Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iamunknown (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 17 April 2007 (→‎April 6: question for FictionH). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

If an image is missing source or license information, place either:

or

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own. It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each user.

Shortcut

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

Instructions

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

  1. Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
    • {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
    • {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
  2. Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
  3. Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
  4. List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

Holding cell

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

March 16

March 23

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Heard back from Kristina Edmunson from the Governor's office. Received general permission, and emailed her list of licenses to review. -Pete 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it really is "released without restriction by the Governor's office" then it's copyrightfreeuse... so, unless evidence to the contrary I'd say keep it. gren グレン 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with above, but more clarity would certainly be helpful. I just sent a followup email to the Governor's office, which to my knowledge hasn't yet selected a license. Hopefully a specific license will come soon. -Pete 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image's public domain status was confirmed (below) by the Governor's Communications office. -216.99.213.241 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      From: Kristina.Edmunson (email deleted for privacy)
      Subject: RE: Governor Kulongoski Headshot
      Date: April 12, 2007 9:37:16 AM PDT
      To: peteforsyth (email deleted for privacy)
      Again, I assure you, that this photo is already in the public domain.
      • Could you forward that e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Iamunknown 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

  • 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)[reply]
    • Permission statement was received at WP:OTRS however, the email address the permission came from was not associated with antcomic.com. I have sent email to the contact address at antcomic.com to verify the release. Shell babelfish 06:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

April 3

  • Image:Hound.JPG as above. Nardman1 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:N12453669_32850165_6172.jpg as above. Nardman1 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:N33310320_30864953_1365.jpg as above. Nardman1 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AzimuthFilmsIdent.jpg. Company logo, allegedly release as PD. Very doubtful. Also, orphaned. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Ariel_Upper_campus.jpg - "All Rights Reserved." according to source. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue have been discussed previously. Please find content policy in link below (Unfortunately, in hebrew only).
    http://www2.yosh.ac.il/Disclaimer.aspx
    According to this (paragraph 3), as student, I can use the content without CJS responsibility.Shmuliko 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Hebrew, but I'd say that allowing students to use their content is not the same as releasing it under the GNU Free Documentation License... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor do I. I asked a friend if he could provide a translation, but in the meantime here is a machine translation from [1]:
    1. "The copyrights in the site of the academic college Judea And Samaria in their entirety ( to the personal sheets, saw a clause 3 that below ) relation to his college / or to her students and workers. Not to copy every part of they, without that given you agreed the college in advance and in writing, and this by means of the bureau of the attorney general.
    2. [Disclaimer about dated information.]
    3. "Academic college Judea And Samaria knows approximately and in the hidden potential in the pages of the information are personal on the internet, and therefore enables this to the students and to the workers. Still, the college not takes on herself responsibility to the contents of these sheets.
    4. [Disclaimer about endorsing external links.]"
    Unfortunately not very revealing. It does, however, seem to indicate that students are not to copy content from the website without advance permission from the college in writing unless the content is their own work, but it does not indicate what license the material is under. Shmuliko, is my interpretation of the machine translation accurate? Regards, Iamunknown 05:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is more like:
3."Academic college Judea And Samaria appreciates latent potential in personal internet pages, and therefore enables this to the students and to the workers. However, the college does not take on herself responsibility to the contents of these sheets."
4."The links to external sites do not indicate the ties with the college" — Preceding unsigned comment added by anon user (talk • contribs)

