Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Komdori (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 27 July 2006 (→July 27). 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 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 (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 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.

16 May


11 July

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.

July 12

*Image:Black Hole (2006).jpg listed as web-screenshot, but is not a screen capture of a website and appears to be a copyrighted image. Ytny 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They still need fair use rationale and I'm not sure if all or some of them qualify as fair use. Ytny 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Reuters photo, actually. :) Ytny 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was there, and they aren't the photographer. I've reverted them, but will leave the image tagged for a reasonable period of time.
— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

July 13

Uploader owns the website - see User talk:ScottMainwaring near the bottom. --Liface 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Rosales2003.jpg - Uploader claims that this 2003 photo is public domain according to the copyright law of the Philippines. This law protect photos for 50 years after first publication, eg. photos from 1955 or earlier are public domain. No source was given that the photographer released the photo to the public domain. Thuresson 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Lain.jpg - uploader claims to be the person who took the photo, yet this claim seems suspicious, and the uploader has not yet come back with further details to back claim up. A quick Google Image Search reveals a possible source for this image: here. Yet the source website does not list there how it got the image in the first place, nor can I see any copyright info. Further searching with Google does not reveal any additional info. Tabercil 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Granville Street Map.jpg - uploader lists the image as a web screenshot, but is clearly an image cropped out of a Google Maps page, not of the website itself. And as with the case with all Google Maps images, all rights reserved. Ytny 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What should I list it as, then? NeoThe1 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

it is screenshot, not downloaded image. site generate them using jscript. Elk Salmon 09:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm this. Of course, that still leaves the issue of the watermark and the fact that it could only be used in articles about the website, rather than the buildings. And there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag.--Daduzi talk 10:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of minor errors in the above. Where I wrote "there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be", I should have said "there is an article about the website". And where I said "I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag" I should have said "I've removed the PUI tag but haven't tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, as doing so would be the act of a foolish individual who fails to carefully check search results and/or user contributions." Apologies for any confusion. --Daduzi talk 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a (or from a) screenshot, but I've visited skyscraperPage.com and it doesn't appear to be a screenshot of a web page, but instead an image taken from a screenshot, which the web-screenshot license covers, and it still needs a fair use rationale. Ytny 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other images uploaded by user without fairuse rationale are: Image:J Finch.jpg, Image:Gulbis.JPG, Image:Francoeur.jpg (misused promo tag), Image:ScottField.jpg, Image:TMKParkNight.jpg and Image:TMKPark.jpg.

July 15

  • Image:S'mores.jpg Page is copyrighted and in Japanese so no way to confirm (and it is doubtful) that the image is copyright free use -Nv8200p talk 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Twoflue 2.GIF - Image does not qualify for fair use (see my talk page for dispute details). Also, no fair use rationale provided. --Hetar 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it does. The source is clearly provided, links and copyrights are provided. I checked everything out and it is easily fair use. The image is clearly used on the harpoon article, since it is a harpoon and that is all. From reading User_talk:Hetar#Image:Twoflue_2.GIF, I do think it has to be used on the museum page, since the only way that this image is connected to the musuem is just that the image came from that museums's website. I do not think the musuem even has an article. Besides that, this image, IMHO, meets all of the requirements of fair use and has a lot better fair use rationale than many of the photos we have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still a bit boggled by this. We've agreed that the image is well sourced, and yet there is a template on the image and article page saying that it's not sourced, and soon to be deleted. We've agreed that (like many other images from museums on Wikipedia), it's used with a carefully written justification of fair use rationale with respect to a specific article. Hetar has gone from topic to topic to topic, each time changing the suggestion of what it is that he's concerned about. First it was that the image had no copyright information. Then it was that the image violated counter-example 2 in WP:FAIR. Then it was that the image had a copyright notice that was not a template. Now, it's a claim that there are other images to use. My head is spinning, and I'm left wondering: if the original reason for concern is refuted, then how long do I have to spend on this one minor image? If we're looking to combat unfree images, then I think we're done, and we can go back to working on improving Wikipedia. -Harmil 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Longewala.jpg - Two conflicting licenses, I don't believe the uploader knows what license (if any) it is released under. --Hetar 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the user has changed the licensing. Source certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .
CommentSource certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .
It’s not about the source. By which fair use criteria does the image qualify? (Strikeout removed and tag restored, by the way, until this is really cleared up.) — xyzzyn 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fair Use rationale provided certainly qualifies. I would say that is fair-use image ranam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.207.112.194 (talk • contribs) .
The fair use rationale provided certainly qualifies as a very strong indication that whoever wrote the rationale had not previously read and understood WP:FU. That the image is useful, unique or otherwise desirable does not, per se, enable its use under United States copyright law (or, for that matter, equivalent laws in many other places) and no other reason why fair use would apply is given. —xyzzy n 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According preceding comment by user xyzzy, Heading titled General of WP:FU article states the following: Briefly, these indicate that 1. The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical. 2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as the quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original). 3. The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work for instance by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work though not through criticism or parody.
The image Image:Longewala.jpg seems to me to attempt to be descriptive and educational with regards to the object of the original (i.e, attempt to desribe a.The impact of the Indian Air Force's operations on the Pakistani Armoured thrust in the Longewala Sector during the Indo-Pak War of 1971, b. That these actions were instrumental in preventing the same column in achieveing it's objectives, and c. That the force under consideration was soundly and resolutely defeated by the Indian Air Force as a paricipant in the Battle of Longewala. The image does not attempt to supercede the object of the image. It certainly does not infringe on the copyright owner's (Indian Air Force's) ability to exploit his original work by acting either as a direct market substitute for the original work or through criticism or parody.
I believe that qualifies as Fair Use, other opinions welcome.- ranam.
See counterexamples 4, 5. —xyzzyn 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the preceding comment re: see counterexamples by user xyzzy, the section states the following: Counterexamples

Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use:

1.An article containing one or more unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source. 2.An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses. 3.A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use. 4.A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably Fair Use where we have a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.) 5.A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles. 6.An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Honus Wagner article. 7.An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. An image found on the Internet whose original source is unknown and that happens to contain the subject.

The image itself is certainly iconic, see [7], and also for information, photos taken during thie same PR recce mission showing the same tank tracks adorn the VIP entrance at Vayu Bhavan (IAF House), New Delhi. The image is certainly descriptive of the article in question, I don't see why this is getting so drawn out. By xyzzy's argument, no photograph from this mission would qualify as fair use because he disagrees. I think this is unfair.-ranam

I agree with the arguments made by ranam as to why this image qualifies as fair use. -shreyam
If the image is iconic, you should be able to find better evidence than a single post in a forum. —xyzzyn 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [8], also [9]captures the same object under consideration. This is not a free image. Also, xyzzy previous comment re:counterexamples counterexamples 4, and 5 does not hold ground since the image: Longewala.jpg is not a work of art. It's purpose was to provide photographic evidence of the extent and effect of the IAF's assault on Pakistani armour in the Longewala sector. It is certainly used in the original context. I think xyzzy is making a drawn out but ultimately baseless argument. Is this an effort trying to censor this image??? Besides you certainly have the opinion of two people agreeing that this image satisfies the fair use doctrine. The opinion of one person seems to be holding this image hostage.-shreyam
The image is a work in the sense of copyright law. Whether it is art in the narrow sense is irrelevant here. By the way, two people? Really? With the same IP signing for both? —xyzzyn 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same IP address because the users accessing the page from the same IP portal. Anyways, I agree with the Fair Use rationale argument that ranam has made. It certainly qualifies as fair use, I'd say.N_Watson
…User’s first edit, account created today. —xyzzyn 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being???
Comment uploader is now asserting "with permission" on the individual description pages. Jkelly 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC). Tag removed[reply]

July 16

This is a digital image of an album cover. Jkelly 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is fine. Source is only needed to determine the copyright holder. It doesn't matter who scanned the album cover, since the copyright holder is the record company, and the {{albumcover}} tag is sufficient. —Bkell (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi News Agency photo. was a government controlled news agency under saddam. since his government was overthrown, i assumed copyright claims became null.Anthonymendoza 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, show that the overthrow of the Iraqi government had any effect on copyright law. Thank you. Thuresson 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another user, Jkelly, updated the licensing section of the photo. this user believes the photo is in the public domain based on some research. Anthonymendoza 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

