Wikipedia:Image sleuthing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkSweep (talk | contribs) at 01:47, 1 February 2005 (→‎Image:Bren2.jpg: other images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What is image sleuthing?

There are many thousands of images on Wikipedia. Most are tagged so that we know where they come from and how they are licensed, but some are mysteries, tagged {{unverified}}, with no obvious way to tell whether we can legally use them or not. Eventually, if we can't find out the source and copyright status of an image, we'll have to delete it. But some of these images are useful or attractive, and are begging to be rescued. That's where the image sleuths come in. The sleuths use any methods they have – from Google Image Search to secret informants met at midnight – to discover the source and copyright status of an image.

How does this work?

Each day, just after midnight (GMT), three new images will be listed here. The sleuths will set to work tracking down the origin, copyright and licence terms associated with the image. Information gathered on images found to be under free licences or in the public domain will be moved into the image's description page. If the image is determined to be under a non-free license, or if information cannot be found after one week of searching, the image will be moved into the deletion process and the sleuths will seek a suitable free or public domain replacement.

The sleuths

The following Wikipedians have signed up to be image sleuths.

The assignments

Image:&-20013;&-33775;&-27665;&-22283;&-20840;&-22294;.jpg

File:&-20013;&-33775;&-27665;&-22283;&-20840;&-22294;.jpg
Listed Jan 24
  • Used in Political divisions of China, Political divisions of the Republic of China, and History of the political divisions of China.
  • The ROC map looks like its scan from a book so it could be a bit difficult to find a source for. Evil Monkey → Talk 01:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are likely replacements at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas at Austin. See [1], [2], and [3]. The FAQ for the collection states, Most of the maps scanned by the University of Texas Libraries and served from this web site are in the public domain. No permissions are needed to copy them. You may download them and use them as you wish. A few maps are copyrighted, and are clearly marked as such.[4] - Kbh3rd 03:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Or not ... I see that that's the ROC's version of China, frozen since 1949, and therefore likely different in the details from these maps. Kbh3rd 03:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. This map (中華民國全圖) reflects the historical situation of the ROC ca. 1947 modulo wishful thinking. In fact, the Interior(?) Ministry stopped issuing these maps recently, according to several reports. Xinhua --MarkSweep 09:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm. Then maybe we should stop using them too. What's a good map to use in its place? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, we should still use it. In fact, this map is being used in one article to illustrate the (constructed) historical situation as claimed by the ROC government for 40 or more years. Just because they've changed their mind about recapturing the mainland doesn't mean this map isn't of historical interest. --MarkSweep 03:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we should still use it. . . but it might be a copyvio. Perhaps some hardworking soul could modify Image:China administrative.png or Image:Smaller map of China.png with the information on this map (中華民國全圖), so that the image will be available under a free license. Anyone up to it? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The only way would be to trace the same map over. I don't know how else one can get the claims extending into Tuva, northern Myanmar, Tajikistan, and the Russian Far East, not to mention all those tiny provinces in Manchuria. -- ran (talk) 07:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Mongolia. --MarkSweep 15:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Image:1906 Peugeot.jpg

File:1906 Peugeot.jpg
Listed Jan 25
  • Used in Peugeot
  • Google shows the Peugeot image as coming from here on this page, but it looks like I would need to log in to see it, or perhaps the image has been taken down. It's kind of hard to tell, since I don't speak French. I doubt the site licenses its images under a free license, but it's still possible that the pic is in the public domain. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I mentioned this on the IRC channel that it was uploaded by DW. The comments came back that DW was banned as alot of his uploaded were copyvios. Evil Monkey → Talk 02:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, DW is bad news when it comes to images. When his images are releasable under a free license, it's pure coincidence. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A possible replacement image for the Peugeot would be this, if the site allows it. Could someone who speaks French tell me if this page says anything about copyright or image use? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • It says nothing about copyright nor licences, sadly, at least, according to Google [5] --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • There are three other pictures of Peugeots in the Peugeot article (all modern), so if we can't find one, it's not that bad, I suppose. Still, there must be a Peugeot photo taken before 1923, mustn't there? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


