Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fourthords (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 24 June 2007 (Adding Image:Richardandlauren1.jpg). 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's source or copyright status is disputed or if it is only available under a non-free license.

Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.

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.

June 5

June 6

June 7

Well of course image history is not maintained, because someone moved the original to Wikimedia Commons, where they are going to delete it for completely inappropriate reasons. Unfortunately we had some people who out of good faith decided to remove many sxc.hu images that were uploaded with licenses that were perfectly valid but which the sxc.hu site later changed and falsely relabeled with different licenses. When I tried to explain this situation to the person who left a message on my talk page about one of these photos, it was completely ignored and the image deleted anyway. Now that the image I uploaded is on Commons, it got marked for deletion and I was never alerted to that or given any ooportunity to to explain why they are wrong, and if I want to explain (which, knowing the past history here will probably be ignored by people who mean well but who do not understand the licensing at all) I'd have to sign up for Commons, so they are merrily going to delete the image for no good reason, so I made a new one. I once again totally dispute this dispute tag, and if it gets removed again I will just put it back, because we had full authorization of the photographer WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY UPLOADED. The newer system where you require the photographer to sign whatever and whatever came LATER, and now that we can't track down the photographer some people tossing red tape around are going to delete a perfectly good image that had full authorization because they can;t be bothered to take the time to verify it. Screw that. The PD is proven as it was uploaded to sxc.hu under the broadest possible license back before the new more restrictive license was even created. The source is the photographer's name as given there, searchable at the website I linked to, and the URL for such was given on the first upload. User:N's claims then that there is no source, no proof of license, etc. are all completely false, and once again I was not alerted to an editor's attempt to delete the photo with any message to defend it, I had to take it upon myself to keep an eye on it from knowing how bonehead people deleted a bunch of perfectly good and fully licensed photos in the past. This kind of happy go lucky attack on images to try to stealthily delete them for no good reason is completely against how things are supposed to work here. DreamGuy 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So...if the Wikipedia community decides this image is a copyright violation you admit you'd just re-upload a copyright violation? -N 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No... if the "Wikipedia community" (read: whatever small number of people are paying attention on this particular issue) decides it is a copyright violation, they are simply wrong, as it was very, very, very clearly released by the photographer for use "for any purpose" (under old sxc.hu license) AND I had contacted him to let him know it was on Wikipedia and he was fine with it, but this was BEFORE they had the official forms to fill out. So reuploading it would NOT be a copyright violation, it'd be getting around people like yourself who are obstinate in thinking that things are copyright violations despite all proof to the contrary. The fact that you read all of that info and all you got out of it was that totally screwed up idea in your head that I am willfully violating copyrights is quite remarkable. I think that's a huge violation of WP:Assume good faith. DreamGuy 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Use for any purpopse license" is not the same as public domain. Why don't you contact the copyright holder (the sxc.hu patron), and ask them if they are willing to freely license it? --Iamunknown 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, unfortunately that person has not been around for years, but I already had contacted them years back and got approval, before Wikipedia asked the photographers to explicitly show up and sign a document. It seems ridiculous to have to keep bugging them over and over, and the intent was clearly expressed already, both with the original licensing and with the approval once it was uploaded here. If in another week Wikipedia changes licenses again do we have to re-recontact all these people who signed ofrms yet again to re-reauthorize everything? The people running the red tape here don't seem to think about the god awful headaches they cause with all this changed of things and then expecting it to magically happen without people even bothering to contact the uploaders before deleting (or, as with some photos in the past, contacting but them merrily ignoring everything that was said to explain why what they were doing was wrong). We can't just keep throwing tons of extra work at people for things that were already done. I'd love it if the photographer were still around and came and signed something extra, but it seems to be completely unnecessary. DreamGuy 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, how, exactly, is there a functional difference between a license that explicitly allows someone to use a photo for any purpose without any authorization needed and a public domain license? DreamGuy 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your allegation that there were no restrictions back then is not supported by evidence. According to the Internet Archive (a cache of Internet web pages), the usage restrictions for the site "back then" prohibited commercial resale of the images and derivative use [1]. This is not a free license. -N 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine, so it's not a free license... so we change the license here and still use it but prohibit the companies that want to try to sell these images off to other people from doing so. No big deal. That doesn't mean deleting the photo.
            • DreamGuy, if you want to keep this image, the only method of doing so that will guarantee it is not deleted again is to contact the copyright holder. Please consider doing so (I do like the photograph). Otherwise it should be deleted because the information regarding the copyright status is insufficient to determine whether or not it is free. --Iamunknown 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's nonsense... he was already contacted, which was something I did above and beyond what was necessary, because he licensed it for all uses. User:N's claim about it not being allowed for commercial resale is irrelevant, as he explicitly allowed it to be used in other ways. So perhaps the current tag is not appropriate, but neither is deleting it, because it is 100% proven to have been licensed for use. 21:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "as he [the photographer at sxc.hu] explicitly allowed it to be used in other ways" - but not for commercial reuse? --Iamunknown 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Commercial re-use in flyers and on mugs and such is allowed. Commercial re-sale (ie, selling high-resolution copies of the image) is prohibited. Also certain uses, such as promoting hate are prohibited. Sadly this is an unfree restriction. -N 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns DVD cover art? If I would like to use the cover art from a DVD, who generally owns the rights to it (i.e., who needs to give me permission)? Thank you.209.10.41.94bill

