Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 7



Image:KatyPerry.jpg
Watermark in image indicates the uploader is probably not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 01:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one needs to be deleted. Pretty obvious copyright infringement. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted the copyright owner on Flickr and he said he was the one who uploaded it.  dissolve  talk  09:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What about fair use copyright infringement...this is supposed to be an educational website isn't it? I say leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.115.39 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The name of the Flickr account matches the watermark, so if it is actually the case that the Flickr user is the one who uploaded it to Wikipedia, then the original licenses (GFDL and CC-by-sa 3.0) were legitimate. Dissolve, you should forward your correspondence regarding the image to OTRS, and/or ask the photographer to change the license on Flickr.--ragesoss (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kept pending OTRS, I'll delete if nothing happens. BJ Talk 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the Flickr image, and the photographer responded via Flickr mail saying that he was allowing use on Wikipedia, but unfortunately he didn't explicitly acknowledge the license or confirm that he was the uploader on Wikipedia. I'll try again and ask him to be more clear, or better yet, relicense the image on Flickr.--ragesoss (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The original author of this image needs to send an email to OTRS to legitimately confirm copyright status.  JBsupreme (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will happily restore if the email is received. Kevin (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - blue link is due to a Commons image with the same name. Kevin (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arrow of time lg.png
GNU is claimed, though I don't see evidence for that at the site or the cited URL. It is also claimed that the uploader is the copyright holder and that the image is released into the public domain. I have left a message on the user's talk page but am skeptical. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor has primarily edited articles about the individual he claims to be and who made the image and associated articles. I would guess that the claim is probably genuine, though an actual GNU license agreement somewhere would be good. And of course the edits end up raising questions about WP:COI and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Image:SentinelRock.jpg
The result of the proposal was -- PD status confirmed. Updated image page, closing discussion. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)  Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bridgeman v. Corel overrides that, as long as we can prove it was published (not just taken) before 1923. --NE2 05:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From this site it appears the image was published in this book, which was published in 1870. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Studio.jpg
Technically, the version uploaded by User:PrestigeManChild had no license with it (the license was with the image User:Orangeorangeorange, but either way, both are orphaned and UE images. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note - the blue link is due to a Commons image. Kevin (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Naval Base Salamis Island.jpg
 Sv1xv (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Kompikos really the Copyright holder, as he claims? Sv1xv (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Germans Salamina Naval Base.jpg
 Sv1xv (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly an image scanned from a magazine or newspaper (the text on the back page of the sheet is clearly visible). Sv1xv (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:ConfederateArtillery.gif
 Bellhalla (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We're splitting hairs here. The source page gives the following release: "Copyright © 1997, 1998 Savage / Goodner Camp #1513 SCV  All are welcome to use this artwork. All that is requested is a link to our page. Please link to http://tennessee-scv.org/Camp1513/ . Thanks."

Does the license tag need to be changed since the images are in fact copyrighted, but are released for use by the disclaimer on the source page? Sf46 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really "splitting hairs", as you put it, if the license for an image is incorrect. From what I saw at the source page, as I mentioned in the nom above, is that this image is listed at the source page as being subject to copyright, and makes no mention whatsoever of the GFDL license that is claimed on the image page. I have listed this image here, as well as the two listed below, because they are possibly unfree images and I felt it would be best to get the opinions of other editors, more knowledgeable in image licensing matters. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed copyright tag. Sf46 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going by the image source page, the new tag may be incorrect. They are requesting attribution in the form of a link to their website which may not meet the "with or without attribution of the author" portion of the license. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that the "request" is being fulfilled, at least as much as possible within the capabilities of Wikipedia, by the presence of the requested link being included in the permission portion of the image description? Also, I'd say that their use of the word "requested" exactly covers the with or without portion of the license.  Had they used the word "required" instead, I'd say that you were indeed correct, Bellhalla that it might go against the license, but as stated, it most definitely fits within the correct wording of the license.Sf46 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This statement is not clear enough. There is nothing in there that allows for the creation of derivative works. Can you please have them clarify if derivative are allowed? Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Howcheng, I'm going to go ahead and plead that I am a dumbass, but what policy requires allowance of deriative works, and that it be expressly stated for the current license used? Also does the phrase "all are welcome to use" not basically state that anyway?  Just asking. Sf46 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cavalry3.gif
 Bellhalla (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Same as above. The source page gives the following release: "Copyright © 1997, 1998 Savage / Goodner Camp #1513 SCV  All are welcome to use this artwork. All that is requested is a link to our page. Please link to http://tennessee-scv.org/Camp1513/ . Thanks."

