Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 December 9



Image:Steele sidebottom 2.jpg
While the photoshopping is most likely the uploaders own work, the underlying image is most likely unfree and taken from here Mattinbgn\talk 06:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Agree, and photoshopping out the copyright mark does not make it his own work.  Gtstricky Talk or C 19:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pacificsky2.jpg
To my understanding the copyright of a company to promotional material does not expire after they have sold to subject of the image. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan.JPG

 * Image seems to be from the India military which I can not locate any free use law for using it. Image has been in a number of news articles, example:  Gtstricky Talk or C 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not free, however, I suggest it be changed to Fair Use. The person is notable, and has recently died. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He is our hero and we love to see him. Please keep this Photo here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.223.108 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DONT REMOVE THE PHOTOGRAPH. It was published in every newspaper throughout India. He is our hero, please dont remove his photograph. This image has been in a ton of online sites for newspapers as well. He just recently passed away, the wounds are very raw for all of us. I kindly request you to not remove his photograph. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.118.241 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bagpuss.jpg
A derivative work of the last image here. RMHED (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But is it really hurting anybody? The more Bagpuss the better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.121.176 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly hurting the copyright owner. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, he must be losing millions 217.206.158.100 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. It's about whether or not it violates the law. It's not okay to do so because no one is getting hurt or because the damage is minor. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly a copy under U.S. copyright law. Arguably a fair use, but there's no fair use rationale for its use in the article.  In any event, not in any way public domain as claimed on the image page. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no resemblance to the image it is claimed to be a derivative work of, beyond that which you would expect to be in common given that they are both drawings of Bagpuss. That said, I would have expected more to see an original image, which would surely be acceptable as a non-replaceable fair use image. Mdwh (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a blatant (self made) copy and hence a violation of . The orriginal would be better suited for a fair use claim.  Gtstricky Talk or C 02:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I redrew it in illustrator from an original image printed out and used as an overlay on my graphics tablet. So yes it is a derivative work, however it is also surely without copyright. salientsaline (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's without your copyright; but it's not without the original artist's copyright; and that's the issue. TJRC (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:RixRoseBowl.jpg
Appears to be professional photo. No indication that uploader is creator. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:RixRose.jpg
Appears to be professional photo. No indication that uploader is creator. Same as above image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an off guess based on edits, the uploader seems to be Rix or someone acting on his behalf. I have asked him if he is, and if he is, to email permissions-en confirming his identity and granting appropriate permission. --B (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)