Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 May 1



Image:Parliout.jpg
no evidence of release into public domain in the source Rettetast (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:1_9_Interchange_Jerusalem.jpg
No evidence of public domain in the source. Rettetast (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:107TimbersSunderland.jpg
No evidence of public domain. The permision does not specify if it allows commercial use and derivatives Rettetast (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've sent the copyright holder an e-mail asking for OTRS confirmation. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:14135348_m.jpg
No evidence of public domain in the source. Rettetast (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Image talk:14135348 m.jpg for pretty compelling evidence. I've also left a message for the uploader, Fredr, with instructions on how to get OTRS confirmation. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An unsigned comment on a talk page? No way. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:16symondsst.jpg
No evidence of public domain. Orphaned. Rettetast (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:RamsgateHarbour2.jpg
Source is Imageshack, no evidence of the CC license being correct. Polly (Parrot) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect deletion listing. The link to imageshack is for another image that was suggested as a replacement. The actual link ref is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmoores/5294690/in/set-246031/ which is Creative Commons 2.0. The previous link to imageshack has now been removed. KevinCarmody (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The license for that image is CC-BY-NC, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I been chatting with the guy who took the photo and he wants it to remain. The problem, we have more to do with our time than trying to figure out the bizarre rule-system we have to use. I had a look at this Copyright_FAQ and it seems to suggest that the licence is allowed. The solution, people here are dedicated and I presume have time on their hands, please tell us how we use the image, if we have to re-upload or just change licence, or what?!?! KevinCarmody (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-commercial tagged images can be used under fair use, but this image would likely then fail the WP:NFC policy. Can you get the Flickr photographer to change the license on the Flickr page to,  ,  or  any of those would be fine. Polly (Parrot) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Flickr photographer wants us to be able to use this photo, then all he has to do is remove the non-commercial-use-only restriction from the image. Then the image can be reuploaded, preferably to the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Home_feature2.jpg
No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of this image as claimed. Nv8200p talk 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:River Vrnjacka.jpg
No evidence of the CC license on the source page. Polly (Parrot) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hope_de_Somoza.jpg
Summary indicates that uploader is not the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:RubyMoon SibylleBlanc.jpg
No evidence of a CC license on the source page. Polly (Parrot</b>) 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Martin_Phike_.jpg
Promo image that I do not believe the uploader is the copyright holder for. Nv8200p talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Howza.jpg
Promo image that I do not believe the uploader is the copyright holder for. Nv8200p talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hphead.jpg
No evidence permission was granted by source to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sade adu.jpg
Looks like a promotional photograph, Flickr uploader probably does not hold the copyright. Lack of Metadata is also suspicious. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hugogirard.jpg
Summary indicates this image was found during a Google search and the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:River Roads Logo Crisp 1.png
Claimed to be PD but is clearly a copyrighted logo of a defunct shopping mall. Even though the mall is closed, I believe that this image is probably still copyrighted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was granted full rights to the archives by the last owner. I could obtain a written release if one insists, but I think that we can both agree that that should be a waste of time. On a somewhat related note, I can find no indication in the records that the logo is copyrighted. You seem to have a lot of free time, though , and , if you wish , I can arrange for you to examine the records for copyright information on your next visit to Saint Louis. --Frank.trampe (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, no meaningful conflicts here. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baton rouge river center6.JPG
I had tagged the image with nsd, as it was licensed PD-self but the photo was credited to a richyb83, but the uploader removed the nsd tag and now credits himself:. The ownership and license need to be clarified. Mosmof (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:AHKhan.jpg
No evidence of public domain in the source. Permission must be sent to OTRS. Rettetast (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pls specify how to do it. -- Isles <b style="color:blue;">Cape</b>Talk 11:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added rationale. -- Isles <b style="color:blue;">Cape</b>Talk 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Image licensing has changed to a fair use claim. Individual depicted is deceased.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:ACGrayling.PNG
No evidence of public domain in the source. Rettetast (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:ABC_Great_Britain_counties.gif
No evidence of public domain in the source. Rettetast (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The ABC's own website gives the authorization. Beneath the map it says:
 * The map may be copied and used freely. However, the Association of British Counties would appreciate an acknowledgement and a link to our site.
