site, but not the images which clearly state how they may be used. As for the licensing, I could find no appropriate licensing option when uploading them. If there is one I would like to know. I tried uploading an image which I was given the explicit permission to use in Wikipedia articles by the author, but using that license apparently is not sufficient as it was deleted. If the author of an image gives permission for its use in Wikipedia and I do so, I do not understand the copyright problem. It could be edited by someone, but that is understood when permission is given for its use in Wikipedia. If need be, I can get written permission for the images' use in Wikipedia. That will not be a problem. To be on the safe side I will do so now, but if there is an applicable license, I would like to know. Please do not delete these images yet as I will be getting any needed permission. Thank you..↔Polypmaster•talk 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Don't worry, you've got at least two weeks before they'll be deleted (and even after that admins generally don't delete while permission is being actively pursued). Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Finally, the image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag. If you have question about choosing an appropriate tag, don't hesitate to ask. —RP88 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and with regards to having permission for use on Wikipedia, unfortunately that isn't sufficient. Wikipedia's content is intended to be used by others, including commercial users, so getting permission for an image to appear on Wikipedia is not enough - Wikipedia needs permission to redistribute the images (as I mentioned above). —RP88 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  I believe all the images hae proper licensing and source info. If so, could the dispute tags be removed? Thank you. -Polypmaster

  Polypmaster, thank you for your work. I don't think, however, that they are now correct. Where in the statement, "The images below are available in high resolution for print publications and low resolution for Internet publications and presentations." at [1] is there any indication of "...the copyright holder [allowing] the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed," with which you have tagged the images? --Iamunknown 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  As I stated in the summary, I contacted the Columbus Regional Airport Authority and recieved proper permission from their general council prior to uploading the images. I believe his e-mail address is posted in the summary. If there is something else I should add to the summary, please let me know. Thank you. -Polypmaster

  If you're confident that your e-mail from the copyright owner specifically states that they permit their images to be "freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose" then all you have to do now is forward your e-mail request for permission and the copyright owner's response to OTRS (permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) as specified at WP:COPYREQ#When_permission_is_confirmed (making sure that both the Internet URL for the image and the Wikipedia link to that same image is provided for each image). Then add a note to the image descriptions that you've forwarded the permission to the OTRS system. —RP88 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Northeastdrive.jpg - Couldn't find anything at source website that supported GNU claim. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ringdocus.jpg - summary contradicts license tag. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SJMSS.PNG - Previous version clearly shows Google watermark, was cropped out in new version (probably to disguise source). Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Asian_girl_by_swanky.jpg - "All rights reserved" according to source. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I’ve asked the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence. —xyzzy_n 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Copyright holder changed licence on Flickr to BY–SA–2.0. I’ve changed the tag here accordingly. —xyzzy_n 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This should be moved to commons where we can have it Flickr reviewed so we don't run into this problem again. gren グレン 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SomaliCoastLine--.jpg
• Image:060626 SOMALIA AWEYS vsm.rp420x400.jpg
• Image:Nuruddin Farah .jpg
• Image:MogadishuBlock.jpg

  Were Uploaded by me believing these images because they were from flickr they were automaticly in public domain, a fellow editor at a talk page explained to me that i did indeed misinterpret the words the photo is public with public domain i have given the images the appropriate tags, i have contacted the copyright owners and i would like the images to remain on wikipedia untill i have received email-confirmation from the owners RoboRanks 23:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  You need not be concerned, images are in PUI for at least two weeks before they're deleted. Since these images are all from Flickr, all you have to do is convince the account holder at Flickr to change his or her license settings for those particular images. Flickr allows the account owner to choose from a range of license options - the ones on Flickr that are acceptable for use on Wikipedia are the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licenses. After they change the license you can change the image description on Wikipedia is use the corresponding Creative Comons copyright tag. For Flickr images it is also a good idea to include a note that mentions the date you checked the license on Flickr. —RP88 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Regarding the Image:Nuruddin Farah .jpg i have received an Email[2] saying i'm allowed to use it, but was unable to convince BOOKphotoSA to change it's license on flickr. Could it now fall under {{Attribution}} if i mention the site aswell as the photographer? -RoboRanks 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  That looks like a {{permission}} statement, not {{attribution}}, big difference. The fact that he won't change the license on the Flickr page itself also indicates that he did not actualy agree to allow everyone to use the image for any purpose (modify, commercial use etc). Please see WP:COPYREQ for more info. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 3

• Image:Brahma_beer_advertisement.JPG - Copy of a copyrighted work without additional originality (Bridgeman v. Corel). The copyright status of the original work is unclear; it may be old enough for PD, or maybe not. —xyzzy_n 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is a night-time shot of a company's buildboard taken in a public place. I took the photo and released it under GFDL. The photo is being used on the article for the product in question. As such, it is undoubtably a valid fair use on Brahma (beer). If necesary, we can change the licensing to fair use. Johntex\^talk 21:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, please add those details to image description - all images on Wikipedia are required to have an accurate description of their source. May I ask where was the photo taken, if you're a Brazilian citizen, and if the photo was a digital photo? The reason I ask is that I notice that Brahma beer is a Brazilian beer. Brazil's freedom of panorama legislation Article 48 of Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 says that "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." So if you're Brazilian, the photo was taken in Brazil, and the digital image was produced in Brazil, then you are free to take a photos of the billboard and license the photo as you see fit (just mention all of this on the image's description page). —RP88 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of Brazilian law, but, taking it literally, is the billboard with this particular ad really a permanent object? —xyzzy_n 10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't know, it probably depends on the character of the billboard - I can easily image billboards as running from very temporary (roadside billboards constructed for a particular ad campaign) to very permanent (billboards incorporated into a company's HQ). Perhaps it is best to include a fair use claim (the photographer can still claim GFDL on the photo itself). —RP88 10:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Bridgeman v. Corel, there’s nothing on that to claim GFDL, since only the two-dimensional work is visible in the image. I’ve tried enhancing the margin, but still can’t tell what kind of billboard it is. —xyzzy_n 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeman decision might apply, however it was regarding high-quality museum reproductions that the Judge described as "slavish copies" of the original work. I'm not so sure if this photo meets that mark. Works that are "artistic" reproductions of other works are eligible for their own copyright, although the original rights holder also holds rights in the new work since it is a derivative work. In any case, if the author doesn't respond, I think it will need a fair use argument. —RP88 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone - thanks for your input. The photo was taken in Brazil. The advertisement is on a very-solid looking signpost, but I don't know for how long it has been there. Johntex\^talk 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve scaled the image and changed the description page for fair use. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Terualsiege.jpg - Copyrighted according to [3]. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mullahomar.jpg - no information on the original source, and I doubt the uploader was the original author. If we could get information on the original source of the image, I would be happy. Author has history of mistagging images: see Image:Omar3.jpg. Part Deux 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Two more images: Image:Omar2.jpg and Image:Omar3.jpg. This user has a boatload of images marked as pd-self which clearly aren't: Image:Richardharrison.jpg. I've left a notice at WP:AN, hopefully someone will pick it up. Part Deux 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This photo should be deleted IMO; a link to a press story which includes this image, would be enough. The press seems to get away with publishing it, but whether the guy in the picture even is Mullah Omar is at present impossible to determine. And it's an undated photo of a person. And it's a colorized photo. Out with it. LDH 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"update": The US State Dept. http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=MullahOmar kindly provides two purported photos. One is an uncolorized version of the photo under dispute here. That's all the more reason to dump the current one. Somebody says here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mullahomar.jpg that he is the creator of the piece, but that assertion is not credible, at least to me. LDH 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:VeteransAbove.PNG - Given that the same uploader took another similar image from Google Earth (Image:SJMSS.PNG) with the same license claim, I have my doubts about this one. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have any actual proof please feel free to share it. Gateman1997 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have any actual proof that the image is PD-USGov-Interior-USGS please feel free to share it. --Iamunknown 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Iamunknown feels silly for being confrontational. --Iamunknown 07:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not get into a contest here. Gateman1997, all images uploaded to WP to are required to indicate the source of the image and the image's copyright status. Since you, Gateman1997, are the original uploader of the image the easiest way to handle this issue is for you to tell us where you got the image or, if you created it yourself, how you created it. Under Wikipedia's image use policy it is the uploader's responsibility to provide this information. Given that the Google copyright was cropped out of Image:SJMSS.PNG, Fritz Saalfeld's suspicions aren't unreasonable, even if they a little brusque. —RP88 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SJMSS.PNG - see above (just making sure that there is a separate entry for this image, should independent discussion be necessary). —RP88 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is a listing for this from March 2 above... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm embarrassed, I overlooked the earlier entry. Sorry. —RP88 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

