Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 28



Image:Frank Caliendo Headshot.jpg
This user's first edit was to upload this image. The image seems like a professional picture, and given that this user probably was unaware of Wikipedia image copyright policy, I would think a false licensing tag was used. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yahoo!_Widgets_-_Picture_Frame.png
Supposedly the "visible" parts of the Yahoo widgets are BSD licensed, however this screenshot is almost entierly the photo beeing displayed by the widget (images are explicitly not covered by the Yahoo license statement), and the summary only says that we have permission to show the image on "this page" (presumably the Yahoo widget article), making me think it's not indeded to be freely licensed. Sherool (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the photo with another (clear your cache) which is freely licensed, and updated the license on the page. I did take the photo that was there before, but it was for Yahoo! and I'm not sure they would take kindly to my messing with its license.  Yonisyuumei 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, widtdrawn. --Sherool (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yahoo!_Widgets_-_Flickr_Frame.png
Tagged as BSD licensed because of the software used to display the image, but the statement for the photo itself reads like we only have permission to use it in that one article and the image is labeled as all rights reserved on Flickr, further suggesting it's not indeded to be freely licensed. Sherool (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What now? What do I have to do to get my own photo in my own screenshot to stay on the damn site?  You have to understand how this is incredibly frustrating for a non-lawyer such as myself. Yonisyuumei 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I could have been more clear on that. You basicaly have two options, you can say that you release that version of the photo under a suitable free license (GFDL, CC-by-sa, "no rights reserved" etc. basicaly anyting that does not put restrictions on how or where it may be used) and add the apropriate tag for it, alternatively find a different photo that is already free licensed (or better yet, publid domain) to display in the widget and take a new screenshot with that. --Sherool (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated the license for the photo on Flickr and the license on the page. Yonisyuumei 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, widtdrawn. --Sherool (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:FBC-1.jpg
Seems unlikely uploader had access to a Chinese military exercise. Most probably a copyvio. Megapixie 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:052C.jpg
Again seems unlikely that the uploader had access to take this image. Resolution, lack for source suggests a copyvio. Megapixie 12:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:GWUCommencement.jpg
Uploader has tagged the image as being available under the Free Art License, however, in the accompanying text, they provide no source other than saying "Flickr", and state it has no copyright status and is fair use. Therefore, I conclude that this image is probably unfree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Full source given. License is ok. Rettetast 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:FoggyBottomPanorama.jpg
Uploader has tagged the image as being available under the Free Art License, however, in the accompanying text, they provide no source other than saying "Flickr", and state it has no copyright status and is fair use. Therefore, I conclude that this image is probably unfree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uploader has since changed the license on the description page, but the source indicates that it's an NC-ND license, incompatible with Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:MVC.jpg
Uploader has tagged the image as being available under the Free Art License, however, in the accompanying text, they provide no source other than saying "Flickr", and state it has no copyright status and is fair use. Therefore, I conclude that this image is probably unfree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Original uploader has since indicated CC-BY on the image description page, but the source (Flickr) does not substantiate that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * delete per nom --Simon Speed 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:GWUColonialArmyLogo.jpg
Uploader has provided this image under the Free Art License, which is a free license, while indicating that the logo is still copyrighted, therefore unfree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:GWCOA.jpg
Tagged as Free Art License, however, the image appears to be copyrighted, and has a number of riders in the description page that confirms my "unfree" suspicions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:GWUlogo.jpeg
Copyrighted logo of The George Washington University, improperly listed as being available under the Free Art License. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to logo. -Nv8200p talk 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ebbsfleet intl.jpg
Although this user claims that they are the copyright holder of this image, I found the exact same image with the same file information at ,. This website is copyrighted as shown at the bottom of the page. I didn't put this up for CSD as the user claims they are the copyright holder of the image. Tbo 157  (talk)  16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it explicit: the EXIF- and IPTC-Informations embedded in the two image files are the same, e.g. both indicate the same Brian Morrison as the author. It's a pity. Somebody should go to Ebbsfleet and take a picture for Wikipedia. I can't, I live in Germany... --L.Willms 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:1174895414181506867815.jpg
Looks copyrighted poster, Orphan OsamaK 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bda.jpg
Derivative work. Liftarn 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)