Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 March 5

Image:Atif aslam.jpg
It looks professionally done and the other photos uploaded by this user are much lower quality or copyvios. — BlueAzure (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joanne Fenn.jpg
The image was originally uploaded as being copyrighted with source provided. Two years later it was tagged as disputed fair use by a bot, less than a hour later the original uploader retag the image as pd-self. — BlueAzure (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - It looks to be an official head shot of an athlete and, as you note, it was previously shown as copyrighted with a link to the source (now a dead link, unfortunately). The change to PD right after BComBot tagged it is suspicious. I think we have to assume that it's copyrighted, in which case it has to be deleted since we can't use copyrighted images of living persons. -- Hux (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Croghanmarker.jpg
Texas historical markers are copyrighted. Nv8200p talk 04:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Narendra Modi1.jpg
Not in PD, if Govt of India work; not FU, as image of a living person Relata refero (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC) This image need not be deleted.

Image:Samson godwin.jpg
There is no evidence that the copyright holder has given permission (as claimed) as long as they are credited JD554 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Ukrainian text at the bottom of the source page says, "&copy; FK Karpati. All rights reserved", and I can't find anything else on the site that contradicts that. -- Hux (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hladkyi.jpg
No evidence that this is a free image or that copyright holder has granted free use under the GFDL JD554 (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - source link does not go to that image, but it looks like all images on Eurosport sites are "&copy;2008 Yahoo! & Eurosport. All rights reserved." -- Hux (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mahdufi.jpg
No evidence that this is a free image or that copyright holder has granted free use under the GFDL JD554 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - source link is 404, but images from it are almost certainly "Copyright © 2000-2007 FK Metallist Xarkov. All rights reserved", as per the copyright notice at the bottom of every page on the site. -- Hux (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael Anderson.jpg
No evidence that this is a free image or that copyright holder has granted free use under the GFDL JD554 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Source link does not contain this image, but if it did come from that site than it's almost certainly "&copy; FK Dynamo Kiev". -- Hux (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ivano Frankivsk panorama.jpg
There is no evidence that the copyright holder has given permission (as claimed) as long as they are credited JD554 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Prapor karpat.gif
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image JD554 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change tag - image is an official logo so the tag should be non free logo with a Fair Use rationale attached. -- Hux (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:GKW-9401.pdf
It is likely that "Go Karting Weekly", a magazine, is not cc-by-sa-2.5. Also Image:GKW-9402.pdf Image:GKW-9403.pdf Image:GKW-9404.pdf Image:GKW-9405.pdf Image:GKW-9406.pdf Image:GKW-9501.pdf and Image:GKW-9502.pdf. MER-C 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the license is right, it is not encyclopaedic. αѕєηιηє t/c 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - all the images are of the Adobe Acrobat logo. It looks like the uploader had a bunch of magazine covers in PDF format and was trying to upload them, but the Wiki software probably just grabs the Acrobat logo if you try to upload a PDF. -- Hux (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Curran2.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 12:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absent specific disclaimers, content at the source link appears to be "&copy;2008 Rockhurst University", and we can't use the image under Fair Use as a free image could reasonably be created. -- Hux (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cwseasonpass.png
The copyright holder of this image would be the amusement park company. Nv8200p talk 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete That's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It indeed is copyrighted by Wonderland. However, I can freely distribute it since it is MY card. Thus, I can put it on Wikipedia. I have since altered the copyright information. -- by cncxbox —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The copyright is in the card's design, which cannot legally be reproduced or distributed without the permission of the copyright holder. Even though you own the physical card, you cannot legally photograph/scan the image on it and release it under a free license. Sorry. (Also, please don't remove copyvio warnings until the issue is resolved. Thanks.) -- Hux (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright information changed to a non-free license. -- cncxbox —Preceding comment was added at 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The kicker is the statement "© 2007 Cedar Fair Entertainment Company. All rights reserved. Card design and logo are the property of Canada's Wonderland". It doesn't matter that we don't compete, reproducing this image potentially exposes WP to liability because all rights are reserved. We have to delete. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "All rights reserved" doesn't mean anything; it's legal boilerplate. It impacts our fair use rights not one bit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu International World Services.jpg
Claims to be released in the public domain, yet image has copyright notices directly on it. Calton | Talk 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as blatant copyvio. Image also had "all rights reserved" next to copyright stamp. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu_Keith_TV.JPG
Commercial logo, yet rather doubtfully tagged as "released in the pubic domain". Calton | Talk 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu_Keith TV_Zh_Can.JPG
Commercial logo, yet rather doubtfully tagged as "released in the pubic domain". Calton | Talk 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu_Keith TV_Zh_Man.JPG
Commercial logo, yet rather doubtfully tagged as "released in the pubic domain". Calton | Talk 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu_Keith_TV_RUS.JPG
Commercial logo, yet rather doubtfully tagged as "released in the pubic domain". Calton | Talk 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sifu_Keith_TV_FR.JPG
Commercial logo, yet rather doubtfully tagged as "released in the pubic domain". Calton | Talk 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:TorrentOOgle Wiki Logo.gif
Image purports to be released under GFDL, yet image is a commercial logo Calton | Talk 13:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, deleted. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MARILYN MONROE.jpg
Originally tagged as, with "Kay Monroe" as its source. This changed to with "Kay Johnsen; California" as both source and author, yet the uploader ostensibly holds the copyright. Suspected sockpuppetry involved in the inclusion of this image in Marilyn Monroe. — Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: The uploader added the following text to Image talk:MARILYN MONROE.jpg: " To publish this painting, you must mention this name: Kay Johnson. It's not a photo." Note the discrepancy in how the name is spelled vs. how it appears on the image page (where it was originally "Kay Monroe"). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if this truly is, as claimed, a painting, I'd wonder about whether it was derived from a photograph, about the copyright status of any such photograph, and about how the latter affected the copyright status of the painting. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the lack of sourcing, the way in which the licensing, author's name, etc., has jumped all over the place, plus the fact that sockpuppet appears to be involved, leads me to suspect that it's not actually the uploader's own work, so the CC license that's currently there is probably not accurate. I strongly suspect that this is a non-free image. -- Hux (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barack-obama-somali-elder-clothing.jpg
Copyright belongs to the Associated Press, not the uploader. Polly (Parrot) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Potential keep - the photo is notable and has been discussed quite a bit during the current Democratic primary campaign, so it would be good to have it somewhere. To use it we would need to incorporate it into an Obama-related article in a discussion specifically about the photo. On that basis we could tag it as copyrighted and use it under Fair Use. If it remains orphaned, however, then we have to delete it. -- Hux (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was already an existing discussion of this photo at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, so I changed the copyright tag, added a rationale, and removed the unfree tag. Is that good enough to keep it, do you think? -- Hux (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has deleted it without comment here and in less than the number of days specified (14, 7 and 5) by the processes I've noticed. Was this in-policy? Why? Andyvphil (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP, geniuses, its called an office action 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How does BLP apply? Pic was sourced, verifiable, had a fair use rationale, and was titled when it was in mainspace (there was an ongoing content debate about including it) with the NPOV and accurate "This photo of Obama dressed in ethnic Somali clothing appeared on the Drudge Report, attributed to a Clinton staffer." Per fair use policy, the image clearly illuminated the still-existing text, "The photo was interpreted as suggesting Muslim garb,..." And the rationale for deleting it was G4, not BLP, and G4 does not apply to prior speedy deletes, which was the case here. It looks out-of-process to me. So, exactly who has the authority to engage in "office actions" out of process and with inappropriate summarys? Andyvphil (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (delete) well considering this is a pic of a committed christian who faces constant allegations concerning his heritage, and that this pic is open to easy misinterpretation separate from any caption we might include, and that its first and numerous subsequent airings were part of directed personal smears, and that blp advises us to edit "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". i feel the pic violates most of that in large order, even if simply uploaded and not used. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Before any of the above even needs to be considered, the fact is that image was deleted in error, as the result of a bad MFD: neither G15 nor I5 applies since the image was neither orphaned nor did it lack an adequate Fair Use rationale. On that basis alone it should be restored. If it is to be deleted for a different reason then a discussion needs to be had about that, so that any deletion is done properly.