All are used in the American Indian College Fund article. They have been tagged free subject to attribution, but looking at the source of the images I doubt that this is the case. The source page of the image has a copyright line at the bottom[2] and the general terms of use of the media kit[3], which these images are NOT a part of, would be too restrictive IMHO for WP free use so I doubt that an advertising series would be under less strict licensing. Ultimately I see no evidence at present to back up the uploaders claim. There could be a fair use claim for inclusion of one (or possibly more) of the images as the campaign is discussed in the article, but I also think that the same could be achieved through linking to the external source page.Madmedea 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

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.

June 9

Utah Transit Authority maps

All of these are used only by permission and do not qualify as fair use.

—Remember the dot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the permission (not only-Wikipedia use) where Mises.org also guarantee that they own the copyright is needed. /Lokal_Profil 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS permission received and added to image. Removed tag. MECU≈talk 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Да, уже достаточно давно стал замечать появление моих фотографии в "Википедии" (именно за счет обратных ссылок на мой сайт ;) Конечно же, я не возражаю против подобного их использования (при соблюдении условия размещения обратных ссылок на мой сайт) Более того, я приветствую подобные публикации. Мотивы этого Вы поняли совершенно верно: во-первых, - широкое информирование о нашей ПРЕКРАСНОЙ УКРАИНЕ, во-вторых, - популяризация и моего сайта.
      Yes, I have noticed appearance of my photos in Wiki for quite while, due to the references on my site. Obviously I do not object. Morover I enjoy such publications... Firstly because it provides information about our beautiful Ukraine, secondly it is a promotion for my site
    • По поводу лицензирования...
      Судя по тому, что Вы написали по поводу лицензии GFDL, мне представляется более целесообразным именно использование GFDL; мне импонирует "свободная републикация, требующая сохранения ссылки на исходный источник, но обязующая не вводить новых ограничений на использование производных работ"...
      Regarding licensing, according to that you have written about GFDL, I like to use GFDL for my works...
    • Ведь я правильно понял, что и по GFDL, под фразой "В обоих случаях Ваше

авторство будет указано" подразумевается именно указание прямой ссылки на мой сайт???