March 4

• Image:JTrohman.jpg -- source at Flickr says "All rights reserved". Uploader asserted it was CC-BY at the time of upload, but we have no way of demonstrating that. Jkelly 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Template:PD-Gov - this appears to be a non-license. What is a "public copyright"? and not all states relinquish rights to their copyrights. I'm bringing it here to be sure. Only two images link to it: Image:Cbaker.jpg and Image:Frank Morris.jpg. --Iamunknown 05:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the correct tag for a prison photo such as Morris's? Quadzilla99 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{PD-USGov}} for works of the US government. —RP88 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the tag on Image:Frank Morris.jpg to {{PD-USGov}} (unlike the states, works of the US federal government are PD). —RP88 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Image:Cbaker.jpg, it appears to be a work of a municipal government. Such works are not automatically in the public domain and thus copyright must be presumed, absent documentation that mentions otherwise. In this case the city of St. Petersburg says "Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of its page about its mayor. —RP88 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: there are four images at http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Rick+Baker+mayor&m=text, three which are non-commercial creative commons. Perhaps the photographer could be contacted and might release them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? --Iamunknown 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent find. I've often found that Flickr users are more than willing to change the license terms on their images in order to accommodate Wikipedia. —RP88 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So should the Possibly unfree tag now be removed from the Frank Morris pic? Quadzilla99 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, PUI tags stay on for ~14 days of discussion to give any editor of Wikipedia an opportunity to comment, dissent, etc. After 14 days any admin is free to look at the discussion here and then either remove the PUI tag or delete the image. Don't worry, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to delete Image:Frank Morris.jpg. —RP88 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:ScottasRears.jpg - image was originally uploaded with a license indicating it was a DVD cover, even though it is clearly not. After I tagged it as "nosource", uploader added to the copyright the "GDFL-self" tag. Problem is the image is almost certainly not self-created as I found a modified form of the image here. As well, looking back over the history of the uploader's talk page, there is a history of of uploading images with questionable copyright status (the user keeps blanking the warnings though). Tabercil 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gogol_Bordello_Roskilde.jpg - No reason for GFDL Fred-Chess 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nazipunks.jpg - Picture taken from "Ethnic Cleansing" by Mary Hull (1997 Lucent Books, Inc) so "public domain" is suspect. // Liftarn
• Image:KentRoosevelt1.jpg - source website seems to be offline, but Wayback Machine mirror of site says "All Rights Reserved. Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher." Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:HarrisFirearms.jpg - taken from [4] where nothing indicates who the copyright holder is, or that they released all rights to the images. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KleboldFirearms.jpg - taken from [5] where nothing indicates who the copyright holder is, or that they released all rights to the images. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mitchel_field.jpg - If this was taken in 1931, Msh25, born in 1985 according to their user page, can't be the creator. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Kerry king.jpg - apparently ripped from www.intunegp.com by someone who doesn't know what GFDL means. Besides, subject is very much alive so there is no rationale of FU at all. Delete, yes? --87.52.25.155 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Evesedgwick.jpg - nothing at source ([6]) indicates image is PD. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Cebocap.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Cebocap%20Placebos shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:FourPlacebos.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Placebos shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AntiliriumPlacebo.jpg - Credit page at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Antilirium%20Placebo shows that this photo is copyright Elaine and Arthur Shapiro, and that this photo is used with permission from them. Jesse Viviano 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of these 3 images above is that they are marked "courtesy of" because the objects themselves are owned by Elaine and Arthur Shapiro (notable placebo effect researchers). It seems to imply that the objects themselves were donated/lent to the NIH for the History of Medicine Division project who then took the photographs. IronGargoyle 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

here is a relevant comment on Commons. IronGargoyle 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Courtesy of" means that the photos are owned by the Shapiros, and that they have let the NIH use the photo with their permission. Jesse Viviano 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice the similar grey photographic backdrop for all the images on the page. Some of these images are not courtesy of the Shapiros. I would argue that they were taken by the same person, which implies a government photographer. IronGargoyle 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Not so fast.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The image is of a scene in the episode Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow but it is not a screenshot. The positioning of the characters as well as the fire comming up from the bottom of the shot and the debris falling down never happens in the show. This image is either self created or was from some other source. I believe the other images you list below are the same but I haven't watched the episodes to compare. Looks like they were drawn in a vector graphics program probably by the uploader from a source image. --Sndbox 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Randy sharon cuddle.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dinner fight.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Time for dinner.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This one on the other hand, while still looking like it was drawn in a vector program as opposed to being an actual screenshot, is an exact duplicate of a shot in the episode. Here is a screenshot I took of the scene. --Sndbox 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Anti war.PNG is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show (South Park) but licensed under the GFDL and CC as self created. Atomic1609 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

SXC images

• This is a bit "non standard" (uploaders NOT notified, just too many images, will "anounce" this at the village pump instead.): All images in the Category:Unfree SXC licensed images category. They have been sitting there for a while and it's time to take action. Listing here to give people one last chance to contact these photographers and secure a free license release. Images in this category that have no comfirmed (or at least pending) free release by the end of the 14 day period shoud then finaly be deleted as the SXC default terms are not acceptable for Wikipedia use. --Sherool (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless uploader is notified - We need to notify the uploaders personally. That is the way we do it. A bot can be created to do the work if you don't want to do it by hand. Johntex\^talk 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think contacting the uploaders are of only secondary importance in this case. I know it's the standard procedure, but IMHO in this case making that a show stopper would be a good example of the rules preventing the maintainance of Wikipedia. The ones we need to be contacting are the copyright holders, they are the only ones who can say wheter or not the images are in fact free licensed or not. That said I have asked Carnildo if it would be possible to use OrphanBot to contact the uploaders, but even if that doesn't work out I don't see any benefit in delaying cleanup even further for purey procedural reasons (these images have been tagged as needing the copyright status verified for a year already). --Sherool (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that a lot of ill feelings could be created if this were done without personal, or at least bot-level, notification of the uploaders. And frankly, I'm opposed to such quick actions. I'd rather start phasing them out, and deleting any newly-uploading images that are tagged as such. Instead of mass-deleting them all, why not mass contact all the owners? I'll try that instead. --Iamunknown 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There seeems to be fewer than 100 images there. If the nominator wants them deleted then it is proper that the nominator find a way to notify the uploaders. The surest way to lose contributors is to arbitrarily offend them by unilaterilly deciding to ignore our own policies. Haven't we seen that enough times recently to stop touting this "ignore all rules" business? Johntex\^talk 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, Orphanbot has begun notifying uploaders, e.g. [7]. --Iamunknown 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And it's done. --Carnildo 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You did the right thing. Thanks for letting the uploaders know. Superdix 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Carnildo, I also edited the SXC warning template to include a (modified) PUI notice so now all the image pages point here as well. Hopefully that will satisfy all procedural concerns so we can get down to the actual business at hand: Getting the copyright status of these images sorted out. --Sherool (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Gmaxwell 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The image I used states "No usage restrictions". Admittedly it is now orphaned, but I think that is a clear statement of intent to release into the public domain. Rich Farmbrough, 10:28 10 March 2007 (GMT).

The agreement states "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." - "No usage restrictions" IMHO grants those rights. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 10 March 2007 (GMT).

What image are you talking about? The one you got a notify about on your talk page? Because the source of that image has a link to this license which is not free enough for wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to make things simpler: SXC allows uploaders to pick a couple of licensing options. There is a standard SXC license and then the uploader can select (via a drop down) a number of other additional restrictions such as no commercial use, or contact before all use. If the uploader did not select any of these additional restrictions the site would display "no usage restrictions". This caused some confusion where people thought this was claiming that the SXC license did not apply. Even if that were true the content would not be acceptable because "no usage restrictions" is likely not enough to wave the exclusivity of all aspects of copyright (think derivative works, for example.. you can 'use' but not change). SXC has since adjusted the site to use less confusing language. --Gmaxwell 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

and speaking about this particular case, the uploader has placed restrictions that mean his images are unfree, see here. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 4 cont.

• Image:5626.jpg - Image description give photographers name, and that it was "donated by the photographer for public use", but no assertation (other than the GFDL-self license) that the uploader is the photographer, and if not, that the photographer intended GFDL license "for public use" MECU≈talk 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image MECU≈talk 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas_3.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image (orphaned) MECU≈talk 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aida_Cuevas_6.jpg - User claims GDFL-self but gives copyright image and website with nothing to state user is part of this group with permission to release the image (orphaned) MECU≈talk 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• All images uploaded by User:Max Thayer appear to be mistagged as pd-self. I've listed a few above, the rest are here: Judging from his comments at Image:Renemonory.jpg, it appears that the premise is that he made the vidcap, so it's his image. But this is clearly not correct. Some of these may be relicensable, as they are vidcaps of comics, etc.; others are vidcaps of people, and I will leave it up to the closing admin to decide if these can be WP:FU.
  • Image:Pierremendesfrance.jpg
  • Image:Michelponiatowski.jpg
  • Image:Francoisleotard.jpg
  • Image:Guymollet.jpg
  • Image:Mauroy.jpg
  • Image:Jeanlecanuet.jpg
  • Image:Alainmadelin.jpg
  • Image:Raffarin.jpg
  • Image:Edouardballadur.jpg
  • Image:Francismer.jpg
  • Image:Renemonory.jpg
  • Image:Zuril.jpg
  • Image:Ladygandal2.jpg
  • Image:Laurentfabius.jpg
  • Image:Duclos.jpg
  • Image:Waldeckrochet.jpg
  • Image:Brunomegret.jpg
  • Image:Michelrocard.jpg
  • Image:Richardharrison.jpg
  • Image:Tomasmilian.jpg
  • Image:Gandal.jpg
  • Image:Ladygandal1.jpg
  • Image:Christianponcelet.jpg
  • Image:Francoisfillon.jpg
  • Image:Henriemmanuelli.jpg
  • Image:Edgarfaure.jpg
  • Image:Blaki.jpg
  • Image:Kingvega.jpg
  • Image:Johndrewbarrymore.jpg
  • Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg
  • Image:Micheldebre.jpg
  • Image:Malraux74.jpg
  • Image:Chabandelmas.jpg
  • Image:Alainpoher.jpg
  • Image:Pierreboussel.jpg
  • Image:Laguiller74.jpg
  • Image:Laguiller.jpg
  • Image:Lepen74.jpg
  • Image:Saddampresident.jpg
  • Image:Marchais.jpg
  • Image:390px-Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004.JPEG
• I have left out a few: two, I believe, were retagged by someone else, and some others had some copyright information missing. Still, please go through the user's logs to make sure I didn't miss any once you've deleted them (it's easier to spot the blue links vs. red links). Thanks. Part Deux 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so just explain me which tag should be used. Max Thayer 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Max, I'd be happy to help you fix up your image descriptions so that they comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. I'll post a list of suggestions to your discussion page. —RP88 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that a tag existed which fit exactly the kind of images I have used : {{film-screenshot}}