July 18

July 19

And also Image:Jordan-scottie.jpg by the same user, marked as promo. Ytny 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

  • Image:Hwangbig.jpg It says: "Photo of Hwang from a 1970s movie. PD due to age.". PD due to being over 30 years old?! This is a bad justification of public domain. The image also lacks a source. Kevin_b_er 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images uploaded by user Manzil are all marked as GFDL-self but all appear to be copyrighted images:
Image:Guti.jpg, Image:Xaura.image.jpg, Image:Aamna.jpg and , Image:Carlos.jpg Ytny 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a copy of Image:Xaura.image.jpg here. Image:Paresh Rawal2.jpg can be found here. Image:Aamna.jpg mentions where it's from, but the source page doesn't readily mention copyright status. Tabercil 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. Uploader provided supporting documentation for free use of image. -Nv8200p talk 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the notice, alleging the copyright from Iran is invalid. This is not true as per Jimbo himself: Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Material_copyrighted_in_Iran
Someone again insisted the image it is in the public domain, when it is actually copyrighted by a news agency.--Cerejota 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran and here. This ought to be justified by writing a fair use rationale. KWH 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if we where to do that, then we would be able to write fair use rationales for AP, Reuters etc.ISNA is a news agency.--Cerejota 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you disagree with me. I was stating that, at the least it should be tagged as {{fairusein}} and a rationale must be written to meet Wikipedia policy, not that it would automatically be acceptable. KWH 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AP, Reuters, AFP, et cetera can bring an infringement lawsuit. Additionally, these world news agencies are neither run nor censored by any government. Comparing these reputable and independent news agencies to those in Iran is factually inaccurate. Aside from this, the Islamic Republic has shown so much respect to the international laws that the U.S. doesn't even dare to have an American representative there.--Patchouli 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original uploader. I had claimed fair use on the image and now I understand that it was probably not fair use. Someone else has claimed public domain, and it's definitely not public domain. roozbeh 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roozbeh, in reality fair use is not even required in the U.S. for this picture and I urge you to thoroughly peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg. Jimbo has made a blanket statement advocating courtesy. He hasn't reviewed this specific case.--Patchouli 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the viewpoint that Iran's censorship and/or lack of respect for international laws means that Wikipedia should feel righteous about infringing on the intellectual property rights of Iranian people.
Please re-read the email from Jimbo, especially at "Simply saying '"Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it' is not a very compelling argument." and "we should generally respect Iranian copyright law … the same (emph. added) as we do for other countries around the world."
This isn't a game where, if we find a really good loophole, we win a free image. It's about respecting rights. KWH 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I who was born in Iran firmly believe that you are disrespecting the rights of the Iranian people. To me — and many other who are against the mullah oligarchy — "Iran" and the "Islamic Republic of Iran" are very different.
The fact that the Islamic Republic violates copyrights of other nations and Shirin Ebadi's question of "Why were foreign media not allowed to attend at the hearing?" is extremely relevant. Please read about "Zahra Kazemi, a Montreal-based photojournalist, died in July 2003 after her skull was split after being arrested for taking photographs outside Tehran's Evin prison where many political dissidents are held." Go to Iran Focus's Reuters story]. Because foreign journalists do not have the opportunity to freely go to different Iranian locations and report, then the only way to record other important historical events is to use that government's. In this case, the Iranian mullahs think it is okay to channel money to Hezbollah rather than spend it on the Iranian people as Khomeini had promised. Here is another article: "In Iran’s streets, aid for an ally stirs resentment and anxieties".
Another example is execution for homosexuality which seems fine and dandy to Islamic officials.  ::Okay, let us say that you delete pictures of historical value. Next, the Islamic Republic is overthrown tommorrow. Then in a few generations from now young Iranians might feel nostalgia about the Islamic regime because of a potential lack of incontrovertible evidence about the evils of this regime.
At the end of the day, you are doing a great disservice to the Iranian people if you delete noteworthy historical images. This is not a porn image or one intended to lampoon a particular person for no good reason.--Patchouli 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is neither a platform for counterrevolutionary propaganda nor a library. It is an encyclopedia and bound by copyright law, specifically the American version. While that does not currently necessarily entail protection of works created in Iran, we do have a quite clear guideline and rationale to respect Iranian copyright anyway and a third party’s political convenience is certainly no reason to review that (regardless of how much one wants to see some major changes in Tehran), and no amount of political rhetoric is going to constitute such a reason. —xyzzyn 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserving historical evidence isn't unencyclopedic. You're have a bias against facts and do not deem a picture as a necessary source of information. Your standards and interpretion of history is dubious. Dost thou dub record keeping "propanganda"?--Patchouli 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely entitled to record-keeping. Exhibition of such records for the purpose of supporting a political agendum, however, is propaganda. Semantics aside, material that is subject to copyright and for which no permission has been granted by the copyright holder to use said material freely does not belong on Wikipedia, except in cases of justified fair use. (By the way, please direct future comments regarding my standards and interpretation of history and related matters to /dev/null.) —xyzzyn 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a place whereby factual information is developed which explains the innumerable media files on it irrespective of whether it happens to bolster any regime or detract from its power. It resembles a library very much with a reference desk.