    • I guess I correctly understood that GFDL provides for the direct reference to my site
    • З повагою,
      Сергій Клименко
      With respect Sergyi Klimenko

Unlikely that copyright holder has released all rights. Garion96 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

June 11

  • Image:Micaela nevarez2.jpg - Uploader asserts image is public domain because it is an "Official photograph released by the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico", citing http://www.prpop.org/noticias/sept06/fotos/micaela_nevarez1.jpg as the photo source. However, the main page of that site, http://www.prpop.org/ bears a copyright notice: "©2007 Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular." Note that while there is a public domain template for US Federal government images, that tag also notes that images produced by commonwealths, of which Puerto Rico is one, are not (automatically) granted public domain status. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User C.Fred deleted the wrong photo. The photo he deleted is a SCREENSHOT form the film Princesas. I have properly labeled the photograph. I have reverted the photograph from the info box as I have properly labeled this photograph as a screenshot. The photo in question is outside the infobox and now that photo has been properly labeled. --XLR8TION 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. That one I removed because, plain and simple, fair use is not argued. I'm talking about the image that is labeled public domain, where I dispute the categorization of the image as PD. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture is a Commonwealth office promoting the culture and values of Puerto Rico. The caption on the photograph indicates La Fortaleza which is the official Governor's Office. The photo was released from this office.

Second, I e-mailed the press office but have not heard back from them. They might be swamped, but patience is a virtue. Here is a copy of the text I e-mailed them (in Spanish):

Estimado Senor/Senora:

Quiero saber si hay una manera de recibir permiso de La Fortaleza para utilizar una foto del Gobernador para un articulo que estoy escribiendo enlinea. Escribe un articulo sobre la actriz puertorriquena, Micaela Nevarez para la enciclopedia Wikipedia, y necesito una e-mail de La Fortaleza que me permitira usar la foto de la reunion que el Gobernador tuvo con Micaeala. El link al articulo es http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micaela_Nev%C3%A1rez

Quiero utilizar la segunda foto en el medio de articulo. Si es posiblie, por favor enviame un email dandome permiso paras utilizar la foto. Asi la foto se quedara en articulo sin problemas legales.

Sinceremente,


Luis Hernandez

I am awaiting a response. Usual turn around time is a week. --XLR8TION 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