If you confirm it'll do, I'll add it to all of the images within a few days.Max Thayer 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are fair use copyright tags for film and television stills. If you use one of these tags make sure that the image is only used in articles for appropriate identification and critical commentary on the film/tv/program/character that appears in the still. In addition, you must include in licensing section of the image description a fair use rationale for every article on which you wish to use the image. —RP88 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, I have changed the tag for each and every image.Max Thayer 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You still need to add a fair use rationale for each of those images. In addition, since you're no longer claiming to have entirely created these images yourself, you need to include in the image descriptions the source of these images. If you captured them yourself please mention from which program they came, if you got them from from some web site, please include the URL. For example, you put a {{film-screenshot}} tag on Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg, a headshot of Gaston Monnerville, a French politician. Did he really appear in a film? If so, which one? Without the source, no one will be able to verify the copyright. Finally, you shouldn't have removed the PUI tags. Only an administrator is supposed to do so, and only after the 14 day discussion period. —RP88 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How should the sources appear ? All screenshots of french politicians come from the freely available archives at www.ina.fr And what is the "fair use rationale" that should be added ? Sorry, but it's all hebrew to me. Max Thayer 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The material from www.ina.fr, while free to view, is generally not in the public domain (the video in their archives is still copyrighted). In order to use their material without permission, we need a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale is an explanation describing why you believe it is fair use to use the material without permission from the copyright holder. In order to assist you I tracked down the source for Image:Gastonmonnerville.jpg and updated the image description with a source, license, and fair use rationale. My french isn't very good so you might have to fix some of the details in the source and fair use rationale. In particular, it would be good to add to the fair use rationale an additional bullet point explaining why this particular image is historically important. —RP88 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, RP88. I'll try to fix it as good as possible in the course of this week (don't know if I'll have the time to use the "information" infobox, though).Max Thayer 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to post to my user discussion page if you have any further questions. —RP88 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, I believe everything is now fixed. Thanks for your help.Max Thayer 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Template:PD-NYGov-OAG, Template:StateGov-NY and Image:Plattsburghcityhall.gif — I found this triplet while comprehensively searching through Special:Prefixindex/PD. The two templates totally contradict each other. I brought it here for wider attention. I will not be able to research in depth today, but will (hopefully) be able to later this week. To the closing administrator: if the decision is that these templates are inappropriate, I will list them at WP:TFD. — Iamunknown 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  These two templates and the image you mention were all created/uploaded by Adam12901. The first template, {{PD-NYGov-OAG}}, claims that works of the government of the State of New York are automatically in the public domain. I've done some research, and insofar as I've been able to determine, this is invalid. As confirmation of this, note that {{PD-NYGov}} redirects to {{no license}}. The second, {{StateGov-NY}}, is categorized as a non-free license and the terms on the second are clearly non-free, but I haven't researched these terms yet to see if they're accurate. If they are accurate the template should be modified to mention that it is invalid if used without also including a fair use tag. —RP88 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

March 9

• Image:Kelly_rowland_5.jpg - High rez image doesn't classify for fFU Burzmali 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Honda Remix 1.jpg - no source and GFDL claimed (highly dubious). // Liftarn
• Image:KeaneCeltic.jpg - Appears to come from Getty Images. No indication that it's been licensed. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KeaneContro.jpg - This image was taken from Getty Images and doesn't appear to be licensed. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

March 10

• Image:Willis_McGaheeHI02206.jpg - Image appears to have professional editing with inclusion of logos and test, no reason to believe the user has ownership to release under CC, image is orphaned and has fair use rationale MECU≈talk 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MoldovaTIP2.jpeg - Image is a logo for which the user may not have the rights to release into the GFDL and might have not created themselves (so not GFDL-self), used only on userpage of user MECU≈talk 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:AndreaRussotto.jpg - appears to be standard soccer promophoto, being "cleanedup" by the user doesn't give permission to release under GFDL-self MECU≈talk 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Vikkiblows4.jpg - Image appears to be a professional photo which would more than likely not be released under a free license. Photographer is unknown according to the image page so how can copyright be determined? Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Masuimimax5.jpg - Image appears to be a professional photo which would more than likely not be released under a free license.
• Image:JesseJacksonJr.jpg - While this portrait appears on Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s official U.S. Government website, there is a copyright in the lower right corner that is left intact (I enlarged the image and increased the contrast; it seems to read "Backrach(c)", with (c) standing for the copyright symbol). This indicates to me that this was likely made by a non-governmental photo studio, which are often times quite restrictive of the use of their works. --Tom (talk - email) 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously I missed that at the time. Nolo contendere. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 11

• Image:USPSMoneyOrderFeatures.jpg - The image does appear on the website of the Post Office, which is part of the US Government; however, the context appears to be a reprinted article from the New York Times, which certainly claims copyright on images it creates. The typography etc. also looks similar to the sort of thing the Times usually does.
  • This image is on commons. Disputing it here will do you no good. Nardman1 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (Co-)nominated, see [8] --Iamunknown 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Kellymadisonbikini.jpg, Image:Sophie Howard2.JPG, Image:Sakura01.jpg, Image:Sabrina 3.JPG, Image:RioNatsume.JPG - All uploaded by the same WP:SPA, Dctrsax (talk · contribs). Claims {{cc-by-2.5}} on all images from a given flickr account, which by all appearances does not seem credible for being copyright holder. Would recommend searching for more images from same flickr account and tagging appropriately. Can the url for that flickr account be blacklisted unless copyright coroboratability can be proven? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:ReaganGov.jpg - This image's copyright is held by the State of California and is not {{PD-USGov}}. Permission from the California Department of General Services is required to use images of California's official portraits. —RP88 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg - No assertation that permission has been given by author, website states copyright, not CC license MECU≈talk 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the guy that took it, and he told me specifically that he was releasing a downsized version under cc-by-2.5. You can contact him through his website to confirm this. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. If you know him personally it shouldn't be difficult for you to fix things so that the image won't be deleted. —RP88 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission has been sent to the m:OTRS system. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The permission is ok (Ticket#: 2007031210002019). I have removed the PUI tag and added {{permissionOTRS}}. Kjetil_r 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple images: Image:Djacob.gif, Image:FredUptoncong.jpg, Image:Oxleyreprep.jpg, Image:Repinsleeofwa.jpg, Image:Oldcitymrqtfrontst.jpg uploaded by User:Chflitwick. This user has a long history of uploading images with GFDL tags that are used incorrectly. I also seriously doubt the credibility of the "permission of source" statements added to these four particular images. See also this user's upload log; note that most of the images in the log have been tagged for speedy deletion.--Tom (talk - email) 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:President Macia.jpg is uploaded from ca:Imatge:President Macia.jpg where it has a non free tag. Legal notice from the original source says "no commercial use". --Vriullop 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:James2.jpg - been tagged as pd-self by uploader, but is obviously a screen capture. Wouldn't qualify for fair use in the article James Sutton (actor) either as it would be a replaceable image of a living person. DWaterson 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 12

• Image:Salvatore2.jpg, claimed as PD-Self, but the comment and external link heavily imply that it's a google-grabbed image. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:45m556.jpg, Image:Norasp.jpg, Image:Ma11.jpg and Image:Ma4.jpg, and most (if not all) the images uploaded by Lazauk (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). He uploaded some of them with a unfree license (in example, here), got them deleted, and then reuploaded it with a free license stating he is the creator. Since they are military images, I really doubt he is the copyright owner. And although the images appear to be free (US military apparently), there is no source for them. Also check this AN thread (in case someone agrees with me and deletes or sources them all). -- ReyBrujo 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:KLM_Asia_Mexico.jpg - See license information at http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/ -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Melissasmith.jpg - uploader claiming he was the creator, yet the description says that it was taken at the tv show photoshoot and the caption on the article states it was by "Patrick Ecclesine". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mdsi logo.jpg - seems highly implausible that the uploader is creator or has the power to release into the public domain. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

March 13

• CephBase images. It appears this sites terms have changes since 2004; they now advise that all their images are copyrighted and to re-use one you should contact the copyright holder. These images therefore are not free:

Image:Needle Cuttlefish.JPG

Image:BlueLineOct.jpg

Image:Longfin Inshore Squid.JPG

Image:Orangeback Squid.JPG

Image:GrBlueRingOct.jpg

--Peta 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, it doesn't appear that you notified the uploader of these images. It's not fair to the uploader if you just list them here. Use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} to let the uploader know. Its also a good idea to add {{unverifiedimage}} to the image captions on the pages where the images are used. —RP88 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:1978_Brands_Hatch_Ferrari_312T3_Gilles_Villeneuve.jpg - permission for use on wikipedia isn't free Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:1978_British_Grand_Prix_Brands_Hatch_Fittipaldi_F5A_Ferrari.jpg - same as above Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:1978_British_Grand_Prix_Brands_Hatch_Lauda_Brabham_BT46.jpg - same as above Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit it always puzzles me that we have so many templates for image copyright which are apparently actually unacceptable for use. Why have them in the first place? First off, let's make sure we've got the full set, not downloaded by me but from the same source and originally listed with the same copyright notice. All six images have had their copyright notices changed over time, but not with the same end result. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:SurteesTS7BarryBoor.jpg uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SurteesTS19BarryBoor.JPG uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG uploaded under the same conditions as above. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Mr Boor about use of these photos, he was content with the copyright notice as it then stood for both the Surtees and Villeneuve/Fittipaldi/Lauda set - his only real concern seems to be that his does get credit for them. Give me a little time to look at the changes that have been made to the notices since I originally uploaded them. I'll post back soon. Cheers. 4u1e 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, all six F1 images were originally uploaded under the template {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|due credit is given to Barry Boor}}. The Villeneuve/Fittipaldi/Lauda ones still are. Can someone confirm whether that template still acceptable (sounds similar to cc-by to me)? 4u1e 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that that template is still listed at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All as an acceptable free use template. The condition (provided that due credit is given to Barry Boor) does not violate the non-commercial or educational caveat, so I can see no reason for these six F1 images to be listed here. I'll de-list them tonight (i.e. about 10 hours from now) unless someone can explain what it is that I've missed (I'm sure there's something.... :-)) 4u1e 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the template you used, the problem is with the permission you got. Unless you're Barry Boor (in which case there's no problem at all), the permission you received seems to be permission for use of the image on wikipedia, not a release of the image provided attribution is given. Either way, permissions need to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org otherwise the images have to be deleted anyway. Maybe if you contact the copyright holder again he'll agree to release it for use anywhere for any purpose provided attribution is provided (a good license for this is CC-BY 2.5, by the way. Also, make sure it's 2.5 and not 3.0 as the latter isn't accepted on en nor on commons yet. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 08:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer. I will check what Barry Boor's e-mail to me actually says (but not until this evening, I'm afraid). The actual template makes no reference to the restriction you're worried about, but the blurb under it does muddy the waters by mentioning Wikipedia and could be interpreted as such a restriction, I agree. If Barry didn't actually make such a restriction, then I will alter the blurb to suit and send a copy of his permission to the address you have provided and I think we are then OK. If he did restrict use in that way, or if it is not clear, I will contact him again to discuss a different arrangement. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 13:04

Aren't we supposed to wait 14 days, rather than about 10 hours, before deleting these? 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 17:07

The PUI process takes 14 days to delete an image. According to the log for one of the images, it was deleted by Enochlau. The justification he gave for the speedy deletion was WP:CSD#I3. If you get permission to use the image from Barry Boor, I recommend you ask Enochlau to undelete the image. —RP88 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check what Barry actually said. 4u1e, 13 March 2007, 18:30

Not clear enough to make it 100% clear on my part (although I don't believe he intended any such restriction). I'll approach him again and suggest cc-by 2.5 instead just to get everything completely clear. Cheers. 4u1e 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, when/if you get a permission that's clearer just send it to the address i gave you with a link to the image files that fall under that permission (so they know where to add it to) and since they're all en admins they'll undelete the image and add the permission. Sorry if I came on a little bit too strongly, I probably should've given you a better explanation in the first place. :) Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Emgee.jpg is a characted from a video game, but labelled as PD-self. In any case it's derived. // Liftarn

• Image:Walls_of_jericho2.jpg - appears to be a modified publicity photograph ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 14

• Lack of a copyright notice does not mean an image is PD, Image:Sea palm pair 1.jpg, Image:Pirellula01.jpg, Image:Sargassaceae.jpg, Image:Sea palm group 1.jpg. --Peta 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, while it's pretty obvious the uploader is in the wrong here, it doesn't appear that you notified the uploader of these images. It's not fair to the uploader if you just list them here. It'd be nice if you'd put {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} on the uploader's talk page. —RP88 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Tom_Pryce_Jacques_Laffite._Brands_Hacth_1974.JPG - License says copyright owner has allowed use on Wikipedia. Releasing only for Wikipedia's use is not appropriate and the image must have a free license. Also, there is no documentation that the copyright owner released the image to Wikipedia, let alone to the public. ↔NMajdan•talk 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottanon uploaded Image:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG from the same site saying that they were copyrighted, but the aurthor, Barry Boor, has allowed them to be used on Wiki as long as he is attributed. You'll have to contact Scottanon for any extra infomation on this.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, saying they can be used on Wikipedia as long as he is attributed is still not permitted. He has to say they are released into the PD, or license them GFDL, or CC or something.↔NMajdan•talk 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above on other F1 images from 13 March. Depends on exactly what Barry said in granting permission, I don't think he actually intended to limit use to Wikipedia for the pictures of his that I uploaded, but perhaps Scotanon can confirm. Cheers. 4u1e 14 March 2007 16:56

• Image:NaomiCampbell.png - It appears to me that the website where the uploader got the image (http://www.ruid.com) is an image hosting service so I'm pretty sure the uploaders of these images do not own the copyrights, and thus cannot release them into public domain. Also, this website appears to be in a very early beta stage because all the informational links (disclaimer, terms of use, copyrights) lead nowhere and so thus the legality of the image cannot be verified. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Brad37.jpg - User stated the image is a magazine picture but then tagged the image pd-self. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Northeastern_long.jpg - This user has uploaded copyvio after copyvio. I've been able to Google Image Search for many of his images, which I've listed at copyright problems, I've tagged many of his images as lacking a source, and I've tagged others as orphaned. This is the sole remaining image I can't find an obvious source for. He claims that he took the image himself, but with similiarly false claims elsewhere, it probably wouldn't be smart to believe it. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  I haven't been able to definitely determine that this is copyvio, but I've uncovered some damning evidence. This image is not actually a photo as the image description says - it's a 180º panorama of Centennial Common assembled from at least three separate photos (this can be determined not only by the very wide 180º field of view, but from the fact that the embedded image thumbnail actually comes from one of the source photos, not the panorama itself). In addition the metadata indicates that is was taken in 1999. Finally, a search of archives.org uncovers that this image's dimensions exactly match some standard header images from neu.edu. While I wasn't able to find this exact image, I highly suspect the copyright to this image is held by the Northeastern University Office of University Photography and that it, at one time, appeared on neu.edu. —RP88 01:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  I posted a note to Nubova on his/her talk page. I know that copyright law can be very confusing, and I hope to help Nubova if s/he wants help. I also noted that users who repeatedly upload images that are later deleted as copyvios, no-sources, etc. may be subject to being blocked. --Iamunknown 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Good idea, I hope this can be straightened out amicably. I'm most worried about the images (such as Image:NEU_boathouse.jpg and Image:Libraryinteriorbcls.jpg) that Rebelguys2 was able to source to various other internet sites that claim the picture. In each case on the image description page Nubova says that he took the picture. For all the cases to be true Nubova would necessarily have to be the victim of widespread copyright violations. While this is, of course, possible, it seems unlikely. By the way, I note that one of the links you referenced in your note, Commons:Derivative works, doesn't exist. Did you perhaps mean Commons:Commons:Derivative work? —RP88 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching me. I updated it. --Iamunknown 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking further into this, everyone. I had searched through the NEU sites, and yes, the image definitely looked like something out of a heading banner. As for the rest of his images, I sourced just a handful as copyright violations. Many of them, though, I just tagged as unlicensed and such (it's an easier, one-click solution, rather than bringing them here), but even those were being used on the various NEU sites I went through as I scoured for Image:Northeastern_long.jpg. So it's not just two or three blatant CVs — it's well over a dozen blatant copyright violations, along with numerous speediable unsourced and unlicensed images. And just a few minutes ago, I found that he uploaded a new image yesterday — one that I easily found in a Google image search. I'd recommend to simply torch all of this guy's images, save the sole legitimate fair use logo. Assume good faith only goes so far. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  I added another warning on the user's talk page, after he missed all of the previous notices and Iamunknown's message. This user has made useful text contributions before, so I don't want to ask for an administrator to block too hastily, even for a short period of time. I'll keep an eye out on his contributions log for a while, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Image:Gurudeva and Bodhinatha.jpg -- no reason given to think that this was donated into the public domain. Jkelly 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. It's not PD, but it might be GFDL. The source URL is mentioned to be www.gurudeva.org, which redirects to www.himalayanacademy.com, where the image can be seen on the front page. The Himalayan Academy copyright terms are interesting and kind of confusing. There they say "If the image or text is not copyrighted by another author or photographer, who has limited rights to our usage only, the following conditions apply: Such image or text may be released for use on Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and when thus posted on Wikipedia follows the terms of the GFDL." Normally I'd say that this isn't quite adequate as they seem to be including a usage restriction incompatible with GFDL (possibly limiting use to just on Wikipedia). However, they followup with the following statement "Permission for usage of a given item for a specific context does not constitute permission for use of that item in a second context not originally requested. (Does not apply to items released under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia.)". —RP88 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's confusing, and it is definitely under the wrong license, but we actually have a release from the second address. Good catch. Jkelly 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