You are deftly espousing censorship in the name of removing propaganda.--Patchouli 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and deleted it, along with a few other photos from IRNA. My reasoning is that we should not be using watermakred images at all on Wikipedia. Not only they are distracting for Wikipedia users and editors and readers, they are clear signs that they are copyright violations. Usually, when most of the watermarks are moved, that usually makes the image more a copyvio, since the source of the image is removed and the picture is damaged. Don't upload it again, or let alone any photos from IRNA. Jimbo has said to respect Iranian copyright, let's do it, regardless of whose politics is right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have uploaded the image again and shall continue until Jimbo Wales comments on deleting Iranian photographs with clear historical value or some sort of arbitration committee of at least 8 administrators reviews the arguments from both sides and issues an injunction.--Patchouli
    • And I've restored the {{pui}} template. Whatever your opinions as to the validity of the Iranian regime there is simply no possible legal justification for licensing the image under GFDL if you didn't create it and don't have permission. --Daduzi talk 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as the image is in public domain in the US, the talk about legality is redundant. It is about respecting mullahs like Ali Khamenei.--Patchouli 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is in the public domain in the US is debatable, and even if it is you are still not entitled to release it under GFDL. --Daduzi talk 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not public domain in the United States, since Jimbo has stated before, countless times, that the copyright for images made in Iran should be respected. And since you uploaded this picture under GFDL, it was the main reason I went ahead and deleted it again and locked it to where you cannot upload it again. Don't upload anymore pictures from IRNA; we do not use recent photos from the AP and Reuters and IRNA is making their main, core, business of selling photos to other news agencies, so any possible fair use is gone, since IRNA can no longer have a money source if we keep on using their pics. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.irna.ir/en/content/view/menu-240/id-24/lm-1/ls-2/, you are correct.--Patchouli 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)I should say that the picture I had uploaded was made by the Iranian Students' News Agency which doesn't even have an About or Contact link on its site and I doubt it works with Western news agencies. However, I will end the squabble and not upload my photo anymore.--Patchouli 01:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could understand, yes, it is my mistake for calling the photo the IRNA. Ok, now I see the image is from the ISNA. Other than a copyright notice, I have no idea how their images should be treated in the guise of copyright law; though with IRNA photos, the photos by ISNA are heavily watermarked, and with the new photos now, they have watermarks in a few places on the image, rendering it unusable on Wikipedia. Thank you for the understanding and sorry if I seemed a bit harsh. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

  • Image:Watershed.gif Uploader claims fair use for this, but doesn't give a rationale. This is a work of the New York City government and thus copyrighted.[12] We have deleted this particular image, useful as it is (I should really find a way to do one for us), at least twice before. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Raven-bill_reid.jpg Creator of the sculpture, Bill Reid died in 1998 and there is no evidence his sculpture is out of copyright, so the image of it would be a derivative work. Kevin_b_er 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, it's not a two dimensional work so their is original artistry involved... so, it's not like a copyrighted painting. It's like an photograph of any modern building. gren グレン 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As above. I took the photo, and its not a painting. And don't blame me for the tagging. August 2002 predates the concept of tagging. -- GWO
    • Relicense with {{statue}}. This came up last month and apparently images of other people's statues and sculptures do not have the same blanket fair use protection as images of buildings and clothing do. Daniel Case 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already done this. As I said above, this images existence on wikipedia predates image tagging by about two years. Frankly, it'd be a lot more useful if the people who have appointed themselves deleters-in-chief of non-free images would do this obvious stuff themselves. Does it rely require a comment from the photographer to point out that this is self-evidently a photo of a statue... -- GWO
      • I'm sorry I questioned the status of a image from before tagging. Its nice that its not just PD anymore. I don't absolutely agree with the fair use rationale, but, hopefully that can be resolved if some people go through fair use image lists(which are atrocious). Kevin_b_er 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Series of noncommercial images on Sartorial hijab are listed here because they were uploaded way before the May 19, 2005 date for speediablity. Their source is here with "The materials on this page are written by Al-Muhajabah. You may copy, display, or distribute these materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you give me proper attribution as the author." as the license. I dispute any in this list as being anything but noncommercial due to the source licensing.