 * Howard Alexander (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rwanda_EnfantsPrisonniers_cover.jpg
© 2007 Didier Ruef / pixsil according to the description, yet the uploader claims copyright. Permsission must be sent to the OTRS. Rettetast (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gta_jack.jpg
Image's source does not corroborate licensing; see WT:NFCC. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Stupid Jack.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.31.75 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack Thompson released the image to several sources. Thus, this is public domain, the listed source is one of the websites to post the image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versailles2k (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The source provided states nothing about copyright release into the public domain. Please provide a reliable source for such libre licensing.  Further, I replaced your removal of the WP:PUI maintenance template from the image description page (IDP).  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As if someone's going to sue over one image. It's been copied thousands of times already. Wikipedia really needs to lighten up over its image policy. Unless someone makes a complaint as the original owner, photos are automatically free information. 80.2.12.91 (talk) 7th May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the image usage policy, the English Wikipedia has very stringent guidelines for its acceptance of copyrighted material. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, honestly, who cares, its funny, comic relief. Jeez, get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.213.193 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the Wikipedia policies on civility and refraining from personal attacks. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack Thompson has given permission to upload this, therefore it is perfectly legal, I have removed the template. 98.227.189.232 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but w/o a reliable source for the licensing present, the image fails the Wikipedia image use policy. Your maintenance tag removal was reverted by   —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk about no-life pedantic wikibureaucrats who can't be a little bit down to Earth now and then, and every time you tell them the truth, they pull the usual WP:CIVIL card. Very creative, very effective. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  08:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A "wikibureaucrat"? Be that as it may or may not be, Civility is a policy on the English Wikipedia.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously millions of people have probably posted this image or used this image in some sort of way, wikipedia should take it easy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjkm (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must follow it's own policies and procedures for both protection from law, as well as the core aspect of libre media. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Get Up Kids.jpg
No evidence from source page that the CC license is correct. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly, IMO, a copyrighted image. Should be tagged as Non-free promotional. Also, promotional images usually cannot be used for living people. The fair use rational does not give a good enough rational why the image is irreplaceable with non-free content. There are currently no free images of the band at flickr, but there are some non-free images (maybe we could contact the owners of those images and see if they wouldn't want to donate an image). I could see an argument that this image is irreplaceable because the band is defunct and we can no longer go out and take a picture of them as a band. But still, there are tons of images of this band still around, and it wouldn't hurt to try to track down someone who would want to donate an image.-Andrew c [talk] 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jim Suptic.jpg
No evidence from the source page of a CC license. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:James Dewees.jpg
Image comes from a press kit, no evidence it has been made public domain. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blackpoollights.jpg
No evidence from the source page that image is public domain. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, then what category would that fall under? (I'm kinda new to this, and that was the best match I could find under the listings)Rwiggum (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Without explicit permission to use under an acceptable license, and fair use not being an option as the band are currently together, then there is no chance really. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trey lewis 4.jpg
Copyright image. The subject is still alive, fair use doesn't apply. Corvus cornix talk  23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's no other images of Trey Lewis out there, so this is correctly sourced and atributed, and on the atlantafalcons.com website (the source) it says that images may be used for non-commercial purposes. [ LukeTheSpook ] | [ t c r ] 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be re-used for commercial purposes, therefore the use of this image is a copyright violation.  Corvus cornix  talk  04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it can doesn't mean it will, i'm pretty sure nobody will go "OH LOOK! a photo of Trey Lewis. I could print this and sell this!" [ LukeTheSpook ] | [ t c r ] 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also, couldn't it be liscened on wikipedia so it couldn't be reused legally? [ LukeTheSpook ] | [ t c r ] 04:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And can't you people lighten up for once? i've been trying to get images in that article forever and they've always been deleted. People are soo strict. They make the article better. Copyright Schmopyright. Nobody in there right mind is going to 'steal' a photo and sell it, especially a low resolution photo of a midlevel skilled NFL player. [ LukeTheSpook ] | [ t c r ] 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ramsgate Harbour aerial photograph is my own.. photographed donated to the author for just this purpose under a CC license and originally held on Flick - Wikipedia drives me crazy as I don not have the time to learn its strange tags and permissions. When, after all is Creative Commons not Creative Commons? DrMoores 06:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmoores (talk • contribs)