March 15

• Image:0024.gif claims own work, but I dubt it. // Liftarn 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's a copyright violation. I found the original source URL. It appears on this page as a preview of a cell phone screen saver which is for sale. —RP88 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:04543 OHSF Poster 07.jpg claims own work, but needs to be verified. // Liftarn 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think it's fine. It was uploaded by Jriddick1 (talk · contribs), who on Image:OriginalHighlandLogo_sm.jpg claims to be John Riddick, President of the Original Highlands Neighborhood Association. According to this press release John Riddick was the point of contact for the Original Highlands Festival in 2005. Finally, at the association's web site you can see a lower resolution version of the poster as well as the information that Mr. John C. Riddick, Jr. is the OHNA President. —RP88 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Then Mr. Riddick should send permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. --Iamunknown 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Really? Normally we don't demand OTRS submissions for one's own work, which is what is claimed here. I definitely don't submit to OTRS for my self-created images. Have I misunderstood WP policy? —RP88 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  The statement "Normally we don't ... I definitly don't ..." does not apply here: your work was not published on a site with no indication of copyright license prior to you uploading it here. --Iamunknown 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:OriginalHighlandLogo sm.jpg - ditto. // Liftarn 12:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Ditto as well :-) —RP88 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  But it's still a logo... // Liftarn

• Image:Zeljava16.jpg and Image:Zeljava17.jpg claim own work, but they look scanned from old photos. // Liftarn
• Image:SerrallesCastle.jpg - claims a US Federal Government work, a complete falsehood given that it was obtained from the Puerto Rico Tourism Company, an agency within the Puerto Rican government. Images from the government of Puerto Rico and its dependencies, companies and agencies are not on the public domain, as explicitly stated in their portal[9]. Images from the PR Tourism Company are usually restricted since they are commonly used for publications. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nikolass Tinbergen.jpg, Image:Debye.jpg, Image:Hadamard2.jpg, Image:JSETownsend.jpg; images lifted from the internet, no evidence that the are in fact PD available from sources, Image:Wiles.jpg fair use on tr, not free at all. --Peta 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:MarkOliphantPortrait.jpg another one. --Peta 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I immediately recognize the Studio Harcourt logo on Image:Hadamard2.jpg. Studio Harcourt was a photo portrait studio in Paris founded in 1934 - they're famous for their early black & white photos of French actors and other notables. In the 1960s they sold their negatives, prints, and copyrights to the French government. Given that they didn't even open until 1934, I think the copyright to this photo is still held by the Ministère de la Culture, France. —RP88 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Yui - playguitar.jpg, as this is a professional image and very unlikely to be GFDL. It looks like it's probably an image scanned from a CD booklet. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Fiddling with the URL uncovers this image of the singer. This alternate image shows the singer in the same shirt and with the same guitar, but in this photo it is clear that it is a scanned image. It's a copyright violation. —RP88 06:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Copyvio slain. Slew the duplicate of it as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Sun_Belt_Conference_map.jpg - pd map illustrated with copyrighted logos ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

March 16

• Image:Coachingthewhitesox2.JPG, Image:Leagueofwomenandwhite2.JPG and Image:GriffithandWhite2.JPG are claimed GFDL-self but questionable.--Jusjih 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• I really curious how User:Ballista took a photo of a guy dead since 1892 Image:Richard Owen.JPG; should be deleted unless the real source can be found. --Peta 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I recognize this as being a head crop from a famous daguerreotype of Richard Owen holding a Moa bone. Looking at the upload history you can see that the image here started out as a photo or scan of somebody's reproduction of the daguerreotype. The daguerreotype is PD, so this is PD-art. —RP88 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• These too; Image:William Buckland.JPG, Image:John Phillips.JPG. Clearly they are some kind of derivative work - probably of something in the PD. --Peta 09:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I found Image:William Buckland.JPG - it's from a daguerreotype, NPG D1134 in the National Portrait Gallery (the daguerreotype is PD). The upload history again shows that this started out as a photo or scan of a reproduction of the daguerreotype, so this image is PD-art.

  I found Image:John Phillips.JPG - it's from a carte de visite by H J Whitlock, PR 10401487 in the Science & Society Picture Library (the carte de visite is PD). Again the upload history shows that this started out as a photo or scan of a reproduction of the carte de visite, so this image is PD-art. —RP88 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Zeljava1.jpg claims own work, but at Željava Air Base it says it was "taken by SFOR peacekeepers". Does the statement refer to the picture or the base? // Liftarn
• Image:Victoria Silvstedt.JPG, Image:Lily Cole 1.JPG, Image:Lily Cole 2.JPG, & Image:Madonna in Chelsea.JPG - Adamsammler (talk · contribs), an apparent WP:SPA using {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to circumvent WP:FUC#1. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Castelveccio_Eisenman.jpg - PD-self claimed, but according to commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Italy, the architect also holds copyright. The image can probably be used under fair use, if somebody comes up with rationales. —xyzzy_n 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Freedom of Panorama citation reads "The Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places." Also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Architecture Manual of Style/Architecture photo licensing. I took the photograph inside the walls of a public museum to illustrate the work of Eisenman and the museum building. What fair use tag should I use, and how to phrase the rationale? —Dogears (talk · contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a statue (sort of), not a building, so it’s also protected by US law. The tag would be {{statue}}. The rationales (one per article using this image) should make clear why an image of that work is important for the article and cannot be replaced and how the image is used for identification and critical commentary. (Don’t just assert these things, explain.) Also see Wikipedia:Fair use, fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page for further information. —xyzzy_n 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, added {{statue}} and fair use rationale as per Wikipedia:Image description page, etc. — Dogears 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:A_Prounen_by_El_Lissitzky_c.1925.jpg - Published after 1923. First country of publication unclear (if Russia, it would be PD). 50 pma is insufficient and the artist died in 1941 (so in countries with 70 pma protection, like the United States, we have to wait until 2012 before the works become PD for that reason). —xyzzy_n 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:The_Constructor_self_portrait_by_El_Lissitzky_1925.jpg - Published after 1923. First country of publication unclear (if Russia, it would be PD). 50 pma is insufficient and the artist died in 1941 (so in countries with 70 pma protection, like the United States, we have to wait until 2012 before the works become PD for that reason). —xyzzy_n 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Merz_Magazine_Layout_by_El_Lissitzky_1924.jpg - Published in 1924. No reason why this would be PD. —xyzzy_n 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Merz magazine issue 8/9 "Nasci", to which El Lissitzky (Russian, d. 1941) and Kurt Schwitters (German, d. 1948) contributed, was published in Hannover Germany and in the US (copies were distributed to residents of the U.S. for a $1 subscription fee). It was published without copyright notice, registration, or renewal. It's PD-US. Copyright in Germany, however, does not expire until 2018. —RP88 03:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Argh! All that research and I just noticed that the University of Iowa specifically mentions that only documents in the public domain are included in their online Digital Dada Library, which includes this issue of Merz (see here for this specific cover). —RP88 03:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  OK, so we’ll trust UIowa that the copyright has expired in the US. However, I’ve yet to see a reason why it has also expired in Russia, considering that it wasn’t first published in the USSR and Russia’s retroactive copyright law (70 pma) should protect it until 2012. I have changed the tag for this image and the next one to {{PD-US}}. —xyzzy_n 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Back_cover_of_Nasci_by_El_Lissitzky_1924.jpg - Published in 1924. No reason why this would be PD. —xyzzy_n 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Changed tag for all of these to Template:PD-Russia. These are PD for the reasons specified in the tag. Nardman1 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where were these works first published? —xyzzy_n 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See my note above. —RP88 03:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what about Image:The Constructor self portrait by El Lissitzky 1925.jpg and Image:A Prounen by El Lissitzky c.1925.jpg? —xyzzy_n 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

March 17

• Image:Evolution of Mario.JPG - uploader claims pd-self, but the image is a compilation of copyrighted character images. Jay32183 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• When I said pd-self, I meant as in I put these together and resized them and gave it that title, and didn't take it from anyone else. Should I change that?--Yami Sasha 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you should change it to copyrighted, or something like that

I already changed it, don't worry about it. Malamockq 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Corinne Orr.jpg - claims pd-self, but upload summary specifically says "photograph by X person", and same photo Image:Corinne orr.jpg is listed as copyrighted. No indication uploader owns copyright. Patstuart^talk·edits 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Zamora.jpg - Uploader claims PD-self, but the photo is found on a non-active website [10]. No evidence, e.g. Exif info, that it is user created. User has falsely claimed PD-self on Image:Goldstoneground.jpg and Image:Falmer.jpg. --Ytny (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Captainpark.jpg - I can't find the original source, but we can safely assume that the cited Flickr page is *not*, considering the quality and, oh, the pretty bloody obvious watermark. Ytny (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

