Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 November 6



Image:Eeknight2.jpg
The image is cut from a book cover, the uploader claims to own the copyright, which is only possible if they're the photographer or the publisher, but they claim to own the copyright because they own a copy of the book. The uploader is User:Eeknight, so they might be the person in the photo, but there's no evidence that they own the copyright. 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible the fair-use rational is incorrect, but it's still fair use. The photograph is the visual for the primary subject of the article.  -BarkerJr (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I own all rights to this photo. The photo was taken with my camera by my dad. I let Penguin or anyone else who wishes to have an image of me for promotional purposes of my book or what have you use it.  I uploaded it myself to Wikipedia.--Eeknight (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

- deleted as derivative work. Garion96 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Triodopsis platysayoides.jpg
source webpage does not specify any free license for any image Snek01 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kurtklang.jpg
The license added by the uploader (who may be the subject of the image based on the user name) states that permission is required to use image and no modifications are allowed; this would be non-free Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:John Hambrick.jpg
TV screenshot; unlikely to be fair use. dave pape (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible the fair-use rational is incorrect, but it's still fair use. The photograph is the visual for the primary subject of the article.  -BarkerJr (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No pages link to it anyway, but i though fair use was not allowed for identifying living persons? So it is not fair use, if that's what it was/will be used for.Yobmod (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except that once you publish your photo on TV, I think you lose all rights to claim privacy for that photo (which is why the living-person exception is there, right?). But anyway, as you said, it's not linked anyway, so lets delete it. -BarkerJr (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pauley-perrette1.jpg
Image is not a screenshot, it is a publicity photo and therefore has inappropriate licensing assertions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Image isn't linked by any page, so may as well be deleted, right? -BarkerJr (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yamna burial.png
Vague description (from an academic publication not but sure which), so probably fair use at best, but this seems like an image could easily be replaceable. Also, I'm not really sure it is really significantly adds to the article (the caption is the exact same as in the text and seems descriptive enough). Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the image is replaceable, but not with a free equivalent. Any equivalent image will also be pulled from an academic publication. It is certainly fair use on articles dealing with the Yamna culture. I agree it should be properly identified though, I'll try and flick through Gimbutas' works looking for it. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image is indeed an exact tracing of an archaeological site, it may be under U.S. law.  We need to know the source to check that, though.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Monferrato2.jpg
Image claimed as PD art, but looking at it it seems 20th century, possibly very recent, to me. Created with no source info by User:Daufer, several of whose other image licences seem dubious or at any rate misunderstood. He never gives a source, & claims most are self-made, even when they are medieval manuscript illuminations or old engravings. His talk page consistrs mostly of blanked image warnings. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)