Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Infrogmation (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 4 January 2005 (→Yet more DW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

This page is intended for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or are missing important copyright or licensing information.

If you see an image that you believe to be used only under a non-free license or is lacking the proper copyright information, follow the instructions in the new listings section below.

Before listing something here, see if it can be listed at Wikipedia:Images for deletion (if it's unneeded) or at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used by Wikipedia under any license or under the fair use doctrine).

Images are listed here for a total of 30 days before they are deleted. They are kept in articles for the first 15 days, after which they are replaced with boilerplate text until the issue is resolved or the image is replaced or deleted.

Listings which were made due to missing information can be removed immediately if the missing information is added and the images are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these).

New listings

Shortcut

To list an image here:

  1. Add:
  • {{PUI}} (if information on the image's copyright status is missing)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{PUIdisputed}} (if the copyright information is disputed)

This template should only be used on file pages.

  • {{nonfreedelete}} (if the image is only available under a non-free license) to the description page

Template:Nonfreedelete

  1. Contact the user who uploaded the image and ask them to supply more information (even if the image says it's being used under a non-free license, maybe it is available under a free license as well). If there are a large number of problem images by the same uploader, consider waiting for a response before listing any of them.
  2. Create a new listing in today's section.

After 15 days

  1. If and only if, after 15 days, the situation has not been resolved, replace all instances of the image with {{nonfreeimage|OLDIMAGE.XXX|OLDCAPTION|ALIGNMENT|WIDTH}} or {{unverifiedimage|OLDIMAGE.XXX|OLDCAPTION|ALIGNMENT|WIDTH}} Simply use the filename of the image without the Image: formatting. For the alignment, use "right", "left", "center" or "none". For the width, use a valid table width value such as "200px" or "10em". Do not label this a minor edit; this is to alert people with these articles on their watchlists about the change.
  2. Move the sections that are older than 15 days to the #Older than 15 days section.

Listings

Older than 30 days

Listings 15 to 30 days old

December 5

  • Image:Stefanlessard.jpg - no info, likely copyright. --Viriditas 00:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Dmb.jpg - no info, probably copyright. --Viriditas 00:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:CharlieHuntepromo.jpg - no info, but certainly unfree. Suspect it comes from the web site or photo from inside cd sleeve, or both. --Viriditas 00:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • if from inside CD sleeve it falls under fair use. Alkivar 00:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, if someone can identify the source, we can tag it appropriately. -- Infrogmation 16:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Ngc6240 composite.jpg - no info; uploader (User talk:Cassini) contacted 7 October 2004 but no response; user inactive for more than one year. I think source images are PD-NASA but this composite is not sourced and may be copyrighted. I'm replacing it in NGC 6240 with a definitely PD-NASA image until we can get this one cleared up. —Tkinias 03:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the images on Thoroughly Modern Millie the poster can use the poster fair use tag. {{Poster}} The guy probably called them a screen shot because they were on his computer screen. If it's fairly low resolution than maybe the tag should be a low res tag.
If/when individual images can have sources identified and be retagged appropriately, fine. As this user did things like yoink images from pages clearly marked as requiring express written permission and tag them as "PD", I'm not inclined to give much benifit of doubt to his mistagged uploads that can't be sourced. -- Infrogmation 16:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 7

Image:Marchetti.JPG, Image:Slick.jpg, Image:Skyrocket.jpg, Image:Tunnel.jpg, Image:Prius.jpg, Image:Hybrid.jpg, Image:LNGtanker.jpg. From [2]. Apparently uploaded by copyright holder who has been asked to provide license tags.-- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have emailed Peter Welleman to clarify the license on his illustrations, as he makes money selling them it is possible he did not realise we cannot allow "non-commercial use only" images. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:52, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I moved one of his not listed here to Talk:Ship, and presume it deserves similar attention. --Jerzy(t) 20:14, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

December 9

Image:A TV.gif - looks like common web clipart, orphan. -Lommer 04:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10

