Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 9



Image:Josh Groban Mohegan Sun.jpg
 JBsupreme (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kubler.jpg
Absentee account, no way to verify source ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Landing_Craft_-_Locally_built_p1.jpg
Also Image:CLA Parade.jpg and Image:SLA peacekeepers 1.jpg. No alteration allowed, therefore not free enough for Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These may be copyrighted images, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) website disclaimer, "Reproduction of news items are permitted when used without any alterations to contents and the source." states that these images may be used or reproduced. Furthermore these images can not be replaced by free images since all images of these institutions may be released by either the MoD or the media, both being copyrighted only these MoD images can be used in wiki for descriptive purposes.Nitraven (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to nominator comment the rationale claims that usage in wikipedia is for educational purpose only which is not free enough for wikipedia. The rationale indictes that no free or public domain images are available, WP:NFCC says or could be created the fact that nobody has created one is not a reasonable rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they fail wp:nfcc but at least they should be tagged with a non-free tag. The current tag is plainly wrong. Garion96 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kuselan Still (57).jpg
 Mspraveen (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kelley_Eskridge.jpg
The summary indicates the uploader is not the copyright holder. No evidence that permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ken_allred.JPG
No evidence the image was licensed under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted the subject at the time that I wrote the article, asking for a few things (fact checking primarily), but also asking that "If there is a picture of yourself suitable for Wikipedia that can be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL) you provide it." He responded by sending me the picture, although at no point did he explicitly say that he was licensing it under the GFDL.  It is my belief that context made it clear that he was doing so, but I'm willing to hear others' opinions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the OTRS ticket, for anyone who has an account. The OTRS volunteer felt that the image wasn't released sufficiently explicitly.  I disagree with this assessment but, again, I'm happy to yield to consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:FO.jpg
Tagged CC-BY-SA-3.0, but no evidence of license provided. Please forward license from the copyright holder to OTRS as explained at WP:COPYREQ Rettetast (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I talked to the guy who is involved in this website and he said that this image may be used in this fashion. However, as I am given to understand, it is not even the case that the website www.falundafa.org is the copyright holder of this image. And the author does not have email/computer. What happens usually when someone drew something and someone else uploaded it, and the person who drew it doesn't have email etc.? This is pretty much the situation on this. I've been told directly though that this image may be used like this.--Asdfg12345 08:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oakwood Satillite.png
I am not seeing anywhere on the site where content is released, and judging from the logos, this doesn't even belong to the source website anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jeff_palmer.jpg
No evidence on source site about CC license. Garion96 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Major Richard Winters.png
I was watching the TV series "Band of Brothers" the other day, and this image is a screencap of the last episode, during an interview at the end. The bad faith of this user is striking, not only that he would attempt to release this image as PD, but that he would add the specific and incorrect remark "I created this work entirely by myself." Jackaranga (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Jackaranga (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:200px-Seekersultimate.jpg
Image is a screenshot of another fair use image, thus it's unfree too? Image in question is Image:Seekersultimate.jpg Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BikeBoys.jpg
Unfortunately, the source website does not say that the image was published before 2001, so unless it also meets PD-old, it isn't PD. — - SCEhard T 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This photo was taken in 1912 by Shipler Commercial Photographers, a SLC firm, presumably for a client. My understanding is that commercial photography is considered to be "published" (for copyright purposes) when it is delivered to (and paid for) by the client -- but I'm certainly not a copyright lawyer! Shipler's business records aren't included in the online archive (and have likely been dicarded), but this isn't a family-snapshot-album situation. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of delivery to a customer counting as "published". Assuming that is the case, I think it should be fine to keep the image. - SCEhard T 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright law is, well, counter-intuitive... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I decided to go ahead & relicense this one as a fair use photo, because it strikes me as possibly a snapshot rather than a photo taken for a client. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a final note, I went back to the source: it's an 8x10 glass-plate negative! So probably not a snapshot [grin]. Still, as pub date isn't documented, fair use license is safest. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)