June 12

Thats right, I have uploaded about 30 images, right? Don't make up stories. You might as well be prepared with having fun with tagging my images. I'm searching for any good ones to put on Goguryeo. Good friend100 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the copyright. Even no problem in the copyright issue, it is not acceptable to put screenshots of a TV-series into a history article like Goguryeo (unless there is explicitly a section on "TV series on Goguryeo", but in this case the caption is wrong and it is improper to use the image elsewhere).--Jiejunkong 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not fair use for an article which does not discuss the TV series depicted.Madmedea 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Obamaharvard.JPG tagged for speedy delete. --HailFire 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both copyvio images removed from Barack Obama article. --HailFire 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:RosAsmDisassembler.png- Screenshot shown appears to be of the Microsoft Calculator program. ShakespeareFan00 09:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Rajiva01.jpg - The tag used indicate that the uploader is the copyright holder and that any use is permited, however the original upload summary indicate that it was simply found on Google images (no actal source), how this fits with the asertion that permission to use the image was given I don't know but even so a simple permissino to use is not sufficient to say it's been released for any purpose. Sherool (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Tina_yuzuki.jpg editor claims to have taken the photo himself, looks taken from the internet here --Beaker342 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Kazimierz_Dabrowski_3.jpg - Uploader labels this as coming from his personal collection. This only means he has the photo in his possession. It does not mean he is the copyright holder. howcheng {chat} 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion. Personal photos are almost never registered for copyright. Inheriting/being given the photo is the same as an informal assignment of copyright in those cases. -N 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give me a reference to support that statement as it is not something I've heard before. Thanks. Madmedea 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok you caught me. I have no proof. It just kind of followed that if someone owns the original photograph of something, they'd obtain the rights. Of course, the argument depends on owning the original photograph, which in any case we have no proof of here. -N 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well done for being honest ;) I'm not sure ownership of a copy, (as all photographs are essentially copies of a negative/digital image) of a photograph necessarily the same as owning copyright - which normally belongs to the creator of the image - so the photographer. If its a photo from a personal collection then the owner should be able to contact the photographer or his/her heirs and ask permission - unless they've been dead long enough for copyright to have lapsed. I'm not an expert though... sounds pedantic but I think its the way it goes... Madmedea 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Rhmi2.jpg Picture appears on a US Army website, but there's no indication that the image was created by a government employee, which is necessary to be sure the image is free. nadav (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright clarification query sent to "page master" from [9]. If no reply received in a few days I'll try another POC. -N 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the alt text of the image on the external link provided: Michaux's Sumac; Photo Credit Ft. Bragg ESB/Photo by: ESB Staff. Since the ESB is a branch of the Army's Directorate of Public Works, it's part of the federal government and photographs taken by its employees while on the clock fall into the Public Domain. {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} seems the most appropriate tag. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Anniehardy01.JPG - uploader claims that they created the image and that they have released it into the public domain. Though the image appears to be a screen-shot and therefore would be bound by copyright of the television program from which it was captured. Dismas|(talk) 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dismas is a son of a bitch who probably suspects every image uploaded by a newbie is unfree. He makes up stories and happily tags these images as unfree. Right? Its mine, and if you delete it, its not like I can't upload it again.Tuskjet 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have left a notice on User:Tuskjet's talk page asking him to refrain from personal attacks. With regard to the image there is no evidence at present to indicate that the uploader did not create the image. Madmedea 09:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no evidence. I'll agree with you there. All I have is circumstantial. What I see is the following:
  1. The user has made a total (as of now) of 18 edits. Two of them, [10] and [11], have been vandalism. A third was the removal of the PUI tag on an image when the tag clearly states, "Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered". And two others were personal attacks.
  2. The user has stated that they created both images that they uploaded but when this was called into question, they stated on my talk page, "FUCKING ASSHOLE. DELETE THAT MASUIMI MAX IMAGE BUT THE ANNIE HARDY IMAGE IS MINE." If both were created by Tuskjet, why cave in on one of them? The other image that they're referring to is in the section for June 13, below.
  3. As of late, there have been at least two other images that have been uploaded and used on the Masuimi Max article. Both were copyrighted images. Both had users, both anon and registered, who kept adding the images back into the article even though it was explained to them that the images couldn't be used. The timing on this makes the Masuimi Max image suspect to me. And since they were both uploaded by the same user...
Basically, I just don't trust what this user is claiming as to the creation of this image. Dismas|(talk) 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, no offense to this user, but his history suggests this is likely a copyvio, especially in light of the fact it appears professional. Images of this grade are rarely to never pd-self, or at very least the uploader will have the wits to leave a specific license. In any case, copyright problems are the opposite of wikipedia policy: our policy states assume good faith, but with copyrights, this is not possible - we need to be careful, and the onus is on the creator to prove otherwise - thus our stringent image policies. The Evil Spartan 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

I am not quite sure with Image:Hagiasophia1.jpg which has been uploaded by somebody else. As i am not familiar with the many speedy deletion templates you guys use on en (we do fine with one, but that's a matter of taste... ;-) i would ask you to place the right warning tag. Thank you. --Magadan ?! 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

Image:BSRB1.jpg appears to be a popular photo listed by university public relations in an image achive established on its website as available for download, see: http://www.med.umich.edu/prmc/services/favorites/photos.html. why is it being questioned?Thomas Paine1776 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

June 16

June 17

June 18

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The photographs of Lydia Koidula, Carl Robert Jakobson, Konrad Mägi, Georg Hackenschmidt are all taken prior to 1923 and released in the United States prior to 1923. The photographs the remaining individuals are being used in accordance with the Copyright Laws of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code and are being used solely for nonprofit, educational, research purposes to illustrate biographies of said individuals. ExRat 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