Image:Carson.JPG

File:Carson.JPG
Listed Jan 26
  • Used in Johnny Carson and, recently, the front page.
  • Image article says it is from MPTV.Net - http://www.mptv.net ... digging around reveals a "TERMS" bottom menu item on http://www.netropolisusa.biz/mptv/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?login=1 leading to a conclusion of copyvio (about which I;ve done nothing 'cos I'm trying to do some irl work :( --Tagishsimon (talk)
    • It's worth contacting MPTV about this image - sources have in the past been happy to license some material, particularly following a positive and proactive contact like saying someone has uploaded an image which appears as though it might be one they have the rights to. A photo credit to the source from one of the top 100 English language sites on the net has promotional value for them even if we provide it just because it's normal practice to provide such photo credits - and a reduced resolution version, say, wouldn't harm their market for the full resolution version. MPTV mentions that the original image is a 1980 shot from The Tonight Show, presumably a PR image for it. Jamesday 08:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Any replacement probably will have to be fair use. Looked for a publicity still at the official Johnny Carson Tonight Show site, but their terms and conditions are pretty draconian,[6] and I'm not sure whether fair use trumps that. Perhaps an {{Video tape cover}} like this one.
  • The Library of Congress's Manuscripts Division has some of Carson's papers (look for "Carson" here), which may or may not include photographs, but they haven't been digitized yet. --MarkSweep 07:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Just be aware that LOC doesn't equal PD. You have to check the copyright status of the particular work or collection. Kbh3rd 14:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure. But it's convenient that the LoC keeps track of sources and rights, so we don't have to do any extra work. --MarkSweep 18:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use trumps any statement of restriction of use. I think we should use ((promophoto)) on the current image, and keep it. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


Image:Alexander-horned-sphere.jpg

File:Alexander-horned-sphere.jpg
Listed on Jan 27
  • Used in Alexander horned sphere
  • Contributed by User:Four, who was active as recently as the 8th Jan, and who complied with a request to tag another of his/her images. I've asked him/her to tag this one. Doesn;t stop us sleuthing, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Four hasn't been on much recently, so I e-mail him, asking where the image comes from. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg

Listed on Jan 27
  • Used in Alexis Bledel
  • Found a similar picture [7] (different pose) at this image intensive page, with no liscensing info. Investigating. [[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 05:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could we find a single frame vid cap? Aren't those consider fairuse? Also, I don't think I can search for this one while at work ; ) --MaxPower 15:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
    • My sister saw me searching on this one last night. She just shook her head and walked away. [[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 23:38, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Any publicity shot could also be fair use, if we can confirm that who the actual copyright holder is. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
To quote Raul who's beat it thru everyones head on irc ... Fair Use does not require knowing who the actual copyright holder is... Fair Dealing does. User:Alkivar/sig 03:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Really? Well that makes it rather easy, then. . . What specifically would a fair use require for an image like this? In general, for a publicity still of a famous person, how should one make a fair use claim? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like we can just use the new {{promophoto}} tag at template:promophoto. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Off topic, but I wish all the tags had little icons on them. That is all. --MaxPower 15:06, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


Image:Ac.redribbon.jpg

Listed on Jan 28
  • Used in AIDS and World AIDS Day
    According to this Google search, this once was at http://www.worldaidsday.org/ though it appears to have been removed meanwhile. Seems likely that this is the original site. No idea what their copyright terms for this image would be—their general terms of use are not encouraging. It may have been their previous "support image" (see [8]), which they make available for download. Lupo 10:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How about ((logo))? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:15, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't really a logo *for* anything though. I don't think a red ribbon is the logo of any organization or anything like that. It seems like it could be easily replaced though. --MaxPower 17:22, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
      • It might be a logo for the World AIDS Day organization, but that's just speculation at this point. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Plenty of images from US Government sites: FDA, NIH, IHS, Fitness.gov (animated). --MarkSweep 20:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • {{PD-ineligible))? Neutralitytalk 22:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I second that. --MarkSweep 22:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm. That makes me a little nervous. Look at the full-size image; there's some amount of detail there. Not a lot, but it's borderline. I'd like to tag it ((PD-ineligible)) and ((fairuse}}, but only if we can confirm who actually claims copyright on the thing. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
File:Aids day red ribbon.jpg
GFDL image -- Zeimusu
  • I thought, "there must be someone who has one of those ribbons and a digital camera" and then I thought "I have one of those ribbons....and I have a digital camera". It's a little creased, but gfdl. — Zeimusu | Talk 23:41, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
    • It's not really pretty, but it's free. I'm for replacing the current one with this new one. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ac.verginacasket.jpg

File:Ac.verginacasket.jpg
Listed on Jan 29
  • Used in Vergina Sun, Vergina, and Larnax (Archaeology)
    • Used at this page [9] in German. I don't understand German so someone will have to tell me if this is the actual source.Evil Monkey ∴ Hello? 00:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Doesn't indicate the source of the image. There is a note saying (presumably) that the casket itself is from a museum in Thessaloniki. --MarkSweep 02:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ac.turnovo.jpg