-- Infrogmation 19:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I see nothing dubious about the claim that "PeterPan4.jpg" is a screenshot. I haven't seen the 1924 film, so I can't testify to it, but I can't think of anywhere else this image plausibly might have come from. Tverbeek 01:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Really? Image:PeterPan4.jpg looks to me like artwork, not a film frame nor a screenshot at all. Curious. Someone else care to take a look? -- Infrogmation 07:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Granted, it's a poor reproduction, so it's not easy to be 100% certain. But I'm an illustrator, and I can't see it as artwork. A book illustration (especially for a children's book) usually wouldn't be that detailed. (And why horizontal?) An illustrator skilled enough to do this wouldn't be so careful about posing the figures so anatomically correctly, rendering the detail of the rocks so clearly... but then let Hook's hook get lost in the clutter behind him, or let the pirates become background clutter to begin with. The shadows are perfect (too perfect; that shit's hard) but at an angle that makes no sense unless this was supposed to be a really well-lit sunset. Too many contradictions. On the other hand, it's completely consistent with the mechanics of 1920's moviemaking: limited-tonal-range B&W film, artificial side/front lighting that casts sharp shadows, fixed cameras that require "stage"-style composition (rather than zooming/panning), etc. Also, Hook's appearance matches the character on the VHS box for that film [3], which strongly implies that the image is taken from there. Occam's razor prefers "it's a film frame" as an explanation. Tverbeek 17:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • OK then, you make a good case. This has got me curious-- does anyone know something about the source of this, and perhaps have a pointer to a better resolution image? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 07:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's a higher-contrast repro, which also confirms its origin: [4]
  • Cool. I've removed the PUIdisputed tag from the image. (I'm leaving this discussion here for the time being for reference.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nonfree images:

  • Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png - imposes condition that symbol must represent atheism
    • Not a problem, as it does in the article. I've added a copyright tag explaining this. Andre (talk) 20:47, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is a problem: such a condition absolutely makes the image nonfree (it's not much different from noncommercial terms, for example). You can't place such conditions and be GFDL-compatible; WP's meeting the condition(s) set does not make the image free. Retagging it {{nonfreedelete}}. —Tkinias 01:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense. It falls under the gauntlet of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|...}} - Eg. provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed. and frankly I can't imagine a way to make the image represent something other than atheism. As long as we use it in articles appropriately and don't misrepresent it, e.g. don't put a caption reading The logo of the National Rifle Association, it meets the terms of the license. Andre (talk) 20:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • And it's exactly that which makes it a none-free image, we're only allowed to use it in certain context under certain circumstances. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:22, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
      • And let me further add that the reason for disallowing non-commercial only type licenses is because Wikipedia may eventually be sold as a CD or a book. This logo has no such constraints. Andre (talk) 20:07, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • No, the reason for not allowing that is that none-commercial licences are not free by definition. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:22, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
    • I have contacted the author. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:10, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
    • This can definitely be used as fair use, at least in the atheism article. Josh 09:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Illinois_map.jpg - image must not be modified
    • I dont understand how they can claim copyright on this, 1) public funded college 2) a state map in this form cannot recieve a copyright. (There is no protectable content, the outline by county comes from a PD map, The font used is public domain.) 3) if it comes down to it you could recreate this from scratch very easily. Alkivar 23:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Icefish-large.jpg - New Zealand Crown Copyright
  • Image:IanMillar.jpg - Non-commercial only
  • Image:Imm3.gif - Non-commercial only

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 20:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

December 12

[unsigned]

Nonfree images:

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:58, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

December 13

  • The various images under Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. A licence-savvy person needs to check http://www.gov.pe.ca/ and say exactly what these fall under. The uploading person seemed to believe that Canadian government works are in the public domain, which I know to be untrue, but I'm not certain what tags these should have. - Montréalais 10:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 15

December 17

  • Image:122_Psh_74.jpg finnish defence forces image. Are thier terms acceptable to wikipedia and if so how should the image be tagged? (new tag copyrightfreeuseprovidedthat or what?) Plugwash 00:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 18