Does the license tag need to be changed since the images are in fact copyrighted, but are released for use by the disclaimer on the source page? Sf46 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed copyright tag. Sf46 (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going by the image source page, the new tag may be incorrect. They are requesting attribution in the form of a link to their website which may not meet the "with or without attribution of the author" portion of the license. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that the "request" is being fulfilled, at least as much as possible within the capabilities of Wikipedia, by the presence of the requested link being included in the permission portion of the image description? Also, I'd say that their use of the word "requested" exactly covers the with or without portion of the license. Had they used the word "required" instead, I'd say that you were indeed correct, Bellhalla that it might go against the license, but as stated, it most definitely fits within the correct wording of the license.Sf46 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comments for Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif below. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif
 Bellhalla (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Same as above. The source page gives the following release: "Copyright © 1997, 1998 Savage / Goodner Camp #1513 SCV  All are welcome to use this artwork. All that is requested is a link to our page. Please link to http://tennessee-scv.org/Camp1513/ . Thanks."

Does the license tag need to be changed since the images are in fact copyrighted, but are released for use by the disclaimer on the source page?

Also, if you check the image's templates, you will see that a past dispute was solved on April 8, 2008, and the iamge was nominated for moving to Wikimedia Commons.Sf46 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute (which I did check, by the way) seemed to revolve around the sourcing of the image. Since the image source as listed now is correct, I fail to see how the previous dispute affects what I see now: that the current source page claims a copyright and has no mention of a GFDL license, as is currently claimed on the image page.
 * Also, if an image is copyrighted, it is not free and is therefore, as I understand it, ineligible to be moved to commons. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to be an expert either, but my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that a copyrighted image that has a release can be considered a free image and potentially could be moved to commons. I didn't nominate it it to go to commons, and don't really care if goes there or not.  I do think that you are splitting hairs by suggesting that simply because the release given on the source website does not use the exact term "GFDL" that it can not be considered a free image. Sf46 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By definition a copyrighted image is not free. Period. The free use of images from that website may be the intent of the operators/owners, but all we know is what is posted there. When the image was uploaded it was tagged as a GFDL image, which does not seem to be the case and is the reason that these three images are listed here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed copyright tag. Sf46 (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going by the image source page, the new tag may be incorrect. They are requesting attribution in the form of a link to their website which may not meet the "with or without attribution of the author" portion of the license. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that the "request" is being fulfilled, at least as much as possible within the capabilities of Wikipedia, by the presence of the requested link being included in the permission portion of the image description? Also, I'd say that their use of the word "requested" exactly covers the with or without portion of the license.  Had they used the word "required" instead, I'd say that you were indeed correct, Bellhalla that it might go against the license, but as stated, it most definitely fits within the correct wording of the license. Sf46 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The web site is not specific about which types of use are acceptable. I feel it is reasonable to assume that the permission is that the image is free to use as-is, for decorative type purposes. That is quite different from the requirements for Wikipedia, which is the image must be licensed for any use, including commercial and derivative uses. I am deleting the image for now, however if the web site is changed to an acceptable license, or permission is asserted as per the directions at WP:COPYREQ, the it can be reinstated. Kevin (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gondola-point-2.jpg
Taken from a Canadian government site. The disclaimer linked to from the page makes no mention that the work is in the public domain.  howcheng  {chat} 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Falsafi.jpg
This was taken in 1955, and the author is unknown. I am not seeing any reason as to why this is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear J Milburn,


 * This picture is among several pictures you will find here:


 * http://www.bahai-biblio.org/centre-doc/cib/persecution/persecution_galerie.htm


 * These as well as other pictures not listed there are among the many historical pictures of Baha'i persecutions that the Baha'i Faith owns and freely makes available to the general public to promote awareness of the violation of Baha'i rights in Persia (now Iran) throughout its 160 year history. The Baha'i Faith intentionally avoids applying copyrights to these images so others could make free use of them for the purpose of publicizing the plight of Baha'is. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdibMasumian (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to their Terms of Service, images are for non-commercial use only. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)