Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevenj (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 12 March 2006 (→March 12). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

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 criteria 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 nessesary 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 (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

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.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are 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 are 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.

None at this time.

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.

February 22

  • The image is not a copyrighted work, it's similar enough to a trademark that people who know what it is supposed to look like recognise it. Much like if I made my own swoop, Nike could not sue me for copyright infringement. If you're thinking that this is trademark infringement, that would be a matter for a judge - this is definately not a copyright issue. Janizary 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? What's with that!--Fir0002 www 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

February 25

I respectfully disagree. This is free clip art. This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif. Here are some free clip art websites which lists it for free use: [[1]][[2]]

Please advise on my talk page. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-28-2006 17:33 (UTC)

February 26

  • Image:Ahn.jpg - It says "Reuters" on the corner, so how can the uploader claim "The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it ...." Does the uploader own Reuters ? Or did Reuters steal this pic from the uploader ? -- PFHLai 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Ethier2.jpg - Uploader of the image asserts that the image is copyrighted and The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. The website terms of use agreement (mlb.com) states in part:All materials distributed in the Website (the "Materials") are either owned by or licensed to MLBAM. MLBAM and its licensors retain all proprietary rights to the Materials. Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you must not reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, perform or display the Materials without first obtaining the written permission of MLBAM. Materials must not be used in any unauthorized manner. [3] No Guru 18:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:BradThomas.jpg - suffers from same copyright restrictions as previous image. The MLB terms of use page severly restricts use of their content. - No Guru 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

February 28

copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged Image:Ice spike.jpg as a possibly-unfree image, but I believe we have permission to use the photograph.
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Ice spike photographs

  Hi there.

  I just read your fascinating page on ice spike formation, and was
  wondering if you'd mind if I uploaded one of the photographs to the
  Wikipedia community encyclopedia?  The credit would read:

    This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use 
    it for any purpose.

    Photographer: Kenneth G. Libbrecht <[email protected]>

  My thanks in advance.
The reply:
  You can use an ice spike picture, but with a different credit line:
  Photo provided by Kenneth Libbrecht (http://www.snowcrystals.com)

  ********************************************************** 
  Kenneth G. Libbrecht
  Professor of Physics and Physics Executive Officer
  Office: 263 W. Bridge
  Address: 264-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
  e-mail: [email protected]
  URL: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/
  **********************************************************
--Ghakko 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but permission to use is one thing (unfortunately we don't allow "exclusive" permission only images), permission to re-publish under a free license is something else entierly and as far as I can tell he did not agree to actualy do that. Unless you can convince him to explicitly release the photo under the GFDL, or a compatable CC license or whatever (see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission) I'd suggest we just delete this image and have someone make a free photo of an ice spike instead. Alternatively tag this as {{fairusein|Ice spike}}{{withpermission}}{{fairusereplace}}, but we are not rely supposed to use fair use images unless it's impossible to make a free alternative, wich should not be all that hard in this case. --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

March 2

Found it - it's an AP image http://web.ripnet.com/~nimmos/under_the_kilt.html so clearly a violation. Trapper 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

  • Image:Tiny Tove.jpg - This is a promotiional image, used with permission, with a few restrictions. This seems to beyond what's allowed. Given the full sized/commercial quality, it seems it doesn't meet fairuse requirements. --Rob 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest scaling down to size used in article and deleting other revisions. -SCEhardT 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only restriction given is that the image maintain the Color Climax Corporation logo. They have no problem with global reproduction as long as the image maintains the logo, hell they dont even have a problem with commercial use of said image. As such its a "used with permission notwithstanding we claim fair use" situation. Quite clearly they dont give a crap what we do with it as long as their logo is attached.  ALKIVAR™ 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see permission for derivitative works. Also, regardless of that, even a trivial restriction, like a mark on the image itseslf, is to much for Wikipedia. Jimbo has (it seems) opted to treat "use with permission" in the same boat as unlicensed images. It has to be used under WP:FAIR, which means it must have a rationale, and it must be low resolution. Legally, Wikipedia could use this image if it wanted to, but by policy, Wikipedia has opted to delete huge numbers of images it's been permitted to use, due to its insistence on a type free license. So, really, we're not talking about the restrictions of the copyright holder, but the restrictions imposed by Wikipedia policy. --Rob 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Elton John 2.jpg - False licence, not an album cover. feydey 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Web site: http://www.indiasplayhouse.com/hosted/racecar/?affiliate=960449 - Was a shot from this page. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a "shot" is not the same as a screenshot, i.e. still not a web page screenshot. feydey 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go ahead and delete it, I thought it was fair use. Sorry. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

March 6

March 7

March 8

March 9

March 10

We cannot annonymously claim fair use. I am fine with a fair use claim if given which archive these images are originaly from. If they have been coppied illegaly from archives or websites they must be deleted. (counties generaly want to regulate the material. You can comment on the material (Ie write a book) but you cant make copies.)
For example: www.armenian-genocide.org copyright notice suggests:
"COPYING-AND-PASTING" OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON ANI'S WEB SITE TO YOUR WEB SITE, INCLUDING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MAPS, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY PORTION OF ANY MAP, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONSTITUTING ANY PART OF ANI'S WEB SITE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED (See Publishing below for further information). [8]
Think this scneraio: Images were coppied from http://www.armenian-genocide.org to http://www.armeniapedia.org (a wiki most images are sourced at) and to us. This would put wikipedia at a problematic situation. A fair use claim cannot apply.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Otcsposter.jpg - tagged as GFDL-self. Problem. It's been created from a screenshot from a copyrighted computer game. Such use of the screenshot wouldn't fall under fair use (and you couldn't GFDL a derivative work of such anyway). Also unknown as to the copyright statuses on the other photos this is made from. On the offchance that's explained away, there's also the "by permission" nature of the sentence on the description page; "author authorizes use on Wikipedia." Rob Church (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

March 12

  • Image:Laroche.jpg labeled as "personal photo" and tagged as {{No rights reserved}}, but it seems unlikely that such a close up action shot from that angle could be made by a spectator at a baseball game. I could be mistaken naturaly, but a lot of uploaders seems to think they own the copyright to anything they have bought a copy off(magazines, movies, trading cards etc), so I'd like to see some more source info on this before I'm comfortable with the "no rights" license. --Sherool (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg taken from a U.S. government web site (which usually means its PD). However, this same image was was deleted from Commons (see log) because it is copyrighted material. ABC holds the copyright. It was a "Courtesy photo". It's important to note that the photo was submitted by " 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing", but "submitted by" is different than "photo by". Its common for the two to be different. "Photo by" is who took the photo (which effects copyright). "Submitted by" is the employee who uploaded the image (e.g. its equivilent to an uploader in Wikipedia, who might not be the copyright holder). Unfortunately/confusingly, U.S. military web sites will display copyrighted material, provided as a "courtesy". They will show corporate logos, DVD covers, promotional shots, screenshots, etc... The simple fact it's on the web site, does not mean its PD. The default assumption of being on the web site is its PD, but in this case, its reasonable to conclude that this is not the case. This is simply not a work of the U.S. government. Note: the law doesn't say "stuff of U.S. government web sites are free", it says works of the U.S. government. My position is obviously disputed by the uploader, though. --Rob 15:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Nyumbani.gif tagged as NoRightsReserved, but the source is listed as www.rehupa.com which says nothing about relinquishing any rights (it does say that "all articles are copyright by their authors" [9]). —Steven G. Johnson 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=43446718"