The college website does not release rights to content on its site. I also understand that the legal warning is limited to 'personal internet pages' and certainly, WP is not. speedy delete this copyvio. --Shuki 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Stonehenge_Complete.jpg - Derivative work according to summary. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FFS this is a painting in a public place at stonehenge. And people wonder why my generation has no respect for copyright nazis. Delete it if you want - I care so little it is giving me cancer. Fosnez 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the painting is in a public place, a photo of it is still a derivative work. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fosnez, who was the painter? When was the work created? Regards, Iamunknown 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Synapse_preprocessing.jpg and Image:Synapse_deployment.jpg - Only released under non-commercial, NoDerivs license according to source. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to the source, the license for wikipedia (stated explicitly) for images is CC attribution sharealike. --Denoir 05:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction - the license isn't plain CC as stated in the tags but CC SA. I'll update the info on the images to reflect what is stated on the source. --Denoir 05:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict; I combined the noms into one, see diff.) Denoir, unfortunately the exception does not apply to Wikipedia. "Free images" in terms of Wikipedia must allow unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works per Resolution:Licensing policy and http://freedomdefined.org/Definition. Regards, Iamunknown 05:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It states under "exceptions" wikipedia explicitly among other things and it grants an CC SA license (which includes derivate works and commercial use). The other license does not apply to wikipedia and is hence not relevant.
    From the source: "Exceptions for images: Independent news media...[snip]...Online encyclopedia, such as wikipedia...In the case of the above mentioned exceptions, commercial use is allowed. In those cases a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5 is granted."
    So it is the CC SA license that applies to us, not the first one. --Denoir 05:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see that. Do they realize that anyone else can use the image CC-BY-SA-2.5 from Wikipedia and just circumvent the other licensing? Pointless, really. --Iamunknown 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just wikipedia but anything that falls under "educational material", which could basically be anything. Yes, pointless, I agree. I suppose the indended emphasis there is on images as opposed to the text content (which as far as I can see isn't covered by the exception). --Denoir 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

  • Image:Alice nahon 070313.JPG - Unclear source with questionable GFDL claim.--Jusjih 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This image was provided by the director of the Alice Nahon school, who owns the image of Alice Nahon, for public non-commerical use (GFDL).Pvosta 11:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Further information is necessary. Who is the photographer of the image? (BTW, the GFDL is not a non-commercial license. Anyone may re-use GFDL-licensed content for commercial reuse and derivative works. For more information, see WP:GFDL.) --Iamunknown 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Point 1 I think is OK, however the nature of Wikipedia means we fail points 2 and 3. Mark83 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:WP-CartoonNetwork.png - derivative work of copyrighted Cartoon Network logo. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that this is eligible for copyright. However trademark restrictions may apply. Bryan 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image was created by me as it is only a representation of the logo but not the logo itself which I feel falls within FUP guidelines. --treelo talk 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • a "representation of the logo" is a derivative work, and fair use images may not be used outside article namespace (this image is currently used on several talk pages and templates). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

  • Image:Leopold B Stotch.PNG - an image of a south park character. Uploader User:FictionH claims to be the actual South Park artist who drew the image, and is releasing it as PD. That's probably not allowed, since presumably the character likeness is owned by somebody else. Any experts? Staecker 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: same goes for Image:KennyMcSP.gif and Image:StanMarsh.PNG. Staecker 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I am an employee at South Park studios. FictionH 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request Wikipedia:OTRS submission, maybe? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete it - an employee would not able to about to release copyright in this way. --Fredrick day 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • work for hire -- employee is not the copyright holder -- Bryan 08:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm actually the artist who drew the designs of certain characters when the show began. FictionH 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • FictionH, its great that you were the designer, but it is true that the work was work for hire, an exception to normal copyright law. IANAL, but from what I understand, copyrights are usually held by the creator of the work, but when the work is a work for hire, the copyrights are held by the corporation. I'm sure there are legal minutiae I'm totally missing, but that is the general idea. Thank you for uploading those images, but I'm afraid that, unless you can get release from the studios, you cannot upload them. Regards, Iamunknown 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did get release from the studios. FictionH 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you saying that South Park Studios has "irrevocably released all rights" to Kenny and Stan, as you claim here and here? That would need some serious documentation, and would likely be a big news story. Staecker 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Would send the e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT com? --Iamunknown 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They haven't released all rights to them, just to those 2 images. FictionH 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Would you be able to get the studios to send an e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT com? --Iamunknown 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Michael Dudok de Wit.jpg - Appleworm (talk · contribs) claims {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} w/o any coroboratability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Kareena Kapoor-KLSH.jpg - BabyBlueDragon (talk · contribs), an WP:SPA claims an unlikely {{self2}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Persian People.jpg -- this is a collage of images without individual sources -- there's no way to tell what license the final product is under. No copyright holder information for any of the images. The one source given is to a Wikipedia upload that has been deleted as a copyvio. Jkelly 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pavanar.jpg -- the uploader contends that the image may be from the 50s or 60s. That however, does not justify releasing it under {{PD-India}} which requires that the picture be atleast 60 years old. Sarvagnya 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