File:Ac.turnovo.jpg
Listed on Jan 29
  • Used in History of Bulgaria and Veliko Turnovo
    • [10] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004. Evil Monkey ∴ Hello? 00:12, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use then? How do we word a fair use claim on a Guardian image? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wishfully. Or, put another way, (IMO, and all that) we don't, since there is no fair use rgument to be framed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • 'Scuse me, but the Guardian image is only 300px wide; ours is 600px. I do not believe that Adam ripped this image off the Guardian page. Lupo 13:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think he probably did rip off the guardian, just not that particular page, but perhaps an old page. This is one to be deleted. — Zeimusu | Talk 11:37, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Image:Acorn RiscPC with RISC OS4.png

File:Acorn RiscPC with RISC OS4.png
Listed on Jan 29
  • Used in Risc PC
    • Also found here (Note - the EN image was originally from NL. I suspect it is a publicity image, and so arguably fair use, but this is supposition. --Tagishsimon (talk)


Image:Adornohorkhab1.png

File:Adornohorkhab1.png
Listed on Jan 30

Image:Dmm.jpg

File:Dmm.jpg
Listed on Jan 30
  • Used in Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio
    • 1950s press shot, not a free image, the only possiblity would be a fairuse claim, but I don't think that would stick as this isn't a publicity shot. I think this will be nonfree-delete. — Zeimusu | Talk 00:23, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


Image:1085112297 lg.jpg

File:1085112297 lg.jpg
Listed on Jan 31
  • Used in Red curry
  • Wherever it is from, Image:1085181759 lg.jpg is from the same place. — Zeimusu | Talk 06:28, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • I would assume it was created by User:Peeb and implicitly licensed under the GFDL, by default. --MarkSweep 07:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ahhh I was having a discussion on IRC about the image tagging project last night and some people just about screamed when they found out that we had been tagging user created and uploaded images as GFDL. It turns out that the bit say "I agree to release under GFDL" has only been there for a couple of months so before that people haven't actually agreed to release they're images under GFDL. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 08:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The image upload page didn't use to explicitly say that you agreed to release it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright (although it has for about a year now), but Wikipedia has, since the beginning, been a GFDL project. I believe every page has always said at the bottom: "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License." The image upload page now makes it more explicit, which is nice, but every contribution has always been licensed under GFDL, whether image or text. People may scream, but they should have read the fine print. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • So the question remains: Did Peeb take the photo himself, or did he swipe it from a restaurant's web site? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks more like a home-cooked image to me, compared with the Dim Sum photo below. Judging from the reflections and shadows, it was lit by a single flash from above, possibly on camera. By contrast, the dim sum pic is a poorly cropped version of something created in a studio, lit obliquely from behind by a large softbox, plus some secondary filler from the front. That doesn't prove anything, but I think it's possible and even likely that User:Peeb uploaded self-made pictures to go along with his or her other edits. --MarkSweep 22:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A cropped version of the eggplant picture is at [[11]] Of course it is possible that the amazon merchant is using (under fair use) the wikipedia shot and this can't be the orginal source, but there is prima facie case for the eggplant pic being listed for deletion. The other two I think are gfdl, (note also the digicam generated file names) but we shall not know for sure. If we are being careful, they too should be deleted/recreated. Question: Does the wikipedia software preserve exif data? — Zeimusu | Talk 00:16, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • That's actually not a crop. It's very, very similar, but it's a different picture entirely. Look close. (It fooled me for a minute as well.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dimsum.jpe

File:Dimsum.jpe
Listed on Jan 31
  • Used in Dim sum
  • All but certainly snatched off some chinese restaurant's home-page. Probably copyvio, perhaps fair use, probably best to recreate. — Zeimusu | Talk 06:19, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
    • Oddly, a cropped version is found on this page [12] --Tagishsimon (talk)
      • Notably that page has't been touched since 2002. — Zeimusu | Talk 00:30, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Image:Bren2.jpg

Listed on Feb 1
  • Used in Bren
  • Note: There are many more images like this one, if I remember correctly from image tagging. See for example [13]. Might be a good idea to tackle all of them at once, assuming they came from the same source. --MarkSweep 01:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Biodiversity on clearcut.jpg

Listed on Feb 1

Image:Bienenkoenigin.JPG

Listed on Feb 1 tagged
  • Used in Honeybee
  • Uploaded by . Perhaps a german speaker could ask. — Zeimusu | Talk
  • Found and tagged on the de wikipedia. It's GFDL. Bart133 (t) 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_sleuthing&oldid=9856099"