Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 2



Image:Sharon_den_Adel_performing_Angels.jpg
Non-free screenshot of a video clip. OsamaK 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sheena_Halili.jpg
The uploader is not the creator per the summary. Wrong license, Orphan. OsamaK 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shevi.jpg
Non-free TV screenshot, Orphaned. OsamaK 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shezan_Ismail.jpg
The uploader is not the creator per the summary. Wrong license, Orphan. OsamaK 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Demonoid.jpeg
This appears to be a logo for a website and should not be tagged as GFDL-presumed Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:ShopTurbo_screenshot.png
Non-free screenshot of a website. OsamaK 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marian fanatxt.jpg
No mention of any sort of free license on sourced website Q  T C 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marian white.jpg
No mention of any sort of free license on sourced website Q  T C 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:ConverseLogo.svg
Copyrighted Logo Alx 91 (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Too simple for copyright. It's a star, a circle and some text. PD-textlogo would apply. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Okul.jpg
Watermarked image - No indication website operator is the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:ECM new logo w motto.jpg
The author is not the submitter unless an OTRS ticket has been submitted to verify this. If such an OTRS ticket is submitted, disregard. Otherwise the logo is licenced as CC-SA and there's no proof this is the copyright holder. Logical Premise Ergo? 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Merry_japanese_band.jpg
Summary says that last.fm claim this image to be "non-copyrighted" and that last.fm's own copyright doesn't extend to it. The last part is true naturaly since it's not their image, however I can't find any hint anywhere on the page linked to as source about this or other images there beeng in the public domain. The mere absense of copyright info does not make stuff public domain. Sherool (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael_Attree.jpg
Beeing posted on one or more websites without a copyright notice or credit does not automaticaly mean something is public domain. The way copyright law works we need an explicit statement of release, not merely the absense of a list of restrictions to determine that something has been released to the public domain. Sherool (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Recieved an e-mail from someone claiming to be the copyright holder confirming the release of the photo. Asked him to clearify a few things and send his reply to the permissions OTRS que, have tagged the image as OTRS pending for now. --Sherool (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE 22 November, 2008.

A detailed e-mail has now been sent to Permissions and Sherool (on Friday, November 14, 2008) stating clearly how the copyright related rights to this submitted image has now been proven to be totally unrestricted to the public domain as is evident in a statement given on Michael Atters Attree‘s official website: www.ministryofmoustaches.0catch.com/ (in small white text below the same image, seven images down- pop-up blocker advised).

The article is now awaiting the reinstatement of the said image (the previous edit has been resumed and now awaits the image which has been sent once again to Permissions). User:Sretta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sretta (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mikenifongmugshot.jpg
Source is very vague here, only "Booking mugshot. Public document", if I recall correctly from some earlier discussions mugshots are not automaticaly public domain (unless taken by a Federal US agency). At the very least more information is nessesary here. Sherool (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)