Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barcode (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 17 May 2007 (→May 11). 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.

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 30

  • Image:10 Muharram.jpg - claims public domain due to its age - but the description lists the painting as created in 1909 and biogs of the attributed artist list him as dying in 1929 ([1]).
    • I only noticed this image now; I could find only a little bit of information (see this Google search). Basically, its not at all clear when a reproduction of this image was published in the United States, and the PD-old template definitely does not apply (the painter died in 1929), so unless such info can be found it should be deleted. --Iamunknown 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't the painting PD under {{PD-old-70}} and hence the photograph of the painting free under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ? Why does the PD-art template use the 100 years definition anyways, since US law AFAIK only requires 70 ? (some other countries have the 100 year limit, but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. doesn't necessarily apply for them anyway)Abecedare 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the correct copyright tag {{PD-art-life-70}} to the image page, which establishes that it is indeed in PD. (In that light, my above comment is moot) Abecedare 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Copyright is created upon publishing, is it not? If so, since it is not clear when the painting was first published in the United States, we do not know when the copyright of the painting was first created. The life of the author is not a cure-all. (I think.) --Iamunknown 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, this was me, accidentally stuck this at the top rather than the bottom of the page. Just checking Commons. they don't have the 100 year tag, only the 70, no wonder I'm permanently confused. Madmedea 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not 100% sure - but for paintings and other works of art isn't copyright normally tied to the life/death of the creator - so date of creator's death + 70 years in the US.I just go my knickers in a twist with the 100 year tag.Madmedea 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

The above image was modified by me, original image sourced from [2] Please either remove the notice from the image page or notify me so as I can do so. Thankyou.
Happy to accept it's free. It's still redundant with Image:Stewart_Island-Rakiura.png, but that is not an issue for here.--Limegreen 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

May 3

May 4

May 5

May 6

May 7

  • This is an example of Nazi propaganda, dated around 1938. [7] We don't claim it as a free image, but as an historic poster, so I'm unclear about the point of this entry. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from the Library of Congress, according to this source, [8] which says "Antisemitic cartoon by Seppla (Josef Plank)--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompassing a globe. Credit: Library of Congress, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives. Date: Circa 1938" SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some aspects of human history would make some people feel uncomfortable. WP has many historic political posters, I don't see any problem with this one. Doesn't seem like a good faith nomination. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the uploader's responsibility for supplying the necessary source information. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humus sapiens questions Dr Zak's attempt to delete a Nazi image above, so now Dr Zak has found a Nazi image uploaded by Humus sapiens' to nominate for deletion. This isn't the first time he's done this. These are probably PD images, but for our purposes are labeled non-free historical images; and we're using them for educational purposes, not simply to illustrate pages for frivolous reasons. If you want to help track down the original source or the author, Dr Zak, please do; the help would be welcome. But please stop the vindictive WP:POINTs. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything is disruptive it's your continuous accusations. They are poison for the collegial atmosphere here. This image was tagged unsourced since 15:02, 6 May 2007 [10], almost ten hours before Humus chipped in above. [11] at WP:PUI You would like to withdraw this statement for the sake of your own credibility. Dr Zak 13:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we now get back to discussing the image, please?! When you have nothing to say about the issue you have a go at the contributor instead, and others have observed that as well. Dr Zak 04:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, and another thing: it's not my fault that stuff from That Era hasn't fallen out of copyright yet. By the way, the Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz [12] has a couple Stürmerkāsten online. All of them watermarked unfortunately; if they hadn't been, I'd have uploaded one myself. Dr Zak 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A historic photo - why suddenly so much strictness to expose Nazi propaganda? See the item above - another bad faith nomination by Dr Zak. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historic photo of a unique event, like the sinking of the Titanic? Not in this case. Repeat: there are plenty of images of that thing around. And please lay off the accusations of whitewashing and stuff. Dr Zak 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dr Zak is right -- without knowing precisely who the copyright holder is, a fair use claim cannot be made. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Coats of arms are generally copyright and tagged with {{seal}}. There's no indication in any of these cases that the author died 100 years or ago or more, or that the copyright owner (the owner of the original seal in the case of derivative art) released into the public domain under a free licence. I recommend retagging with {{seal}} if no details are provided to confirm the free status of these images. --kingboyk 14:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Added flags; same rationale. --kingboyk 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gene Poole removed the notices with an edit summary of "i am the creator of the image and released it under GFDL" (e.g. [14]). Unfortunately he didn't post here and has now been blocked, but what's not clear to me is in what way he's the creator:

  1. If he created the image as a copy of a copyright seal, it's presumably still copyright
  2. If he actually originally created all these seals one has to assume they're not encyclopedic and merely the output of a fan.

--kingboyk 12:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this image myself and grant its use on Wikipedia. - The Daddy 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't "create" it yourself; you took a screenshot. It says "Sky Sport" in the corner! The copyright belongs to the broadcaster. --kingboyk 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did "create" the jpg myself. Sky Sports did not give it to me, its my own work. See, David Beckham article for similar use of such an image that a user created. - The Daddy 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it say Sky Sports 1 in the top right hand corner then? --kingboyk 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it feature Mauro Camoranesi?... I didn't create him, but I did create this jpg which features him. - The Daddy 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're confused. You may have created the screenshot (either by using a video-capture card or you took a photo of your TV), but you don't own the rights to the copyrighted broadcast. Thus, the image file that you created is a derivative work and is subject to the same copyrights as the broadcast. The Beckham image ... it's possible that it could be a screenshot as well, but it's also equally likely that the photographer was in the stands and used a big zoom lens to get the image (which is why it's so grainy). howcheng {chat} 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cliffburtonfree.jpg Faulty license. At best, the image is licensed as "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0", on Flickr, which makes it an unsuitable license. At worst, the image is actually copyrighted (which I think is pretty likely), and the license on Flickr is wrong. In either case, the 'non commercial' means it can't be used. --JoanneB 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