  • Image:Cat yawning.jpg a image from SXC that slipped though the cracks in my previous batch nomination. Uploader aserts that the image is clarly free however acording to the source site standard restrictions apply. Wich include a ban on re-distributing the image. I can find no statement from the copyright holder that he has agreed to release the image under any less restrictive terms. --Sherool (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Photo was originally uploaded with the terms "anyone can use for any purpose" -- that would include redistribution. If the site later tagged it with a default tag that changed the terms, the original license still applies. DreamGuy 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was there any indication that the original terms were un-revocable? If not, then the original terms may not still apply. --Iamunknown 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Foundingmothers.jpg — Tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.0, but the author of the picture is not given. The picture was originally uploaded with the comment "As Blue Star Mothers members we have the express right to use pictures, articles, etc of the founding mothers." However, there is no evidence that the copyright holder allows anyone to use the image under the CC-BY-SA-2.0. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

April 9

There are images of Woo Jang-choon that are so old that they're not subjected to copyright laws. I'll try to find one, so please wait. (Wikimachine 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Image:Hwachafireshot.jpg - There are other images like similar to this that are free (some are even in the article). Image taken directly from a news site that even marks it with a copyright notice. —LactoseTIT 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader of the above images regarding the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), I believe that the images definitely qualify as legible images because I have provided a fair use rationale and the site from which I obtained the images from. Also, I would like to request what an unconfirmed site is. Also, I have followed the fair use rationale procedure and I have done all the necessary requirements to upload the images as user:Kusunose told me to. Good friend100 12:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are actually bit-for-bit reuploads (the same images were removed before when taken from the same site). That site doesn't specify the copyright status of the images and is not the creator of them (at least that I could see; that's what I meant by unconfirmed). They are being used inappropriately--copyright images that happen to have battles as their theme are not fair use in those battle articles (there's even an example of this on the "not allowed" section of the fair use page). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LactoseTI (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 April 2007.
Good friend100, you have not provided who is the authors of paintings as required by Wikipedia:Image description page#Source and author yet. That is, as LactoseTI told above, their copyright status are still unclear. As for fair use claim, I also think these use are inappropriate; this is similar case to Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #4; A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. At least, there is no assertion these pictures are 'iconic'. --Kusunose 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is in another language (I don't think I have the font installed because it was just nonsense on my screen) thus it is not possible to confirm the status of the image. I think that is what they meant. Don't know for sure though. IvoShandor 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by Paul venter: These are all tagged as GFDL, but the name of the author is not given on any of them and some of them say that permission is required to redistribute the images, contrary to the terms of the GFDL.

—Remember the dot (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Florence Phillips.jpg is listed as being made in 1909, and is an image of an oil painting. Surely PD-art applies. Dsmdgold 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images Image:Lionel Phillips.jpg and Image:Florence Phillips.jpg are the subject of an email sent to permissions@wikimedia.org attention Jkelly. The other images are photographs taken by me at "Northwards", the former home of Sir Albu with the permission of Sir George Albu, 3rd baronet (grandson of Sir George Albu). Paul venter 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove PUI tags from images until the dispute has been resolved.
Sorry about marking Image:Lionel Phillips.jpg and Image:Florence Phillips.jpg with {{PUIdisputed}}. They are now marked with {{PD-old-70}}.
According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., in the United States where the English Wikipedia servers are hosted a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art (such as a scan or photograph) cannot be copyrighted because it lacks originality. A photo of a work of art that included more than just the painting, such as the picture frame and parts of the room around where it is displayed, would be copyrightable because the person who took the photo contributed something original to the image.
Images used by permission alone are not acceptable for Wikipedia because this permission does not extend to others. Please read [6]. Images must be in the public domain or licensed under a free license. We want others to be able to take our work, re-use it, improve it, etc. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the remaining issue is this: who took the original two photographs and painted the remaining painting and when were all three created. The permission by the current owner is close to useless, unless he is the current copyright holder and gave permission for the images to be released under the GFDL. If the phtographs are old enough to be in PD then Paul venter's copies are also, even without the Baron's permission. Dsmdgold 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