Newer than 15 days

December 20

  • Image:Agualeguas.jpg - uploader said that According to the site, "There are no usage restrictions for this photo", but site nows says that the photo is no longer in their database. --Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
That's the problem with uploading from a site. Photos may disappear from a site, even the site may disappear. The same problem will arise more and more in the future. What counts is that, at the moment the photo was uploaded, the copyright tags were right. Anyway the site says : "DOWNLOADING - By downloading material from this site you agree with the following: You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download. " Therefore the same copyright tags continue to apply. JoJan 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In many cases the information provided by uploaders will be impossible to verify at a later date that is the nature of the web. Where source information has been provided but is no longer accessible and there is no direct (ie a complaint) or indirect (for example a user with a history of uploading copyvios) indication it was faked then we have to take the uploaders word for it or wikipedia would be constantly replacing photos for no good reason. Plugwash 20:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:69Boss429.jpg - uploader says "from 1969stang.com" but website says that all of its content is copyright. Delete unless license is found. Andrew pmk 20:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggest delete and replace with an image found here There is no published copyright information for these photos, no licensing restrictions, and owner says feel free to download and use as you see fit. Its not THAT rare of a car, theres plenty of legal use images of it, if you cant find one, email Ford their REALLY friendly with auto enthusiasts :) Alkivar 03:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 21

Image:Danish crown jewels.jpg, Image:Ethiopian crown jewels.jpg, and Image:Hungarian crown jewels.jpg. Three more old images uploaded by User:Isis, these illustrating the Crown Jewels article. (And the first two are of dreadful quality anyway.) -- Infrogmation 18:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the hungarian crown jewels may have come from [6], which claims copyright at the bottom. It certainly seems they had the image first, as they last updated before the image was uploaded here. They look too similar to be coincidental. Silverfish 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 22

  • Image:Stvking.jpg - originally listed as a speedy delete due to copyright issues but does not qualify for that. Says "uncopyrighted image from a Venezuelan site" on the image. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • replace with this its his official uncopyrighted press head shot. Alkivar 03:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • or even this its a Fair Use image from a public funded college newspaper. Alkivar 03:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24

  • Image:LHC5.jpg - damn, I feel like the Grinch for listing this here... but even cool Web trivia has to have copyright info... :( —Tkinias 02:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Its a scanned source according to the article. CD cover? if so it falls as fair use. Alkivar 03:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 25

  • Portrait of world leader. Retagged UK Gov't image and Fairuse. -- Infrogmation 13:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nonfree images:

Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 04:48, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) Nonfree images:

Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 04:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) Nonfree images:

Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 05:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) Nonfree images:

Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

December 26

Nonfree images:

December 27

December 28

Cburnett 21:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 29

December 30

December 31

  • Image:Rollingstones.jpg is a photograph of the cover of England's Newest Hitmakers, The Rolling Stones' first album, released in 1964. The album is still in print, albeit as a digitally remastered CD, with the same image on the front. The user:CinnamonCinder uploaded the image and put a boilerplate on the description page with text stating that it had been released into the public domain by the copyright owner but has not given any evidence on that, and I couldn't find any on Google. I have removed boilerplate and text and replaced it with a PUIdisputed tag. - redcountess 01:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Use of such an image in an article on the rolling stones is almost certainly fair use.
      • It is 100% fair use see {{Albumcover}} have added appropriate tag. Alkivar 19:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:RonJeremy.jpg is a non fair use copyrighted image. Alkivar 06:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Martika.jpg uploaded by User:W3s has no attribution given. Alkivar 19:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

January 1 2005

Image:Greek Hoplite.JPG caption says it is probably unfree.Zeimusu 06:50, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

January 2

January 4

  • Image:CommonCuttlefish.JPG is tagged with "CopyrightFreeUseProvided", but the source URL does not indicate this license. It requires contacting the original photographer, and I see no evidence this has been done. Gwimpey 05:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files&oldid=9106315"