 * But to respond to your argument directly: your implication that any display of this image in any context constitutes a smear is unfounded. This is an encyclopedia - a project designed to collect as much notable, verifiable information as possible - and the image is clearly not merely fodder for the tabloids, as proven by the fact that it has appeared all over the mainstream media, so your tabloid argument (and the consequent BLP interpretation) is irrelevant. Consensus already exists for the notability of topic in general - by virtue of the fact that discussion of it exists unchallenged in the article - therefore, given Wikipedia's encouragement to include notable photos wherever possible, this photo should be in that article. We're talking about a photo that has become a big deal all over the mainstream media. It's a potent symbol of the fact that Obama has been smeared with accusations that he is a Muslim and as such deserves its place in the article to illustrate what the text is talking about. Your desire to minimize political harm to a presidential candidate by working to ensure that a neutral encyclopedia does not cast him in a negative light is thoroughly out of place here. -- Hux (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

actually I am more worried about personal harm than political harm. Inflammatory images do just that, they inflame people, and I while I know occasionally WP has a purpose in these situations, this is not one of those instances. Considering the level of violence that other, more explicit images concerning muslims have generated in the world community, I strongly advocate for a strict interpretation of BLP which would make this image unacceptable for use. The pic REQUIRES a massive amount of text to be dragged around with it or it violates BLP, and I have yet to see anyone properly write this text. I don't know that we can trust random editors to properly add the text every time the pic is used, and otherwise it will immediately violate BLP, as opposed to the soft-violation we are currently faced with. And yes the previous editor is right it already has a short text mention, which is where I think it should stay. The text for this issue is a small percentage of even the larger section its in- and I feel a pic that only illustrates one (small) paragraph, out of all WP, and does so poorly, has no business being here. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clear we have considerable disagreement on this (and for the record I think your allusion to the Danish Mohammed cartoons - if that is indeed what you refer to above by "other, more explicit images" - is totally absurd). But in any case, this isn't the place to reach consensus on the inclusion of the image in a particular article. The image has been deleted so the case is closed as far as this page is concerned. I'm still interested in reaching consensus for it in general but that consensus belongs in the relevant article rather than on this page. -- Hux (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still very interested on reaching a consensus that this image does not belong on WP ever (based on current facts). And I think this is place for that discussion. There is no possible, current use for this image which is a bias-free use and for that reason I aim to continue building consensus against that image. The discussion as to whether it is notable for use on the bo 2008 page is a seperate issue. Apparently if debate continues, that invalidates your fair-use rationale. such as it is. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Deepika Padukone.jpg
Looks like a publicity photo, uploader is unlikely to be the author of the work. Polly (Parrot) 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. -- Hux (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nawal2008.jpg
album cover photo, uploader is unlikely to hold the copyright of the original photo that this image was cropped from. Polly (Parrot) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The copyright is likely owned by the record company who owns the copyright to Image:Nawl-cover.jpg (which this image very closely resembles). A free image of this person could reasonably be created so this one should be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)