Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 June 1



Image:Indian_Meal_Moth_damage.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indian_Peacekeepers.gif
No evidence permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg
 BillCJ (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This link should clarify the situation: http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=7158 At the bottom of the page, it states: "Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as "Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army" and credit to individual photographer whenever possible."PistolPete037 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the term courtesy image indicates it is not a US Army image and highly likely a General Atomics publicity picture. The same image on this page is credited to General Atomics. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where Designation-Systems.net got their copy from, I got this copy from the US Army web site and it clearly states at the bottom that everything on the web site (including this picture) is public domain.PistolPete037 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that all works by the federal government of the United States are considered to be in the Public Domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.141.95 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me that the image was found on a US Army website and the Army itself claiming that it is their picture, means it is in the public domain and that while designation-systems.net may have received their picture from General Atomics, the US army says it is their picture, and in good faith we should take it at face value that it is public domain.--Lan Di (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barbette03.jpg
no evidence that there was no compliance w/ copyright formalities Mangostar (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What evidence of this negative would you like? The image was published in the United Kingdom in 1926 and was never to the best of my ability to locate published in the United States. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I still believe that this is in the public domain, I have added a fair-use rationale in the event that it is not, as the image is acceptable under WP:FU. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:362011p5ran444z9.jpg
Image name, watermark suggests unfree image. — Amog  |T a l k 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:SOPposternov5.jpg
GFDL claim - But clearly a movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:SOPposternov5.jpg
GFDL claim - But clearly a movie poster Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Apple-wireless-keyboard-aluminum-2007new.jpg
Product- Does design right exist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * uhh...I thought you couldn't copyright utilitarian objects. We usually don't factor design rights in because this is a PHOTO of something, not an actual something we made a recreation of. ViperSnake151 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yunakimfestaonice.jpg
GFDL Claim - But source listed claims 'All Rights Reserved' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rubyrana.jpg
watermark suggests unfree image — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sumikhadka.jpg
watermark suggests unfree image — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poonamghimire.jpg
watermark suggests unfree image — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Payal1.jpg
watermark suggests unfree image — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:AnitaGurung.jpg
watermark, background logos suggest unfree image — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Missnepal.jpg
Unfree logos of Dabur and Vatika — Amog  |T a l k 13:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: The author has a whole lot more suspected images. Can anyone please check out his contributions? - Amog  |T a l k 13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I suspect copyvio. But, Dabur and Vatika's logos are only text, pd-textlogo+trademark material. ViperSnake151 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I meant he has uploaded more than the handful of suspected images I've added here.We need someone to check out the rest of his pictures. - Amog  |T a l k 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:HaroldGodwinson.jpg
Not a free image and if fair-use were claimed it would be replaceable either by an image taken from any of several out of print works on numismatics available on Google books, or at the Internet Archive, or by taking a trip to a museum holding one of these coins and making a picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Linux sreenshot.jpg
orphaned, possibly unfree due to Skype logo (and we've gone overboard on the Firefox logo before) ViperSnake151 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, given that the logo is incidental to the image, I would say it is free enough (kind of like of you happen to catch a copyrighted logo on somebody's t-shirt in a crowd). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:ANT_NDEC_wiki.jpg
It is likely that ITV reserve exclusive rights to photography of Saturday Night Live, so the stated licensing is invalid. The quality is definitely not worth the dubious copyright status. — BigBlueFish (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the licensing of some of the other uploading user's contributions may also have the same issue. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:InduKotiStotra.jpg
No evidence permission was given to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Interrupted_by_reality_while_dreaming.jpg
Uploader does not appear to be copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)