Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 18



Image:Ukr_airborne.jpg
No evidence this is a work of the Ukrainian government. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jobro.jpg
Appears promotional/commercial, no response from unloader if they really hold copyright. Mr.  Z- man  01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:JosephPaulJerniganExecutionRecord.jpg
Texas state government record, not Federal goverment. Davepape 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:JavinReid.jpg
Uploader has a history of uploading images found on random web sites. Also uploaded Image:Nick D'Agosto.jpg, listed above. Cyrius|&#9998; 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg
I don't know that we can accept the LOC's position that "there are no known restrictions on publication". If we know the author, when the author died, that the image was first published in Germany and that it is still under copyright in Germany, I don't think we can use it. The Price/Hoffman case deals with physical paintings, not the intellectual property rights underlying them.  But | seriously | folks   04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One point, and one question. Traditionally the English-language Wikipedia has operated only under United States copyright law (see the lead paragraphs of Public domain).  Doing so does, admittedly, permits works which are considered in the public domain in the United States but copyrighted elsewhere.  I tentatively would prefer continuing this position.  (Abandoning it would require at least notice or discussion, and quite probably a Foundation mandate.)
 * I am, however, unaware of the Price/Hoffmann case details, and was not aware that it deals only with physical paintings. Any links?  :)  (Btw, see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN for some some details.)  --Iamunknown 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just tracked down a copy of the opinion and am about to read it. I should be working.  Oh, the link:  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isysquery/irl622/1/doc --  But | seriously | folks   04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what's important:
 * On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images "to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States." See Vesting Order 17952, 16 Fed.Reg. 6162.
 * I checked the Trading with the Enemy Act (which is still on the books, by the way, at 12 U.S.C. § 95a) and it does appear to permit the President or his designee to essentially take any property or rights of a foreign national under US jurisdiction. Not sure whether that would apply to an intangible right like copyright.
 * But even if the US acquired the copyright to these images, that wouldn't necessarily make it PD. Copyrights don't evaporate when the US gains ownership.  The US often takes assignments of copyrights from others, which copyrights continue in force.  So my current thinking is that these images are still under copyright and that the US owns that copyright.  Am I making any sense? --  But | seriously | folks   05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's operate under this assumption that the copyright is still valid and the U.S. holds it now. That being the case, why then would the LOC declare "no known restrictions on publication"? It just doesn't make sense. Not that all agencies of the government are always working in tandem, but it stands to reason that the LOC would certainly be aware of any such issues.  howcheng  {chat} 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. Fortunately, Iamunknown tracked down this link to the LOC's definition of "no known restrictions on publication".  It's comforting to know that they vet these fairly thoroughly.  Of course, if the US acquired a German copyright, it wouldn't be recorded in the US Copyright Office.  And they've also got this little zinger of a disclaimer for us:  "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply."  It's probably safe to use these images without fear of infringement litigation, but that's not how we decide copyright issues here.  Either way, this is a horrifically complex copyright issue for us to be deciding by consensus.  Most of us are not lawyers.  Anybody want to try and ask Mike? --  But | seriously | folks   07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That quote is essentially a statement to cover their asses just in case they might be wrong. Consider too, that this image has been around for more than 50 years. You're telling me that no one in that time has claimed ownership of it and tried to have their copyright enforced? It seems a little far-fetched to me.  howcheng  {chat} 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That happens all the time, especially when the copyright is vested in someone that doesn't realize it. Like if this one is held by the US.  See also page 19289 of this Federal Register volume, which states that "[t]he current copyright status of works once held by the Alien Property Custodian will depend on a number of variables."  Some of the works must be under copyright, or that statement wouldn't make sense. --  But | seriously | folks   01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the conclusion to be drawn here is that the image should stay, with appropriate messages attached about its copyright status, as it is now. I would suggest that it would be better to use a more obviously free image for the infobox and template on Adolf Hitler, but I think this can be safely removed from PUI now. I copied the discussion here over to the talk page, as well. kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:S10.JPG
Claims own work, but looks very much like a promo image. Liftarn 09:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:S23776 gc 10.jpg
