Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 21/Images

Images


 * Image:Ist_int_terminal.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Elektrik Blue 82 12:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:IST_landing.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Elektrik Blue 82 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Bosnian_girl_raped_by_serbs.jpeg ([ history] · [ last edit]) -- It was uploaded with the summary "Public domain, share alike 2.5 photo, by AP. Picture retrieved from: ". I found it hard to believe that AP would do this, so I tagged it with Template:No license. However, an IP editor replaced this tag with Template:cc-by-sa. I still find it so hard to believe this that I'm forgoing WP:AGF and listing the image here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Image is on imdb which cleary states it's copyrigthed. Was tagged as a screenshot, but it's not. Abu Badali 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Historical Eastern Germany and so-called Sudetenland.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . The poster claims this is not a copyrighted map as it was made in Nazi Germany, However the map shows post-1945 western border of Germany and post-1945 Polish-Russian border. Therefore this is almost certainly a copyrighted image created in the Federal Rebublic of Germany. Friendly Neighbour 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The poster claims now that the image was re-published in the Soviet Union before 1973 and therefore is public domain. This is based on a false premise that re-publishing a work in a country that does not recognise copyrights cancels its copyrights in the rest of the world. Anyway, there is no evidence that the map, clearaly created by Germans for a German audience was actually ever re-published in any other country that Germany. Friendly Neighbour 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Image of living person found on google images to illustrate the article article about the person. No evidence it's intended for wide distribution. Abu Badali 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could easily be retagged . There are precedents, aren't there? I don't understand why Abu badali crossed out taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk because that's where I got the image from. &lt;KF&gt; 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I told on the edit summary (bad english apart) and in your talk page, I crossed it because the image could not be found at the given source. I have now updated the link to what seems to be the proper source. Unfortunatelly, the source doesn't makes it cleat that the image "has clearly been taken for promotional purposes". --Abu Badali 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a mistake there. I myself retagged the image (from to ) about a month ago, so why is the question whether it "has clearly been taken for promotional purposes" relevant at all? Also, the "proper source"&mdash;the Camden New Journal&mdash;has been linked to ever since the photo was uploaded (as I pointed out here, this is a case of link rot), so where's the problem now? &lt;KF&gt; 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To use this tag, we must explain why this image "does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images" and "include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale". You may want to know that the use of unfree images of living people is discouraged.
 * Interesting. According to Fair use, Beaton's image "does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories" because&mdash;hey&mdash;it is not a publicity photograph. We have cited the source of the image, haven't we, including the anonymous photographer (who is irrelevant anyway because article and photo are © New Camden Journal), and the detailed fair use rationale in this case is that it is (a) a nice picture (Beaton won't bear us a grudge for using it) and (b) one of the very few available. So again: Where's the problem? &lt;KF&gt; 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "It's a nice picture" is not a fair use rationale. --Abu Badali 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To chime in here: Anyone could take a photo of him and license the photo under the GFDL; the photo is not of a significant event; nor is it "iconic". For these reasons, it does not pass our "fair use" guidelines at Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:SirHughMunro.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Shell babelfish 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:000B1A07-1F3F-121B-84A180BFB6FA0000.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Ytny 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Dulce Maria Savaman.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Flcikr image marked as "All Righs reserved"Abu Badali 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)