Jump to content

Wikipedia:Image sleuthing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeimusu (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 15 February 2005 (→Gymnastics icons). 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, up to three new images may be listed here. Sleuths can then 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 should 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:Droaspamsmall.png

File:Droaspamsmall.png
Sleuthing from Feb 9 to 15
  • Used in Domain slamming
  • It's a scan of a fraudulent letter a guy received. What is it? Fair use? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use, It has a clear source and I don't know any copyright law that allows public domain rights over material that was created for the purpose of fraud. Beyond that it is an inferior copy, which doesn't detract from the value (if any) of the original. But there are some other issues here. 1) Libel. We shouldn't say this is a fraud unless it has been through the courts. This is also for the sake of NPOV. 2)Trademarks. The page is littered with trademarks of credit cards, their rights in respect of those marks need to be mentioned. 3)Privacy. Perhaps there are laws covering the disclosure of mail. There are in France.(?). Tagged. — Zeimusu | Talk 01:33, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • But it does detract from the fraudulent value of the original, since by exposing the fraud to a large audience we render it less likely that the scam will work. Can we safely assume that a suit based on this claim would get laughed out of court? I sure hope so. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • We can't assume anything about the american courts. But I still say fair use. A stonger case for fair use could be made like this: Replace the current image with a thumbnail size one but quote from the text in the article (this is also good for accessabliy) — Zeimusu | Talk 02:51, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Image:Dresdengermany.jpg

File:Dresdengermany.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 9 to 15
Newly uploaded replacement
File:Dresdenschool.jpg
Possible replacement?
  • Used in Dresden school
  • The image description page says "The owner of that standard picture can not be found and is probably dead, the picture is quasi public property." But quasi isn't good enough. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google image search on "Dresden school" return 658 images, but not this one.
  • Reading the article (which needs clean-up, by the way), I'm not sure how the image is relevant at all. Wouldn't a photo of an example of the style be more appropriate? A crop of [this stamp], for instance? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your link seems to be busted. About that image, is it showing off the architecure of Dresden? If I were reading that article, which I did, I assume those buildings in the picture were an example of Dresden school architecture. --MaxPower 15:46, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Possible free replacements: [1], [2], [3], [4]. These photographs were taken between 1890 and 1900 using an early color process (they look a bit like lithographs or colorized drawings, but they really are photographs). Unfortunately, the LoC web site is design is quite bad, making it nearly impossible to get a working, permanent link to the meta-data for these images; one possible method is to go here and search for "Dresden". --MarkSweep 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the image appears to be a painting and a candidate for ((PD-art)), ((PD-art-life-70)), etc. --MarkSweep 02:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Unlikely, look closely and you can see automobiles. This picture is probably from the 1930s and copyright. I'd go for replacement. Your first link looks good to me. — Zeimusu | Talk 07:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
    • Actually I've changed my mind, in the context of "Dresden school architecture" the last of those images is better. — Zeimusu | Talk 08:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
      • (grumble) Well, that requires a lot more work to make it look decent. Maybe next week. --MarkSweep 08:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Images look to me like genuine beginning of the century “colorized” postcards, you can see on the street wear that they were taken before WWI. GeneralPatton 14:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:EK 1class.png and Image:EK 2class.png

File:EK 1class.png
Sleuthing from Feb 10 to Feb 16
File:EK 2class.png
Sleuthing from Feb 10 to Feb 16
Nazi Germany obviously no longer exists so they cant push a copyright lawsuit. If these are unusable there must certainly be a black and white photograph of these from the 1940s that can be colorized. User:Alkivar/sig 21:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This one is tough. These appear to be photographs, so there are two issues: the copyright of the original design, and the copyright of the photos. The design was, presumably, copyright Nazi Germany. I don't think those copyrights have passed down and been claimed by any government or organization, but I'm not sure. And the design may not have been copyrighted at all. (The Iron Cross and the swastika are both much older symbols.) Current German law says the copyright for "works" expires 50 years after the death of the author, or 50 years after publication if the author is a corporation. So the design may very well be in the public domain. As for the photos, I have no idea who took them, or when, but I left a note on the uploader's talk page asking him where they came from. With what we know now, I think ((fairold)) would be safe, since they might be PD, and (I think) they would be fairuse otherwise. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:03, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Iron Cross is an 19th century design (read the artice folks), the photos come from widely distributed period propaganda postcards. GeneralPatton 14:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Postcards, eh? You wouldn't happen to know who made them, would you? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:25, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the Iron Cross is cropped out, I guess the state printed them, they were used as wartime propaganda. GeneralPatton 23:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, great. Then let's assume Nazi Germany has no greater legal status to claim copyright at this point than any corporation. That would mean these are in the public domain. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:E.U. Essien Udom3.jpg