March 18

• Image:BlackAngel 001.JPG, Image:Linden Gallery.JPG. All IP in second life remains the copyright of the creator thus it is imposible to take a free screenshot unless you created all the elements in it yourself.Geni 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is true then obviously I didn't have intellectual property in the image when I purported to release it. Damn! All I can say is that I took each "photo" myself and it required a certain degree of creativity to get the right angles in-world and then do further manipulations on the images. I certainly feel like the creator, just as I would if I took a photograph of a real-life space (perhaps containing architecture, sculpture, etc). In the case of the black angel one, I created that avatar for the purpose of creating the image, but it used elements bought or otherwise obtained in SL, made by other users. I also did not create the background in either case. I would think that there should be an official legal answer to whether creators of such images have copyright in them, or whether the copyright stays with the Linden organisation and/or whoever has intellectual property in the actual elements of the world whose images have been captured. I'll go along with whatever the legal advice is. It'd be a shame to lose good user-created content if that can be avoided, but if I never had rights in the images I never had rights in the images. The same applies to another image I created that is not listed here - a female avatar that I created and "photographed" in SL to illustrate the Resident (Second Life) article. Metamagician3000 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Linden labs have answered this one and they take the position that all copyrights belong to the creators of items in second life. In order to take a pic that could be released under a free lisence you would basicly have to create thing from scratch and them take screenshots.Geni 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation is under US law, but under UK law, "copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast." (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 31(1)). Cheers --Pak21 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Da de minimis. Problem is that the inclusion here is not incidental.Geni 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The second image indeed includes copyrighted elements not "de minimis". But what are the copyrighted elements of the first image? Bryan 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Thuc Carmona Zamora.jpg, Image:Thuc celebrating Pontifical Mass 1982.jpeg, Image:Thuc le frechou.JPG. Not likely public domain images. Garion96 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The person who posted these images says of one of them (Image:Thuc celebrating Pontifical Mass 1982.jpeg), "I made this photograph myself". (Note that he didn't say he took the photograph.) The image is not (strictly speaking) a photograph, but an image on a publication with paper thin enough to show what was printed on the other side. He has posted images much more numerous than these four, describing them as his own work. They seem (perhaps all of them) to be instead his scannings of others' pictures. It looks as if it is only on the basis of his work of making the digital reproduction that he claims the right to declare: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." Does he have that right? Or is he making Wikipedia guilty of multiple copyright violations? I don't know. Perhaps others here can tell.

Scanning does not involve any creativity and gives you no rights. The image is copyrighted by the creator of the picture, and only by them. Bryan 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Deancox28.jpg and Image:Bassavage34.jpg - both from websites mentioned on their pages. assertion of cc licences but I doubt this since it seems to have been pasted in only after the somewebsite tag was used. Pseudomonas 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Garrison Hat SouthPark.jpg. Licensed as PD-self despite the fact that it is clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show. Atomic1609 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a picture of the show, basically menaing that I did create the image since I photographed it. 5Yippee 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Making a derivative work does not negate the original copyright. Jay32183 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I got the company's permission. 5Yippee 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:MrMackey.gif. Clearly an illustration of a character from a copyrighted TV show yet tagged as PD-self. Atomic1609 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I sketched the picture myself. 5Yippee 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Making a derivative work does not negate the original copyright. Jay32183 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I got the company's permission. 5Yippee 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

5Yippee seems to have typed 'mr. mackey' on google image search and found it here. That site pic has the same file properties (size, type, & dimensions) as the one posted here. This user also uploaded a fair use Akon image here and said it was taken by him. Spellcast 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use, keep Juppiter 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the apparent deliberate falsehoods involved in sourcing this image, I can't see how this image is ever going to meet fair use criteria #10 (Proper attribution of the source of the material). If you'd like to illustrate the Mr. Mackey article, I recommend you replace this image with a crop from an appropriately sourced screen shot, tag it with the proper fair use copyright tag, and write a fair use rationale. —RP88 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:0914.PNG. Appears to be a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show though licensed under GFDL and CC. Atomic1609 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Qsz-92pistol.JPG - The source has no evidence of the copyright status given on the description page. —xyzzy_n 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Steyr_MPi_69_SMG.jpg - Source has no evidence of asserted PD. —xyzzy_n 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

March 19

• Image:M3a1.jpg - Quoted permission isn’t sufficiently free (right to make derivative works not included). —xyzzy_n 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Benelli_m4_1.jpg - Permission and GFDL asserted, but the permission isn’t quoted anywhere. Statements of permission for other images from the same source did not release material under the GFDL. —xyzzy_n 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:YvetteCooper.jpg. Nothing at the source suggests that this image is under the GFDL.Genisock2 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Animagcover.gif: Uploader probably does not have the right to release this magazine cover into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Bm2 options.gif: Claimed PD-self, but this is a screenshot of a video game. —Bkell (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:A K O N 79.jpg. This image is clearly a fair use photo yet the uploader, 5Yippee, said it was taken by him. The user seems to have done a google image search on 'akon' & found it here. The site pic has the same file size, type, & dimensions as the one posted here. The user also has a history of posting fair use images & claims to have sketched it, such as Image:MrMackey.gif, which after a google image search of 'mr. mackey' lead to this site here with the same file size, type, & dimensions. Spellcast 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Citadel Mail Screen View.jpg: Claimed GFDL-self, but this is a screenshot of a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This also contains text which is likely to be copyrighted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Citadel Calendar view showing menu view en.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This software is under the GPL. I've updated the license tag accordingly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Lights Out.jpg: Originally uploaded as Wikipedia-only and thus deleted; reappeared immediately as GFDL-released... but credited to WireImage.com who charge a small fortune for use. Uploader asked to provide proof of copyright to disclaim it. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mtmcover.gif: Originally Originally uploaded as Wikipedia-only and thus deleted; reappeared immediately as PD-self. It can't be both, generally. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Sofa-icon-400.jpg: Originally Originally uploaded as Wikipedia-only and thus deleted; reappeared immediately without comment as PD-self. Highly unlikely to be both. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. This is getting complicated. The story goes as this: I was given this by the authors of the StarShipSofa podcast to put on their wikipage (since I had previously made that entry). I didn't know quite what to do since uploading pictures was new to me, so I tried different licensings. It got deleted (speedily) when I licensed it just for Wikipedia use, so since it is required that pictures used here are released to the public domain that is the licens I ended up with. There is nothing evil here, just ignorance. We, the authors and I, just want to have the picture up there, and ask kindly that someone can plainly tell us what it will take.

• Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg non free image with no source listed, looks like it was taken from Amazon or similar. No rationale as to how it satisfies our first fair use requirement namely, how it is irreplaceable by a free or more free image (ie taking a picture of the book yourself). Fair use rationale is insufficient, the image is used merely to show what the book looks like when the title information, author name, and ISBN number would convey the same information to anyone looking for the book. No rationale as to how it satisfies fair use criteria number 2, ie it doesn't say whether it impacts the market share of the publisher. Image previously tagged with these objections and uploader notified. Tags were removed and an insufficient fair use rationale was added. Image is eligible for speedy under WP:FUC: "Images that do not comply with this policy within 48 hours after notification to the editor who uploaded the image will be deleted." Nardman1 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Standard action for nearly every book article on this site - there's no way you can get a free image of a book cover. Already been reviewed by an admin once, appears to be further action following the overturning of an overturned speedy deletion of the book. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • IvoShandor isn't an administrator. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an excuse not to play by the rules. Nardman1 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression he was. No worries, though, it meets WP:FUC, so this is simply being pedantic at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The fair use rationale is sufficient for this image. The template itself states, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." That's precisely how it's being used. Dekimasuよ! 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never gave that impression. Not that such a title makes any editor anyone special. IvoShandor 10:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this never qualified for speedy, which is why I removed the tag and added the rationale, one needn't be an administrator to solve easily fixable problems. It is obvious that this was being used for ok purposes under WP:FUC, instead of listing it for deletion, anyone could have fixed the problem instead of wasting everyone's time. IvoShandor 10:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, as the uploader has had the requisite 48 hours' notice. Also, this image fails Wikipedia:Fair Use in the following 2 ways "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" are not considered fair use, and "Any image found on the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifiable" is not fair use. Nardman1 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

