Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 February 4



Image:Soprano_Gencer.jpg
This image appears to be a professional studio portrait. There is no evidence the uploader was the photographer, owned the studio or has any right to release the image to the public domain. The uploader is absentee so the image status cannot be confirmed. Nv8200p talk 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vincennes shot.jpg
Image appears to be a news media/press photo. The source website is an image gallery site and gives no caption information providing the author or date of the photo. GFDL is claimed for this image on wikipedia, but the GFDL note on the site may only refer to the text portion of the site as it is part of the site's footer and not specific to each image in the gallery. It is unlikely the image was taken by the site's author and since no author is given or known this image can not be GFDL. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is free and using it with mentioning the site is allowed .In the bottom of the source page it is written :

"باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده آن، با ذکر منبع بلامانع است. «کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» If some one don't know Persian, at least the GDFL sign is possible to read. اخبار، صوت و تصویر Means NEWS(اخبار) , SOUND(صوت) and IMAGE(تصویر) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is the original photographer of the image? Where was it first published? The site appears to be an image gallery site, there is no indication that they own the pictures. Since they don't own the images, they can not release them GFDL. Thousands of websites exist with image galleries that claim images to be GFDL, we can not take their word for it we need to find out who the legitimate copyright holder is. If we can't do this, the image must be removed. Additionally, what is the original caption of the image? The image claims a caption that the source site does not list. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the author of the photo is not known, and this was an international incident, press photographers from international press agencies were in Iran taking pictures. This photo may be copyrighted by AP, UPI or any other international press organization. Those organizations would hold the image's copyright. GFDL can not be used since the author is not known. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree in doubting the GFDL claim, as another image in the collection looks like a U.S. Navy photo. I'm not particularly keen about the informational/illustration merits to Wikipedia of this particular photo either - I would have chosen  or  from this collection if they are GFDL. I've added some info on Iranian copright issues & Wikipedia to the image page - legally the Iranian copyright of this image does not hold in the U.S. but Wikipdeia policy is to treat it as-if there was an Iran-U.S. copyright treaty. Rwendland (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About "owning the pictures", I can say because the government owns all of the news agencies , and the owner of the site is also the government , then there is no problem in ownership, but the author is unknown. In doubting GDFL claim , that does not seems to be reasonable , because if we were going to doubt any page which claims GDFL , then the GDFL policy would be totally useless, besides that a governmental site and doubting the claims of a government is generally unacceptable (at least in minor issues!) : Imagine doubting Id's or birth certificates or etc !  --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that it is a government website? The about page mentions nothing about the government of Iran operating the site. At any rate, the site does not provide a caption for the image even though the uploader has captioned apparently assuming it depicts a victim. No date is provided, no author is listed, no caption is given, and the source website is not run by the government. How can this be GFDL we know nothing about this image except that it came from a webpage that claims it is GFDL. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a governmental site: Iranian parliament budget for FRHDMPSVP, but I don't know if the lack of caption has anything to do with freeness of the image.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The US government provides money to thousands of groups, that doesn't mean those sources are all PD-US. And thanks for providing an english source, that's very helpful. Having a caption would provide the vital details of the image and there would be no question of the copyright. Without a caption, we know nothing except that its posted on this page and the foundation claims the entire site is GFDL. That doesn't explain how an apparent US Navy is also labeled GFDL when it would be PD-USN. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if I provide any Persian page, that would be useless because the doubting side can't read Persian, and if I show the source claims that the picture are free and/or the source is a governmental one , still the doubt can't be alleviated because the doubting side thinks the site or government lies. I think with this level of hypersensitivity,it can simply be asked for anyone outside the western world not to dedicate any picture at all ! Do you think what kind of proof can solve the problem? If doubting the claim of GDFL is considered to be resonable ,then the same claim can be said about Image:USS Vincennes returns to San Diego Oct 1988 that is from the site dodmedia! what if I say all the permissions on the site are unreal and all of the images are unfree?! The only difference is the language of the sites... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A good point, except there is no comparison. One is a poorly designed, low quality image gallery site run by a foundation, you claim is part of the Iranian government, that provides no captions, sources, authors, and the other is an official US DoD site that provides captions and sources and is clearly run by the United States Government. I trust that the Iranian government would provide some kind of caption other than placing the image in a gallery and letting us assume the rest. For all we know it was mistakenly placed in the wrong gallery. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In "officialty",there is no difference;Both are official! The difference is in language,design and quality.But the topic seems to discuss about freeness of the image, and not the above mentioned topics.The "clarity" that you are saying,(in "and is clearly run by the United States Government..."),is mainly based on the language of the site.Is the clarity of a claim a parameter of the language? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DoD images states it is run by the government, http://www.sajed.ir/en/content/view/1/194/ says it is run by a foundation and makes no mention of the Iranian government. No language barrier there. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept. The image may be in the public domain, or it may be GFDL, or failing that it may even be fair use. I see little danger in keeping this photo, and we try to Avoid copyright paranoia, so I'm keeping it. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DontCopyFloppy.ogg
I think I may have mistakenly listed this as a free video, see the discussion on my talk page Mr Senseless (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DianaDeGarmo.JPG
Placed under GFDL; no evidence that uploader actually holds the copyright to this publicity photo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)