File:E.U. Essien Udom3.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 11 to Feb 17
  • Used in E.U. Essien-Udom
    • Was on "Webster Dictionary"? [5], but is no longer? [6] --Tagishsimon (talk)
    • That site, which does not seem to be associated with Mirriam Webster, is (or was) a partial wikipedia mirror. — Zeimusu | Talk 06:18, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Image:Falafel.jpg

Sleuthing from Feb 12 to Feb 18
  • Used in Falafel
  • Uploader has been inactive since May, but I have sent an email. [[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 06:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: Hmmm well you can just search for Falafel at Google Images, I think I found it there...
[[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 02:18, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well then, almost certainly non-free. I'd say this is best to be recreated.
  • Anybody know where I can get a PD pic of a falafel? Anybody have a camera and frequent mediteranian restaurants? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg

File:EtzionPrisoners.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 12 to Feb 18
  • Used in Kfar Etzion massacre
  • So what was the copyright status in Israel, just before it became a country? This image-sleuthing thing gets complicated! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:07, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • It was under British administration, though this was probably taken on the day of independance. I haven't found it on Google or LOC, and the uploader is taking a break from wikipedia. Perhaps, Quadell, you could email him? Other than that, if we are taking the image of Dresden to be fair use then so surely is this. — Zeimusu | Talk 05:44, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Image:DeclarationOfTheTie.jpg

File:DeclarationOfTheTie.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 13 to Feb 19
  • Used in Claus von Amsberg
  • Found at [7] Though I suspect the original source is dutch magazine. Looking at the page, and the image I think not fair use (newspaper-like image, not required to illustrate the point as it is a secondary image.) Remove from page and delete. — Zeimusu | Talk 02:34, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
  • I took if from the web, no idea from which site, not the one mentioned. It was a picture that was in all Dutch newspapers and the speech was on televison several times, again when he died. Prince Claus uses an official public speech to cast off his tie and calls (only half joking) all to follow his example. It illustrates how a royalty, not by birth, feels strangled by protocol and seeks an outlet. He was famous in the Netherlands for this and likewise events, similar to what we know of lady Di. Erik Zachte 13:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to call it fair use. It's a historic event, albeit a minor one. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not fair. The image is being used to illustrate a point (which is explained very clearly by Erik above) Well we can say that, why do we need an image? We aren't creating something useful and new by including this image, in fact we are only making an image availible, "superseding the objects" of the original. This use is not "transformative", furthermore the image is of reasonable quality, the event is historical but hardly on the scale of, say, Dresden. (Of course the fact that the image has been widely used doesn't affect it's copyright status.) Sorry but I don't think we can use this image. — Zeimusu | Talk 09:12, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • (I assume you mean you don't think we can use it.) Any other opinions? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • yes, "don't". Actually I have many opinions but this isn't the place. I think the other Claus image is fair use. But I am still not still not a lawyer and I have been wrong before. — Zeimusu | Talk

Image:Delphinium.jpg

Sleuthing from Feb 13 to Feb 19

Various ogg C scales

Image:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg

File:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 14 to Feb 20
  • Used in Dominant minority
  • Found [8] Original caption "Apartheid signage, 1953 (Bailey's African History Archives)" Copyright in South africa is life+50. It looks unlikely that this is PD. Fair use? Possible, but I think unlikely. The image is principally acting as decoration because the fact "Non-whites were threatened with death" can be made without the image. The image use here superceeds the orginal. — Zeimusu | Talk 01:59, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • That's disappointing. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe in a more relevant page. History of South Africa would benefit from this image. In that context it might be fair. — Zeimusu | Talk 02:08, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Gymnastics icons

  • These eight tiny images may be copyrighted; I'm not sure.
  • Used in Gymnastics at the 2004 Summer Olympics
  • ((PD-ineligible))? I'm not sure if generic logos like these can be copyrighted. --MarkSweep 02:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say they can be copyrighted. The amount of creativety is small, but only a small amount of creativity is needed: Recreate if not free — Zeimusu | Talk 03:31, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Image:Foto-23-groot (2).jpg

File:Foto-23-groot (2).jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 15 to Feb 21

Image:00763.jpg

File:00763.jpg
Sleuthing from Feb 15 to Feb 21
  • Used in Alexander Ovechkin
  • This would be fair use, but look at the page. It's loaded with images! Can we claim that each one is required for the sake of the article? — Zeimusu | Talk 02:08, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_sleuthing&oldid=10277027"