March 20

• Image:Jamieyates.JPG - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Alan_knill_moty.JPG - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Stephen_brogan.JPG - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Delroy_facey.JPG - appears to be professional image MECU≈talk 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Technique.jpg - sourced to webforum ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ryancase.jpg - promotional photograph, no obvious release ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Alberto.Fujimori.jpg - tagged as public domain (and it is also listed as a public domain image on the foreign language Wikipedia where one of our editors found it), but clearly marked as an Associated Press image. Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Phil-katz.jpg - this is the same image as Image:Phillip Katz.jpg, which is listed as copyrighted-fair use. The fair use rational for Image:Phillip Katz.jpg was challenged several times on the page List of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, so the uploader created this image, sourced copyrighted news stories which use the copyrighted photo, listed it as GFDL, and readded it to the page. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:A_Solum_beast_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:A_Ferai_in_his_horse_like_animal.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:An_Aquis_Monster.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mutants_Undines.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aetha_3.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aetha_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:An_Aetha_monster.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:A_peasant_Wraith.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Djinn.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:The_Wraith_Countess.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Prince_Jared.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_Djinn_form_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Solum.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aquis.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Volca.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_(Primal).jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_Wraith_form.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_Ferai_form.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Primal_logo.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Abdizur.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Arella.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_Undine_form_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_Ferai_form_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Jen_normal_form.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Aquis_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:King_Iblis.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Count_Raum.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:King_Adaro.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:King_Herne.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Belahzur_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Abaddon_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Abdizur_2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:The_Nexus.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Chronos_(Primal)2.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Primal_Map.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Valkyrie_(Primal).jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ferai-Sentry.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Lewis_(Primal).jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ferai_Shaman.jpg - dubious claim of authorship, this sketch is likely a piece of copyrighted concept art ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Exteriormainentr.jpg - CV. Claimed GFDL, but no such indication at the source. Lupo 10:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ford-Endeavour-2004.jpg claims own work, but it looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn
• Image:Voda_video.jpg Image:EIi & Stoayn.gif Image:Please Shut Up Band'.jpg Image:3449e80cc7540b.jpg Image:Elitsa TODOROVA & Stoyan YANKOULOV.jpg Image:Zona C.jpg Image:Stoyan.jpg Image:StyIe.jpg Image:343f31fb831bc7.jpg. Initially uploaded with unfree tags, when uploader informed about tagging via-bot, all of a sudden, images from various and sundry sources were all GFDL by him. When uploader questioned about his uploads, did not respond. PouponOnToast 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Neopets Day 76 S 23 Neopet.JPG is tagged as PD-self even though it is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted website. Atomic1609 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:South Park Chef.jpg is tagged as PD-self even though it is clearly an edited screenshot of a copyrighted TV show. Atomic1609 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

March 21

• Image:Cheshirecheesepressmonument.jpg states it is licensed under CC 2.5, Source says, non commercial use prohibited, here, under CC SA 2.0. IvoShandor 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The user noticed and said it was an oversight here. Recommend speedy. IvoShandor 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. I screwed up. Not all CC tags are created equal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tagged as such with {{db-ccnoncom}} --Iamunknown 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:G_nichol.jpg - No evidence permission was granted to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Dulaney 1965.jpg - no evidence of permission given - in fact, upload summary specifically says copyright. Part Deux 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:LeeWilliamson.JPG - clearly a professional image. User has other upload problems. Part Deux 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hoskins U-18.jpg - see above. Part Deux 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hoskins goal vs oldham.JPG - see above. Part Deux 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hoskins goal.JPG - see above. Part Deux 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Eugen bopp.JPG - see above. Part Deux 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:GI_pinball_flyer.jpg - Doubtful this iamge is GFDL Nv8200p talk 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:PA200281.jpg - Image has {{logo}} tag, but is obvious image, with copyright watermark. ~ BigrTex 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Etntv.jpg - Image has {{logo}} tag, but is obviously not a logo. ~ BigrTex 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gilligan's_Island_pinball.jpg - The website listed as the source says that the original photograph retains ownership of image. So unless the uploader got the permission of the photographer, this image is not free. ↔NMajdan•talk 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Juba hotel.jpg - claims gfdl self, but watermark on bottom clearly says otherwise. Patstuart^talk·edits 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Somalia somali somalia.jpg - claims gfdl self, but summary clearly says by another author. Patstuart^talk·edits 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Rcastle.jpg - stated source has copyright restrictions [11], no sign this is really GFDL BigrTex 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg - Low-resolution image, subject has lots of unfree images available after all and license is dodgy. Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This image has been listed at IFD before (see the log). However, the debate there centred on the encyclopedic value of the image not the copyright status (which was neglected).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I confronted the original uploader User:Trevor100a about the copyright status of this image under the "Obligatory section break" heading here [[12]] and never got an answer to my direct questions about the copyright status of this image from him or anyone else. User:Atomaton has made practically all of the changes to the "Summary" on the page of this image, and has protected it vehemently from reverts, deletions, attempts to linkimage, or substitution with a better image (Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg) that is available for the Ejaculation article, and which would make this image obsolete. I would appreciate it very much if an administrator could investigate this matter. It makes me wonder if this image and it's uploader is actually a sockpuppet for User:Atomaton. Infofreak 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Infofreak I don't appreciate the unsupported innuendo. I have protected an image that has been attacked, but I am not the originator of this image. I did discuss the image with Trevor, the originator. He is the one who put the image in the public domain. You and others may not like the image for whatever reason, but that doesn't make the image suddenly not in the public domain. Being a proponent of free speech, and against censorship doesn't make one a sockpuppet. It seems that Trevor is only an infrequent Wikipedia participant. It would be nice to get feedback from him on this. Atom 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did mention the copyright issues last time. Look at the deleted larger version of the image.Geni 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted versions are still fairly small (800x600 isn't conclusive). I think this suggests quite strongly he is not the creator of the image. I cannot see proof that the image is free, but I can see evidence to suggest (strongly to me) it isn't. I note there are possible replacements, so I'm puzzled as to why it was such a big deal in the first place...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. In that message he said that his image was not altered as far as he is aware. That is, that it looks the same as it looked when he put it in originally. This was in response to a previous message where some yoho said that the image was altered to make his penis look longer that it really is. How does that suggest that he is not the creator? Atom 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sentence says "I was not aware it was altered" not "It was not altered". The implication of what he actually said is that is it was altered, but he was not previously aware of the fact. If he is the creator of the image he would know with certainty if it was modified or not. This may be a case of bad grammar on his part, if Trevor provides a clarification of that statement, it will help. The rest of the comment is a statement on how a large penis provides a better image, which may or may not be true; but does not clarify if the image was distorted or not.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that this image is disliked by a variety of people because they feel it is a sexually explicit image, rather than a scientific image. After failing to have the image deleted, now this is yet another tactic to try and eliminate the image. There is no reasonable reason to suggest that this image is not a public domain image. Atom 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF, I had no part in the IDONTLIKEIT debate and don't care if this image is used or not, as long as it is free. The copyright status is disconcerting and if there is reasonable doubt we should delete.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The IFD debate ended 4 Feb 2007. That discussion has been over. The focus here is the copyright status of the image. Assuming this image was made with a digital camera, the raw image from a digital camera is rather large, so if Trevor100a did make this photo himself, there should be a hi-res version that is uncropped. What does make this image suspicious as a copyright violation that Geni pointed out on the IFD discussion before is the fact that digital cameras leave embedded metadata in the image. This image has no metadata at all. I say if Trevor100a cannot submit a higher resolution uncropped version of this image, then it should be deleted. NightFlyer 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Jimbo Wales, who speedily deleted a similar image, giving the following rationale: "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements". The "2257 record keeping requirements" to which Jimbo Wales refers are described in Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act#Allied_administrative_law_.282257_Regulations.29. John254 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly unfree images is not a deletion discussion, so do not try to make it that way. That and I have a strong feeling that that image is in a different situation than this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

March 22

• Image:Bolivian_Patrol_in_Chaco.jpg - No evidence of the given copyright status, vague source. The depicted war is recent enough that PD may not apply. —xyzzy_n 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pan_Koulibaly.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Shushan.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Younes.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Slil.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Alsnany.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Rewani_Salem.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hussein_Camara.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pan_Koulibaly.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Meftah_Ghazala.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Alexis_Enam.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Makhlof.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Walid_osman.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ayyad.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Hamadi.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:LuisAugustini.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Alrewani.jpg - photo not by uploader to release under GFDL-self, previous images claimed copyright per "Ben Taher" MECU≈talk 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Cups-large.png - claimed free, but according to the CUPS webpage the logo is not free. "All other content is copyright 1993-2006 by Easy Software Products. CUPS, the Common UNIX Printing System, the CUPS logo, and ESP Print Pro are the trademark property of Easy Software Products." // Liftarn

• This is a rookie mistake. GPL !=public domain! It is both copyrighted and free at the same time. I downloaded the tarball and verified the source info listed on the image page. Nardman1 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• For goodness sake! Firstly, it's a logo. Logos by their very nature are desirable on Wikipedia (yes, they are fair use but why is using a logo on the project to place on an article a bad thing?!) It is GPLed though. Let's use some commonsense? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Gkar_chains.jpg - From a copyrighted TV show Nv8200p talk 12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:TU30 exploded.jpg claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn
• Image:New Fords.jpg claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn
• Image:Uglykahs.gif: Claimed PD, because "the school doesn't care." This is obviously not a valid reason for a public-domain claim. —Bkell (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

March 23

• Image:Delaware.jpg Claims to have copyrights released by the holder, but it is a PR shot from the UD website. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image_talk:Delaware.jpg See the talk page for an email exchange with public relations. I think this picture should be deleted, without explicit premission from University of Delaware Public Relations. --Cargoudel 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Ted kulongoski.jpg See Ticket#: 2006121810023211. "You have permission to distribute the Governor's photo far and wide" is not the same as PD. Kjetil r 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Attempting to resolve; awaiting return phone call from the Governor's office. Please do not delete pending resolution. -Pete 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Tianamen beating.jpg welcome reprint, but please give the source. Doesen't give the freedoms of "modified, used commercially and for any other purpose" associated with {{Attribution}} under which it is currently licensed /Lokal_Profil 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was already at WP:PUI and adjudged free use by admin User:Nv8200p. Nardman1 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh yeah and it took me 2 hours to track down the original image URL and another hour to nail down the copyright in a _foreign language_, so yeah, I have an interest in this. Nardman1 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Melody Thornton.jpg Uploaded by JOE634. A google image search of 'Melody Thornton' returns the same image on the first few pages. Clearly a fair use photo. And if you look at the user's discussion history[13], he admits the image was "the best of any I could find". Spellcast 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• All of User:Themmachamp's images are marked as PD-self but they all have a watermark on them and I have found cropped versions of the photos on this website. I have not tagged all the images but they can all be seen here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