I very much dubt the user created this image. Liftarn 09:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:S2cast.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:1998 nissan 200sx.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SAUBEE.gif
Claims own work, but looks like a logo. Liftarn 09:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SaintAmbroseUniversity.gif
Claims own work, but looks like a logo. Liftarn 09:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Audrey season4.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nina1.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:KateWarnerpromo.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Penny johnson Jerald-sherry palmer3.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:24season3cast.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:24Day4promo.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mariobrawlpic.jpg
Claims own work, but I have good reasons to dubt that. Liftarn 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bowserbrawl.jpg
Claims own work, but I have good reasons to dubt that. Liftarn 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ladybow.gif
Claims own work, but I have good reasons to dubt that. Liftarn 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Count Bleck.jpg
Claims own work, but I have good reasons to dubt that. Liftarn 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Sprits.gif
Claims own work, but I have good reasons to dubt that. Liftarn 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:RingersBanPic.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:U86877878.jpg
Gives both a source (now 404) and claims own work. What is it? Liftarn 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:2704838610033158181YdHfIp ph.jpg
Gives both a source (now 404) and claims own work. What is it? Liftarn 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:UH-1C Huey 2.jpg
Looks like a video capture. Also the comment "ghgh" doesn't inspire confidence. Liftarn 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:UH-1C Huey.jpg
Looks like a video capture. Also the comment "yo" doesn't inspire confidence. Liftarn 13:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PASGT Helmet 3.jpg
Claims own work, but has the watermark (lower right corner) of an online auction site. Liftarn 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zena Grey.jpg
Claims own work, but looks like a promo shot. Liftarn 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:American Soldier In A Vietcong Village.jpg
Claims own work, but I'd like to know how a 27 year old person could take a photo during the Vietnam war. Liftarn 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fortbendsun.jpg
Unless the user is the copyright holder to the Fort Bend Sun newspaper, which is very unlikely, there's no way he/she could have the authority to license it under the GFDL. Brianreading 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greaterhoustonweekly.jpg
Unless the user is the copyright holder to the Greater Houston Weekly newspaper, which is very unlikely, there's no way he/she could have the authority to license it under the GFDL. Brianreading 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Clevelandadvocate.jpg
Unless the user is the copyright holder to the Cleveland Advocate newspaper, which is very unlikely, there's no way he/she could have the authority to license it under the GFDL. Brianreading 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eastexadvocate.jpg
Unless the user is the copyright holder to the Eastex Advocate newspaper, which is very unlikely, there's no way he/she could have the authority to license it under the GFDL. Brianreading 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:WRsmall20070610.JPG
logo, not free 64.178.96.168 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now tagged as logo. -Nv8200p talk 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Temp(2).svg
see above 64.178.96.168 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:DeviousMUD2007.PNG
I have no idea what DeviousMUD is, but the license is incorrect. 64.178.96.168 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Suskeenwiske324.JPG
magazine cover 64.178.96.168 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:KeriHilson1752.PNG
Author is PR Photos, which is most definitely not pd-self 64.178.96.168 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Babbpressbook.JPG
Seems to be a derivative work of a copyrighted book, thus it cannot be licensed GFDL-self. Can't be used as a non-free image in the article where it currently appears, either. — —Angr 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just e-mailed about this. I'm not actively contributing anymore, but I'd hate to see things go away here when they're actively helping articles already here.  In this case, you're right - this was the wrong license to use when I uploaded it, and probably isn't a good image to use in the article itself at this point.  HOWEVER, I have since learned that just about everything Babb-related up to this point is in the public domain, much of it never actually copyrighted to begin with and the copyrights were mostly not renewed.  I am not a lawyer, but I'm using this for guidance.  Both films appear to be in the public domain, and while the Mom and Dad pressbook was renewed, this dual pressbook was not (according to the 1972 Copyright Book from the Library of Congress) and thus should be in the public domain.  So this image should be a-okay, and should actually go to Commons rather that stay here.  If you have any questions, e-mail me - it's still enabled. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)