  • Image:GirneMarina.jpg - quoted e-mail correspondence between uploader and third-party photographer doesn't support GFDL/cc-by-2.5 as claimed by uploader. What the photographer said in his mail constituted a license "for use on Wikipedia only" ("yanlız söylediğiniz sitenizde kullanabilirsiniz"); also he insisted on keeping the margin text intact ("alt üst yazılarına dokunmadıgınız sürece"), hence restricting the production of derivative works. The uploader did write him back notifying him of the first issue, but not of the second, and we don't know how the photographer reacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image is free of copyright. Sports Fan 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to disprove the contention of the User. Leave pro tem. 86.134.147.22 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: please have a look at the very short edit history of that IP address. --Mais oui! 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irwell Sculpture Trail images

All of these are used by permission only, low quality, and replaceable.

—Remember the dot (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dunno about the replacable bit, as I understand it most of these would end up having to be tagged as {{Non-free 3D art}} regardles of who took the photos. That aside they should be deleted anyway unless someone can produce proper fair use rationales for them. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pulaski Day Parade images

All of these are used by permission only and will be replaceable the next time there is a Pulaski Day Parade.

—Remember the dot (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Tasmanian-pademelon-eating-apple.jpg - PanBK originally uploaded as {{GFDL-self}}, but then restricted use to Wikipedia only. I do not think the GFDL permits this. However, if PanBK does not wish the image to be licensed freely, then we should honor that wish and delete the image because the image is replaceable. We can only use images that would qualify as fair use or are under a free license. Explicit permission from the copyright holder to use the image is a plus but is not good enough on its own. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

May 11

a website of [24] would be slightly more accurate of a source. I apologize for forcing you to look for the picture since this link was provided in the permission portion of the image. Permission was given to post the image in an e-mail, if you'd like i can get the "unrestricted, non-exclusive and non-revocable commercial reuse and derivative works" request from the company. Barcode 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following images were uploaded by User:Gene Poole. He was informed of the last batch of nominations, and is currently blocked.

--kingboyk 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

May 13

Pet skunk images

All of these are used by permission only and replaceable. They should be deleted unless the copyright holders are willing to relicense them under a free license.

—Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I relicensed it. Tzadik 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Abu.jpg - copyright claiming PD-art but the image is a colour, modern photographic image. More oddly it replaced a completely different image! But as this was is currently used in wikipedia it definitely needs looking at rather than just reverting. Madmedea 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:CharlesStewart.png - uploaded claims PD-art but artist died in 1938 [26]. Madmedea 10:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. The Canadian artist died in 1938 making this PD-Canada. I will update the tag. --YUL89YYZ 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I don't claim to be an expert on this, but note the warning at the buttom of the PD-Canada tag. US copyright law is peculiar in that it does not recognize shorter copyright terms. So even if the copyright have lapsed in Canada it have not done so in the US yet. It might still be PD in the US due to older laws beeing in effect at the time and such, but these things can be tricky and I though we had depreciated these "PD in XX country" type tags for this reason a while back, but I guess I misremembered... --Sherool (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

All claiming PD-art but that only applies to 2d works, images are of 3d works, no sources in majority of cases so cannot check other copyright Madmedea 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how Image:Ahmose.jpg can be considered 3 dimentional. Thanatosimii 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is of a stele, a carved piece of stone, and therefore is in 3-d.Madmedea 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what the law defines it as, I suppose there's nothing that can be done about it, but strictly speaking, since we exist in 3 dimentional space, all works of art have some deapth to them, and thus there is no such thing as a 2-d work of art whatsoever. Shouldn't the definition of 3-d have to do with whether or not the third dimention actually changes the quality of the intended image, not simply exists as a result of an accidental characteristic of the medium? But if the law is the law... Thanatosimii 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re. the medal-related images listed above. I uploaded these some time ago, at a time when I was less familiar with licensing etc than I am now. The images were scanned from photographs which I found in my photographic library, probably photographs which I took a few years ago. That being the case they are probably {{pd-self}} and I will amend them accordingly.
Xdamrtalk 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PD-art template was misapplied to this photograph. I have changed it to PD-old-70 which probably puts it in PD - may be impossible to confirm though, since the photograph was possible taken by an unknown photographer at a neighborhood studio. Abecedare 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a better license tag but not perfect.... for me probably isn't quite good enough as the photographer could still easily have been alive less than 70 years ago....Madmedea 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I am not trying to claim that the image is indubitably PD. The image though can perhaps be used under FU on some relevant wikipedia pages. By the way, I added the source information to the image page (it is from C. V. Raman's Nobel prize bio) Abecedare 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree there is a fair use argument for illustrating some articles. At the moment a thumbnail is used as part of a stub template which is a little worrying.Madmedea 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correspondence needs to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information.Madmedea 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new image in the same name which doesnt have any license problem.So remove the picture from this list. thanks alot.Sreekanthv 07:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image is claimed as user's own work. No reason to doubt otherwise. WP:AGF. Problem resolved I think.Madmedea 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

But the rest of them aren't. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in this case. MER-C 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Delete them, I removed them from the article. -- Phoenix2 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ash flower images

All of these are used only by permission and could be replaced.

—Remember the dot (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May 16


May 17

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=131565214"