March 24

• Image:Leo1(galaxy).jpg is tagged as a NASA images, but even the APOD reference shows, this image was made by the Anglo-Australian Observatory. Should be removed as unfree. Awolf002 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:JL1906MAP.jpg - this image is from NOAA.gov, but has (c)199?-2000 Microsoft Corp. in it, such that it appears NOAA was using software by Microsoft MECU≈talk 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Rip off report screen shot 2.57 pm feb 17 2007.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but this is a screenshot of a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Audio junkies 3.49 pm feb 22 2007.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but this is a logo from a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Audiojunkies screenshot 3.54 pm feb 22 2007.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but this is a screenshot of a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:3 am magazine logo 12.58 pm feb 23 2007.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but this is a logo from a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:3 am magazine screenshot 1.04 pm feb 23 2007.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but this is a screenshot of a Web page. —Bkell (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:David Thompson Secondary School Yearbook 2004-2005 Front Cover.jpg: Claimed PD-self, but I have doubts that the uploader is the original creator (see also previous five listings). —Bkell (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:David Thompson Secondary School Yearbook 2005-2006 Front Cover.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ross st gurdwara.jpg: Same as above. —Bkell (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Lou p.gif — not enough source information to back up claim that the author has released this image into the public domain. The source web site states "Line drawing of Louis Pasteur drawn by David Wood from Genentech, Inc. Graphics Department" and "Copyright 1999 Access Excellence @ the National Health Museum. All rights reserved." —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Stlcollagekmovstlpd.jpg: Image was found at noaa.gov [14], but the caption there says "PHOTOS COURTESY OF KMOV-4 AND POST DISPATCH". This image was probably not created by the U.S. federal government, so the {{PD-USGov}} tag is probably incorrect. —Bkell (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

March 25

• Image:Mhs logo qtar.jpg Claims to have copyrights released by the holder, but it is likely a copyvio from http://www.merivalehighschool.org/mhs.php. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Nazi Volkswagen.jpg claims over 100 years since author death, but since it's a picture of a VW Beetle I find that hard to beleive. // Liftarn
  • Update: Now tagged {{politicalposter}}, but it's not political. // Liftarn
• Image:Spanish mestizo costume.jpg -- no information at source about creator of image, time of creation, or anything else. No way to know whether or not this is PD. Jkelly 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Album gobernadorcillo de mestizos.jpg -- no information at source... as above. Jkelly 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:CCH-2.JPG -- no evidence that the author released this into the public domain (problematic uploader). Jkelly 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Provincia de Iloilo (collage).JPG Not clear that the uploader is the photographer for every image, or just made the collage. Problematic uploader. Jkelly 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pcf facade.JPG Who is Rene Ritardo, and why do we think that they donated this image into the public domain? Problematic uploader. Jkelly 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Mary2001a.jpg another unlikely release claim. Jkelly 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Procession5.jpg as above. Jkelly 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Procession4.jpg as above. Jkelly 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Pcf2002.jpg as above. Jkelly 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:COLEMAN SENATORS.jpg carries a Tv-screenshot tag but there is no critical commentary. It is being used solely for identification of Coleman who is a bit player in the image. Unjustified claim of fair use. Bridgeplayer 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why is COLEMAN SENATORS.jpg referred to this section? This photo is from ABC News and I captured it and have appropriately cited it. Then, why is it listed under this section? Any help would be appreciated. UnitedStatesIndia

• Image:PeterBackflip.jpg, Image:Peter's backflip.jpg, Image:PeterSchmeichel.jpg.jpg - same image, three uploads. One version has Manchester United Archive as the source, all of them have GFDL-self as the license. The user was only active for one day, when he uploaded these. It is unlikely that he is the photographer. Kjetil r 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Graychapelold.jpg - This is the same as this image on the Encyclopedia Brittanic online site, so doubtful it is PD or free. Ruhrfisch 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Stuy.jpg - This is a cropped version of this image from the Ohio Wesleyan University website. Ruhrfisch 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Beeghly.jpg - this appears to be the same image as this from the Ohio Wesleyan University website. Ruhrfisch 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:OhioWesleyanCampus.gif - this is taken from University web site here, not a free image. Ruhrfisch 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

March 26

• Image:Zeljava20.jpg claims own work, but the description at Željava Air Base says "An article before the war". // Liftarn
• Image:Sora Final Form.jpg claims to be creator of the work, but the image appears to be an official character screenshot from one of the Kingdom Hearts games. Leebo ^T/C 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Exams xamar05-06.gif. Image page says the image is from http://www.mogadishuuniversity.com and is licensed CC-BY-2.5. However, I can't find this image on that website and the site has a big, shiny "Copyright © Mogadishu University" message. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Miami Vice Detonics Combat Master.jpg is claimed to be a TV screenshot, but it obviously isn't. // Liftarn
• Image:Miami Vice Bren Ten.jpg is claimed to be a TV screenshot, but it obviously isn't. // Liftarn
• Image:Miami Vice Smith&Wesson 645.jpg is claimed to be a TV screenshot, but it obviously isn't. Looks like a magazine. // Liftarn
• Image:Evabrown-by-Hitler.jpg is possibly a forgery and thus it may still be under copyright as Konrad Kujau died in 2000. // Liftarn
• Image:IanStuart1977.jpg is claimed PD, but the source says nothing about it (and I dubt it's theirs to give away anyway). // Liftarn
• Image:Towel day05 oren.jpg — author of image is not given on either English or Hebrew image description. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Gimunlogo.jpg - author claims to be creator of this logo. I don't believe them. Second time this image has been uploaded, completely different licence to first upload. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Palpu.jpg - Uploader claims GFDL release on this old photograph but I can't see how or why this would be true. Previously uploaded under a different licence, too. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Royalgorgeroute.jpg - Claims of public domain, but photo appears on a commercial website [15] without saying the same; was uploaded originally with a different licence; and was uploaded by someone who has repeatedly, even after being warned, added cut-and-paste text from different websites to different articles. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Sunnt.jpg - Uploader claims {{NoRightsReserved}} and provides link to asianatlete.com. I can find no evidence that this picture is from that site (they don't have an article listed about Sun Yue), nor that they have released rights to the images that are on their site. ~ BigrTex 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

March 27

• Image:Pahan Silu.JPG - Originally uploaded under a different licence; now reappeared as uploader's own work. No evidence provided that uploader took images themself, although they may have made the montage or scanned the image or downloaded it from somewhere. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur images:

• Image:Ppolarz.jpg
• Image:Pcrstals.jpg
• Image:Ballon.gif

All of these were taken from http://www.foundersofscience.net/interest1.htm which states "Copyright, 1996; rev. Jan. 2001; Mar 2001; Jun. 2001; Oct. 2004" —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Ilija Jorga.jpg - Claimed as pd-self, but source is from the internet, as noted on the page. Description says "the contributor has this source" (?), but there's no indication that the uploader is the page owner, and the page it is shown on is copyrighted. Dekimasuよ! 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The same problem seems to be the case for many other images uploaded by this editor. Many of them are noted at User talk:Snake bgd. If action is taken on this image, it is probable that action should be taken on those as well. Dekimasuよ! 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Souris4Bramaz.jpg - Originally uploaded under a different (incompatible) licence, now reappearing as GFDL-self. But clearly a professional studio shot and uploader gives no evidence of being affiliated to the photographer mentioned in the summary. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Anthony Kalloniatis.jpg - Originally uploaded under a different (incompatible) licence, now reappearing as GFDL. Uploader says "Image is from Anthony's official website. I contacted Anthony before uploading this image. Anthony gave full permission to use the full-resolution version of this file. If needed, I can contact Anthony to obtain additional information on usage rights of this photo. If that is requested, it may take a week or two before I realize that has been requested." No evidence provided of contact with author; no evidence that GFDL release was given. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 12:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ayumilive.jpg - {{PD-self}} claimed by Auzzzzz (talk · contribs). Appears to be an WP:SPA using PD claims to circumvent WP:FUC#1. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Eliza_wip.jpg - Looks like a promotional photo, and not like something the uploader created in Photoshop. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Tatu02791.gif - Looks like scanned photo, probably not created by uploader in Photoshop. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Ramona_amiri.jpg - Taken from [16] which does not mention GNU. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Planomarrakech.jpg - tagged {{No rights reserved}}, but the source gives no indication of that. —Angr 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

March 28

• Image:Cerdocyon thous.jpg - User claims {{PD-old}} but image is obviously current in nature. User has history of uploading images under incorrect tags. Nashville Monkey 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Qcuds.jpg – User claims {{PD-US}}, but the image is of a Canadian license plate introduced in 1978, so it seems unlikely that the image is first published prior to January 1, 1923. Furthermore, there is no source information. – Ilse@ 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:NigarTalibova.jpg - No indication that source website owns the rights to hosted photos. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image:3dearist.gif - Obvious logo of a school, can't be GFDL. --Howard the Duck 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)