April 11

April 12

April 13

April 14

  • Image:LyttonMajorGeneral.gif is the image that I photoshopped. It claims to be published in US before 1923, which I accepted in good faith. I've deleted the tag for now. Feel free to revert if you think I'm wrong. Bucketsofg 03:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

  • Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg The claim is that this image is GNU Free Documentation License, but the Red Mana symbol and the Prophecy logo appear in the graphic, both of which are copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast. The image does not appear to be used in article space at all. Jay32183 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Nancy worley booking.jpg and Image:Nancy worley general.jpg uploader claims that these are works of the State of Alabama and therefore PD, however the state allows different agencies to handle licensing in their own way. Exact wording from the state site is: Please contact the individual Alabama State Agencies for their specific policies concerning additional notification of conditions associated with the use of information contained on their web sites. [8] Meanwhile the Office of the Secertary of the State's website (http://www.sos.state.al.us/) clearly has a copyright symbol at the bottom. Hence my reasoning that these images are not likely to be in the public domain. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Thecausebanner.jpg The claim is that the webpage this image was taken from did not have any copyright info, so it is a safe bet for us to re-release the image here under the GFDL. This obviously isn't how copyright works. Since there is no information regarding the copyright status, it is safe to say that it is automatically protected, and therefore unacceptable for use at wikipedia. Releasing it under the GFDL without the actual image owner's permission is a clear violation. We'd need the image creator's expressed written permission to release the image as such.-Andrew c 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Semele.jpg Why would the work of a British painter who died in 1945 be in the public domain? Jkelly 04:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

  • Image:Bendibus coventry 30m07 .JPG and Image:River and royal shakespeare theatre 15a07.JPG (and probably more by the same uploader[9]) uses an NC license ("This image or any reproductions/customizations thereof (or any reproductions/customizations of it reproductions/customizations, and so forth) may NOT be sold without my explicit consent."). // Liftarn
    • This is right, it can be used and copied, but not sold for profit without explicit consent. What is wrong with that? This is common on the wiki. Snowman 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it? Is is not allowed, Wikipedia:Non-free content says "it must have no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the content for any purpose.". // Liftarn
        • Most people do not want to publish images for profit, so it is not a significant restriction, it my opinion. What about this: Licenses/NC#The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License#Conclusions#For content users. I am reading about these copyright and copyleft issues, I thought I was using a copyright that was suitable for the wiki. I will change the bendibus licience, but I will leave the River licience to have it tested here. I would be prepared to chage the copyright licience rather than have it deleted, because it would be easier to to that thay re-upload them again with a new copyright tag, so please keep me informed. Snowman 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • NC images are not allowed. Removing that requirement solves the issue. Just use a plain vanilla CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL. // Liftarn
    • Erm, the first image is okay, but the "permission" section on the second image is disingenuous. I can make profit off of any GFDL-licensed material as long as I obey the terms of the GFDL license. So the statement "This image or any reproductions/customizations thereof (...) may NOT be sold without my explicit consent" is wrong. --Iamunknown 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/Morguefile

April 17

Image:House of Lords.jpg Source website restricts licensing to non-commercial use without permission. [10] Fair use claim is invalid, as no rationale is provided and the image should be replaceable. Fair use only claimed for one of the 4 articles in which it appears anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=123455206"