  • Australian War Memorial images Many images that came from the Australian War Memorial (AWM) are considered to be in the public domain in Australia. Yet an e-mail from the AWM says that the watermark must not be removed and that the images may not be used commercially. Ordinarily I would way that the AWM has no right to impose restrictions on a public domain work, but then I realized that the AWM is part of the Australian government.
    So, what should we do? I think an acceptable course of action would be to take the images which are confirmed to be public domain in the United States (by either year of publication or year of the author's death) and losslessly crop the AWM watermark off of them using Jpegcrop. AWM images not confirmed to be in the public domain in the United States should be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they're OK as is - all the AWM images I've uploaded have their copyright status listed as 'clear' on the AWM's online database (which isn't an automatic thing, as more recent photos have a label stating that either the AWM or the photographer holds copyright), and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they'd be covered by copyright if they were taken before 1955. To the best of my knowledge, no complaints have been recieved from the AWM and the last times this was discussed (see: [18], [19] and [20]) it was decided that the images were out of copyright and the AWM can't enforce its request for pre-1955 photos. --Nick Dowling 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick for alerting me to this. I am not a lawyer, but I have had professional experience with Australian copyright law. To the best of my knowledge, the AWM is wrong to insist on the retention of watermarks, serial numbers or even that they be attributed. I think attribution of the AWM and the photographer (if known) in captions is a reasonable policy (although I have been remiss in this regard myself occasionally). I believe that copyright-free status in Australia is indivisible.
I also have some experience of the inner workings of government agencies, as the AWM undoubtedly is, which tells me that they will attempt to do things which are not within their power, if they think they can get away with it. Grant | Talk 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian copyright council's factsheet on this issue (http://www.copyright.org.au/G023.pdf) states that photographs taken by Australian government agencies are out of copyright if the are both over 50 years of age and taken before 1969 (see Table 2, page 5). The National Library of Australia's website states that this rule applies to the photos in its huge online collections, which I believe includes all the photos on the AWM's database (see: http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/pic_copyright.html ). As such, I think that it's pretty clear that the photos on the AWM's database which were taken prior to 1969 and are over 50 years of age are out of copyright. I don't see any benefit from removing the AWM's watermark, however, as this is useful in verifying the photo's copyright details on the AWM database and its caption, where it was taken, etc. --Nick Dowling 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The license on the original states "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law" Alvis 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
The license tag says that but the summary handwritten by the author says differently. I'm afraid the boilerplate tag doesn't cut it if they manually write something different. -N 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I assumed the tag that the user posted which granted more rights to the image took precedence since you can't retract rights from a license once granted. In this case, we need to delete BOTH images then, because the original violates wiki watermark policy. Alvis 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm content to just leave them listed here, eventually they'll be deleted. -N 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the creator doesn't really understand public domain; what he wrote is most like {{cc-nd}}. As it stands, I agree there is no choice but deleting the images. It's possible that the "nd" is only to preserve the credit at the bottom of the image; if this is the case, it may be possible to convince the creator to relicense it as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}} with the attribution satisfied by text on the image description page rather than in the image itself. Anomie 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

The image can be found on Alwyn Uytingco's MySpace page

June 21

This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is my source giving the unveiling date as 1919. I'll add info to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statue was created before 1923, and therefore is ineligible for copyright. Here is a photo taken in 1914. Uris 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man has a point. Madmedea 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute his statement, but I must be blind. I don't see the statue in that b&w picture. And I would still like to see as much information on artist/year of manufacture as he could gather. -N 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was unveiled in 1907 and was sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel. Here is my source. I'll add the information to the photo's own page as well. Uris 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How weird perspective is. The statue looks huge in your picture. The other pictures make it look tiny. That's why I was so confused. -N 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The columned building is none other than The Rotunda, constructed in 1826. It is ineligible for copyright. This image is a derivative work of my own photograph of this public domain building. (Fonts cannot be copyrighted.) I'll add this info to the image's own page as well. Uris 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

June 23

June 24
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=140364427"