Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 August 3



Image:Daisy Duke in Jeans.jpg

 * Moved from WP:IFD -Nv8200p talk 00:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Daisy Duke in Jeans.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Darksasami ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Possible copyvio. There should be some way to verify that the uploader actually obtained the rights to release this under a free license, as he claims. Maybe he did, but seems kind of unlikely to me. — The Parsnip! 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should have been listed at WP:PUI rather than here, but I agree, release seems unlikely. So much so that I wouldn't even bother to move it to PUI. -Nard 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, do you have any idea how difficult it was to explain free licensing to Ms. Bach's publicist? If I had been faking it, I would have gone for a better picture. Her publicist's contact information is freely available at catherinebach.com if you want to follow up on it. --Darksasami 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please forward any communication you received from her publicist to OTRS. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done that, though the meat of it was done over the phone. I hope I sent it to the right address; it's a little confusing trying to figure out where it's supposed to go. --Darksasami 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should have linked you to Permissions instead. -Nard 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been almost two months and OTRS hasn't cleared this image. If the clearance comes through, it can be deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   03:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Approaching_Skyline_from_Safa_Park_on_26_January_2007.jpg
Tagged CC but uploader found on internet and source page has no apparent license.  But | seriously | folks   01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Approaching_Skyline_from_Safa_Park_on_27_November_2006.jpg
Tagged CC but uploader found on internet and source page has no apparent license.  But | seriously | folks   01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Premsboys.JPG
Declined speedy. Given reason was: "This photo has been taken from some forums, Magazine or other sources and it's not the uploader's original work as he claimed."  But | seriously | folks   01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bornanchors band.jpg
Claims to be pd-self, but uploaded previously at Image:BAwallsmall.jpg with the description Image owned Born Anchors LLC. Based on the features of the image, appears to be the latter, i.e., a PR photo; thus, it is likely fair use but replaceable. -- Kinu t /c  04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dico Fever Alien.gif
Claims to be a screenshot of a Wikipedia web page, when it is merely an animated GIF. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Image:PB Time.jpg
Claims to be a screenshot of a Wikipedia web page, when it looks more like a screenshot or image from somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Image:MercerUniversity1.jpg
Listed as being in the public domain, but no indication is given to prove that there's any truth to that. fuzzy510 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple-28.JPG
Uploader claims to be the author and copyright holder of the image, when it is merely a derivative image using possibly copyrighted images. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Memorialoverhead.JPG
Uploader listed as the creator of the image, but I have a hard time believing that they took an overhead satellite image like this one. fuzzy510 05:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Memorial stadium.jpg
Part of my suspicions lie in the questionable copyright of the prior image, but I'm also suspicious of a field-level image taken during a game. I'd be willing to bet that the uploader isn't the copyright holder. fuzzy510 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg
Licensed cc-by but says modifications are not permitted. — Calliopejen1 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Quick question--it seems that recently many images such as this, with requests against modification as well as an attribution tag--are up for deletion. I can understand that Wiki editors have decided that all Wiki images should be modifyable, but how is this policy compatible with the attribution tag? If attribution tags as well as unlimited modification are allowed, an image modified beyond recognition must still be attributed to the original artist? As an artist myself, this situation would prevent me from wanting anything uploaded to Wikipedia under the Arttibution tag. An image once made to be accurate, for example, changed in ways that render it useless for its original educational purposes, with my name on it, would be totally unacceptable to me. So, any clarification would be greatly appreciated... Dinoguy2 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the modified image is credited to the person who did the modification. With a CC-BY license, the author of the derivative work doesn't even have to give credit to the original artist if they don't want to, but it's usually good form.  howcheng  {chat} 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why does the license page state "Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."? Dinoguy2 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what Howcheng is getting at. The whole point of the CC-BY tag is to require attribution.  Creative commons has other licenses available that forbid modification, but those are not acceptable to wikipedia.  If you don't want a modified image credited to you, you can specify in the image description that others don't need to credit you if they modify it.  However, wikipedia does not accept images that cannot be modified because they are contrary to its free content mission. (For the same reason, wikipedia doesn't let you submit text--even if it is totally accurate--and say that no one can edit it.)  When attributing an image that you or someone else has modified, it would be proper to say something along the lines of "drawing based on image created by X." Calliopejen1 08:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll see if I can contact Scott about the modification issue--he did specify no modification originally, so for the time being feel free to delete the image. Dinoguy2 09:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:StephenMcCusker.jpg
PD image with watermark. MER-C 10:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bcftcsfront_new.jpg
Contradictory licensing information. MER-C 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ML_Kold,_art1.jpg
Permission only != public domain. Unused. MER-C 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hk_mp7.jpg
Doesn't look like a user created image, appears professionally taken. MER-C 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ariana_richards.jpg
Appears to be an WP:SPA contribution to circumvent WP:NFCC. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by User:Shijaz
Images are credited to various photographers and all tagged GFDL, with no reason to believe that it is applicable.  howcheng  {chat} 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:AncientTombBahrain.jpg
 * Image:MerchantBahrainMuseum.jpg
 * Image:TobaccoShopBahrain.jpg
 * Image:AbayaBahrain.jpg
 * Image:Gahwa.jpg
 * Image:Odathilpalli1.jpg
 * Image:Pandikasala.JPG
 * Image:ManamaSouq1.jpg
 * Image:ManamaSouq2.jpg
 * Image:ManamaSouq3.jpg
 * Image:GoldSouq1.jpg
 * Image:SaudiBahrain.jpg
 * Image:RiffaClockTower.jpg
 * Image:FirstOilWellBahrain.jpg

Keep. Let's assume good faith. I've done some image searches, and there is no record of the photo existing on the internet. They don't seem to be just images copied off the internet, in which case I would agree with deletion, but I think it is fair to assume that the editor has assumed good faith and that the images are released under the GDFL. As it will be hard to get replaceable images from Bahrain, I think taking these back is going to significantly disadvantage the English Wikipedia as well. JRG 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted all these images. One of the images uploaded by the user has been confirmed as a copyright violation -- the photographer has sent a request to OTRS stating that he never released the image under any free license, and this is a clear case of copyright violation. Those with access to the OTRS system can view the ticket; the number is 2007082610002511. Therefore, it seems likely that above images are also copyright violation; if the photographers have released these images under some free license, it's the uploader's duty to make sure that the permission is confirmed by sending an e-mail to OTRS. utcursch | talk 11:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)