Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 27
December 27
Source is given as "Agency headshot", but it is unclear what, if any, connection the uploader has to the agency in question, or even what agency it is, so it's anyting but clear that the uploader is authorized to release this image under the GFDL/CC license indicated. Sherool (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
While including an impressive amount of metadata it is far from clear that the uploader has any assosiation with the stated copyright holder or otherwise have the rights to release the image under the stated licenses. Sherool (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Last we heard from the uploader he said he got the image off his brother's facebook page. Where his brother got the image was not stated however. Sherool (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image tagged as {{PD-self}} but taken from copyright website (source). Unable to verify image's copyright status because the source website is not in English. Muchness (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Campaign photos typically aren't released into the public domain. I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Justification of acceptable use - no unfree images exist - is not reasonable. — ERcheck (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. You're welcome to delete this image (which I uploaded ages ago) if you can provide an equivalent 'free' image. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No evidence that the source website has released its rights to this image and even if it did, we don't accept watermarked images. B (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how this can be in the public domain. ViperSnake151 14:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
While this photo of the statue has been released into the public domain, the statue itself is presumably copyrighted. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Conflicting description: "owner retains copyright" and "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." —Remember the dot (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the professional quality of the photo and the low resolution, I doubt that the uploader is actually the copyright holder of this photo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the professional quality of the photo and the low resolution, I doubt that the uploader is actually the copyright holder of this photo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image was first used under fair use. Image was deleted and license has now changed to PD. An e-mail from source site to OTRS would be practical. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Logo, not likely PD Garion96 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image turns out to be a photo of a sign in front of the restaurant. Still not public domain. At least not completely. Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
How is an image of the sign, located on the street, in front of the resturant, taken by a cell phone, released for public use, not good enough? --Novadogg (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