The above listed by me. Uploader is Grenavitar and has been notified. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all of those copyright tags are wrong. Some user changed to GFDL, free use and whatnot. That is a copyright violation. I didn't tag them properly apparently but they all belong under Template:Noncommercial and since they were uploaded before May 19, 2005. So, you are right that they are non-commercial... but, they were uploaded before non-commercial wasn't allowed. In any case, my solution would be to find free images and replace the ones that we can and slowly phase these bad images out. These were before the days of CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr where I can find plenty of good pictures. gren グレン 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replacements:
gren グレン 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stiked-out until I figure out proper procedure for old noncommercial only images. Kevin_b_er 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have both been fixed now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as an exact duplicate of Image:Willselfauthor.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

It was taken in 1909, though, so unless we know that it remained unpublished until 1923 or later (which seems unlikely) it is safe to assume it qualifies for {{PD-US}} at least. The image is almost certainly in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page:
Addendum: I sent an e-mail to the Head of Excavation in Amorium. If I receive a response, we can act accordingly. I had done the same in the past for this one here [14] as well, and received a written consent. Regards. Cretanforever
Those I striked were actually created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

July 24

Tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. —Bkell (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. —Bkell (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Belly of the beast.jpgThis is not being used for critical commentary on:
    • the work in question,
    • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
    • the school to which the artist belongs

It is being used on the page of a Wikipedia editor. Thus it doesn't fall under fait use.Commment 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this image from Brandmeister's user page, left a note on the user's talk page, and tagged the image as being an orphaned fair-use image. —Bkell (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:HockLeeBusRiots.jpg: Source link is now a 404, but http://www.moe.gov.sg/ne/ still exists. At the bottom of the page is "Copyright 2004 Ministry of Education. All rights reserved." No evidence that this photograph is in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Virginballoon.jpg: The balloon displays the logo of Virgin Atlantic Airways, which was founded no earlier than 1982, so this image cannot have fallen into the public domain; therefore it is copyrighted. The summary claims, "Use on internet permitted by copyright holder Virgin Group", though no evidence is given for this; even if it is true, "use on internet permitted" is not the same as "no rights reserved". —Bkell (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Class 171-cab.jpg noncommercial, uploader is removing tag --SPUI (T - C) 21:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, among others, are talking with the uploader on his talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addition: while the image was uploaded before the cut-off date for Non-commercial images, the kind of license that the uploader chose is one of those determined by Wikipedia to be "non-commercial." Also, since the uploader is also the copyright holder of the image, he has been asked by me and others to change the license to something that is free, such as CC-BY-SA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image was previously listed on this page and deemed to be acceptable. I will hunt out the diff when I get time (not likely for a couple of days, but I think it was about 2-3 months ago) if nobody else has done so. Nothing has changed regarding the license since the last discussion, and I am not aware of any rule changes either (although I've not had time to be active recently, so please do direct me to anything I have missed). Thryduulf 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tag you used reads "NOTE: The following conditions may not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." Your terms restrict usage to non-profit purposes, as you are free to deny for-profit use. --SPUI (T - C) 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

July 26

The mentioned webadresses in the summary have given this work to be used as long as their website adress is mentioned in the summary. Thus: "permission given" as i have stated. In the future refrain from using the word blatantly. --Spahbod ☼ 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Cyrus II talk page regarding my comments on this. --Spahbod ☼ 07:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 27
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=66210798"