Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 8



Image:Kellychangrickert.jpg
New user's upload, claims GFDL but it appears professional – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Luxury_boats_mega.jpg
Professional-looking photo from new user who claims cc-by-sa. At this angle, the photo would by very difficult to create. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Translink_Concession_Faresaver.jpg
no evidence of GFDL Rettetast (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * License now changed to non-free, but no rationale provided. Tagging for semi-speedy for lack. Shell babelfish 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arpalı7.jpg
No evidence of gfdl in the given source. Unclear that uploader is copyrightholder Rettetast (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pasatiempo2.jpg
Screenshot copyrighted by game producer Rettetast (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gottwald.gif
Watermarked, from URich's website B (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The image uploader is an employee of the University of Richmond and may have taken the photo himself for use on the university's website. Whether he or the university holds copyright to it, I do not know. WildCowboy (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yblmiklos.jpg
PD-self claim being challenged. Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not deleted - tagged with {{subst:nsd}}, will ask copyright holder to provide licensing terms if he so chooses. If not, it will be deleted in a week. --B (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rob_Hyland.jpg
No evidence of CC licensing from the source site. Jusjih (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rhode-Island-Mall-09.jpg
PD-self claim removed by uploader. Jusjih (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The license is irrevocable and, in this case, we have every reason to believe the uploader is the copyright holder. Take a look at his recent edits.  He said at  that he was being accused of spamming his site and didn't want the bad PR from it so he was removing all references.  It's in that context that he blanked out the license. Letting people revoke their licenses is obviously not good for the project.  On the other hand, this image isn't a very good picture and as far as I can tell from looking at his contributions, it was never even used. So really, keeping it would serve no purpose other than to make a point. I'm inclined to delete it, though not for licensing reasons, unless someone wants to go through the formality of IFD. --B (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pikto_Trio.jpg
No evidence of GFDL from claimed source site. Jusjih (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Somerset_West.jpg
Questionable PD-self claim. Jusjih (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hhll2.jpg
Unconfirmed GFDL licensing. Jusjih (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kolo_lapis_lazuli_1.jpg
Uploader removed PD-self while an external URL was mentioned. Jusjih (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:MGB_GT_V8_-_1973.jpg
Challenged PD-self claim. Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Option 30 stairwell.gif
"The free website it was on has gone down and it made no mention of copyrights at all. Sorry." doesn't seem reassuring as a PD release. If we wanted to include it per WP:NONFREE, we'd need to know who the copyright owner was and we don't. 24.61.15.83 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marc_Simao.jpg
PD-self claim challenged. Jusjih (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gov Ed Rendell.jpg
Listed for deletion at commons under Image:Ed Rendell.jpg The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rep Tim mahoney.jpg
No indication that commerce.gov has free images. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. That site is the US Department of Commerce, an agency of the US government.  Why wouldn't the contents be public domain? --B (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Koyotegroup.jpg
Asserts GFDL, source is copyrighted. mattbr 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thorne1.jpg
no evidence that image is released under CC-BY. Garion96 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:363225617_4b16368d38_b.jpg
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic in source. Rettetast (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:AWseries1 1.jpg
appears to be non-free - "image provided by telestorytoons" After Midnight 0001 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anyband.png
Source is here, copyrighted, and watermarked. ITurtle (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:David_sk_modeling_photo.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dave_11.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:E872e0de.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:EGRLogo.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:SAIS-PCHS.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Splashmt.jpg
This image is copyright Disney. Uploader has no rights to release under the GFDL. Purchase of a photo does not transfer copyright. Nv8200p talk 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some proof confirming that this is the case? The logo of course will be copyrighted, but that can be cropped out. The Islander 19:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually ignore the first question, the "© Disney" is sitting there in the corner for all to see. OK, that aside, won't this be the case for all on-ride photos, in which case won't the use of one qualify under fair-use? The Islander 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who uploaded it, and it's not even being used on a page anyway. I give my OK to delete. --Liface (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's being used on three: Splash Mountain, On-ride camera, and Log flume (attraction). I'd still prefer it not to be deleted, as it's a good picture to display on the On-ride camera article, under fair use (though it wouldn't qualify for the other two, and they can probably live without it, Log flume (attraction) definitely so). The Islander 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I take that back then. I would also prefer for it to not be deleted. --Liface (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edvard Munch, Lady from the sea.jpg
marked PD-art and claimed the creator has been dead for 100 years, but he only died in 1944. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edvard Munch, Loving Woman (Madonna), 1895–1902, lithograph. Munch Museum, Oslo.gif
marked PD-art and claimed the creator has been dead for 100 years, but he only died in 1944 Stifle (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:World war one web alliance.jpg
image's talk page says it is copyright 1969, therefore the indiction on the image may be wrong Stifle (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion more closely, it's the Imperial war museum monography in which it appears that's copyrighted 1969, not the picture. It is very obviously pre-WWI--victor falk 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ck_hkiff06.jpg
"© All rights reserved" according to source. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:YankeesRetiredJackieRobinson.PNG
I don't know about the whole design, but the included MLB logo is definitely copyrighted. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:HMS_Whaddon.jpg
Apparent derivative work. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)