Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 February 8
February 8
Image taken from Google Earth that is copyright of Google. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Done -- Fixed to fair use instead of improper initial free-use tag, added fair use rationale. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Initial upload summary exerted copyright. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The uploader asserted that they are the author and released the image into the public domain. More likely than not they are telling the truth. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No evidence that RIRC was original photographer or holds copyright. They ony host a tiny thumbnail on their site in a history narrative. Nv8200p talk 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Originally tagged as PUI by Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC) but I could not verify the uploader had been notified so I relisted. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It must be said that firstly the copyright is at least 50 years old and secondly in the USSR. Therefore by certain obvious political changes it has been rendered rather irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.7.240 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I second thatShawnlandden (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe either claim is true. There is no date on the image. If it was taken around the time he orbited the Earth, that would be 1961 and that is less then 50 years. Soviet era images are not necessarily PD by default since we do not know that this is a Soviet government image. It could be from a news agency. -Nv8200p talk 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Avoid copyright paranoia.--Miyokan (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yap. This photo is straight from the history textbooks, used practically everywhere and there are really just two possibilities: It belongs to someone (and in that case a copyright holder SHOULD have surfaced by now =P) or it doesn't. In this case of huge (political) change and so much time having passed I think we can quite safely assume the second case. I agree with being precise in copyrights, but not with being paranoid or stupid. Really don't see anything gained from removing this pic but a great loss for the History of Spaceflight in WP! Strong Keep.Endymi0n (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is a historic image showing Gagarin in the space suit, the image is quite old, low resolution and have no commercial value. I think it qualifies it as a fair use. Keep Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an official USSR media image used quite a lot in various publications. USSR was based on the concept of communal property. therefore all USSR-era news media is now public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.200.104 (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting. Speculation about non-applicability of copyright is completely baseless, conditions outlined in {{PD-Russia}} are not met, and fair use is out because we don't know the true source and copyright holder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In the image it states "Copyright Tourism Authority of Thailand". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Image is sourced to a website. There is an assertion of "CC" but nothing to back it up. There is no right to freely modify the image, as is required. Nv8200p talk 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Originally tagged as PUI by Ohconfucius on December 31, 2007 but I was unable to verify uploader had been notified so I moved the discussion here. -Nv8200p talk 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't delete the photo yet. Or delete it if you like, as long as undeleting it will be simple. I am contacting that website to get them to release the photos and send an email to permissions telling them the Attribution template is okay to use. I expect that this will happen within 14 days.--Asdfg12345 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely the PRC government would enjoy to see this document deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
kept. Given the quoted licensing text, I think it is a reasonable assumption that {{attribution}} matches the owners' intentions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No evidence permission was granted by the source to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Those pictures have all been released to the public by the Lebanese Forces. You can contact them if you wish and ask yourself. The pictures serve as a memory for Bashir Gemayel.
- --Eternalsleeper (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because the images are available to the public does not mean they were released under the GFDL. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide proof of the permission. -Nv8200p talk 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know they are available for GDFL because I participate on the site.
- --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where on the site is the policy that specifies images are available under the GFDL? -Nv8200p talk 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know they are available for GDFL because I participate on the site.
No evidence Lorne Resnick gave permission to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a professionally made promotional photograph. Note that the uploader doesn't even specify the specific model of the Aston Martin, nor the location of the photoshoot. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me start off by saying that Image:Aston mertin lake.jpg is not an unfree image. It was completely my own creation. The image is made up of 3 actual images, (all taken by me). The Aston Martin car itself, comes from a photograph I took in Providence, RI. The other desert looking image comes from a pond, which is near my house (again taken by me). And finally the mountain in the back is actually an image taken during my travels in Kentucky, Harrodsburg, KY to be exact. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you took the photograph of this Aston Martin in Providence, RI, then why does it have a European license plate? Which model of Aston Martin is depicted? Sorry, but given your questionable upload history and the quality of your other self-created images, I don't buy your explanation. If you would be so kind as to upload the three source images for review, I would gladly consider withdrawing this listing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No evidence Lorne Resnick gave permission to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No evidence Lorne Resnick gave permission to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No evidence painter granted permission to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Has PD-USGov but is a work of Texas Dept. of Corrections Stifle (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know what about this case. This was uploaded by somebody whose only contribution was to upload the image and try to add it to Michael Lohman. Even after assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe that the uploader owned the copyright to the photo and could therefore release it in the public domain. A previous revision of the article has the caption "Michael Lohman in a picture from Princeton University", which suggests that copyright rests with Princeton. — Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now discovered that the uploader uploaded another photo, Image:Lohman2.jpg, which has since been deleted because of an invalid fair use rationale. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation of image on http://mcnary.salkeiz.k12.or.us/ SEWilco (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the image is copyrighted by Ipswich Buses, as the image's description states it's a screen shot of their website — Ratarsed (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC).
- Agreed and is easily replaceable so fair use isn't an option. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)