Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 26



Image:Šokci.draž.jpg
Image is no longer at Croatian wikipedia Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Štvanice.ext.jpg
No indication why this should be in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Broadwaybear.jpg
No indication why this image would be in the public domain, and it would be an easily replaceable non-free image if that. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Freedom of panorama exists in Canada. I see no reason to doubt the good faith of the uploader releasing it into the public domain, particularly because meta-data is present. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is he the photographer of these images? I see nothing to suggest he is.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I uploaded it. I did not take these pictures, but they are posted on a public school division website and should therefore be public domain lee_haber8 (talk)

Image:Raising-the-devil.jpg
No indication why this is in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Broncovddoberwache1.jpg
No indication why this image is in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cecil Grant.jpg
I'm not sure PublicDomain4u is the way to determine copyright status. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:AmirKhan.jpg
No reason why the uploader would be the copyright holder. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a publicity photograph, which I believe qualifies its use on relevant Wikipedia articles as fair use. 140.177.205.91 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair use is not public domain. Fair use means that the image is copyrighted and we are trying to justify our use of it.  It may be that though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe it is fair use, not really public domain. 140.177.205.91 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Centennial 02.gif
No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clell1962.jpg
No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Comedytragedy.gif
Based off a website that thought it may have been public domain. Otherwise, not particularly encyclopedic and was only used for one non-article time. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dragon_Airport.jpg
Probably a (non-free) concept drawing, unlikely uploader is the copyright holder. MER-C 08:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dragon_Airport_(1).jpg
Probably a (non-free) concept drawing, unlikely uploader is the copyright holder. MER-C 08:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:20080520b_011102009.jpg
Looks like a newspaper article, unlikely uploader is the copyright holder. MER-C 08:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:KuraraChibanaMaybelline.jpg
Editor claims copyright ownership yet image shows a Maybelline billboard advertisement that is probably copyrighted Phlyght (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wintersonata.png
Editor claims copyright ownership yet image is a screenshot of a TV program that is probably copyrighted Phlyght (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Noname2005.jpg
No PD statement at source. &mdash; neuro(talk) 13:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Matt2.jpg
Orphaned UE image, possibly an unfree comic panel. It should be replaced with Image:Untitled.jpg and protected to encourage better image titles. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wheatley Jan 2008 cropped.jpg
reason this image is non-free Spitfire 19 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the unfortunate lack of rationale from the nominator. I have to agree that this image is non-free. It is licensed as non-commercial on Flickr. Unless we had some earlier verification of a license change, this needs to be deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Victor.jpg
Looks like a shot from a press conference. Low resolution, no meta-data. I suspect this was taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chinese tea cup vs UK.jpg
Clearly watermarked, and the user when I asked them about this. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MerryKarnowsky.jpg
Summary indicates that the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nv8200p: thank you for your attention. Here is the information you require.  I have received a 'cc copy of an email sent to Wiki address provided.


 * To Wiki permissions-en@wikimedia.org:


 * My name is LG Williams. The wiki image “MerryKarnowsky.jpg” is my image. I took the picture, I photoshoped the image, and I hold the copyright for it.  Thank you for protecting it.  However, I did agree to let the author of the article use this image.  Wiki has EXPLICIT PERMISSION to use my copyrighted image, so do NOT delete the image.


 * Respectfully,


 * LG Williams
 * www.lgwilliams.com
 * info@lgwilliams.com

This image or media is missing evidence of permission. It is sourced to LG Williams http://www.lgwilliams.com, but while a copyright tag has been applied, there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after Thursday, 6 November 2008. Please remove this template if a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or a tag with an OTRS ticket number has been added.


 * Summary indicates that the uploader User:Art4em is indeed the copyright holder as stipulated, namely L. G. Williams, as virtually all edits by Art4em have been to the now-deleted article L. G. Williams, to now-deleted articles about artworks by L. G. Williams, to mostly now-removed mentions of L. G. Williams in other articles, and to an associate of L. G. Williams, Wally Hedrick, which manages to include two photos with L. G. Williams in them. Do you hear a quacking sound?  Ty  22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss as to your accusation? Please explain...


 * Moreover, I am constantly reminded by Wikians insuinatingly negative language which ultimately amounts to a 'witchhunt', which again and again seems wholly unappropraite and way beyond the bounds of wiki protocol. Thus has been my entire wiki editorial experience with my significant 'art' contributions -- at least the musicans and literati resoundingly acknowledge 'facts' when duly presented. My detailed criticisms with other groundless articles have gone entirely unaddressed.


 * Lastly, my contributions have been significant -- and the few you mentioned that were 'vandelized' and 'inappropraitely deleted' will be re-introduced per wiki policy when I have the leisure time.

Art4em has supplied an OTRS ticket number, which I have put on the image page, but am not in a position to verify.  Ty  11:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomionation. Looks like the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. -Nv8200p talk 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:32m DSN Antenna.jpg
This is a ditto copy of this image and not selfmade as been claimed, unless the uploader is from ISRO, which is very unlikely. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 20:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Image:18m DSN Antenna.jpg from . In fact, all of the uploader's contribs look quite suspicious.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dhoom 2 Cover.jpg
This is definitely not the uploaders work and a simple google image search will prove that. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 20:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mesh-29.jpg
Summary indicates the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Naettsfds.jpg
Looks like a screeshot Nv8200p talk 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sikh_helmet.jpg
This Sikh helmet image is owned by the Wallace collection in London, it is from their leaflet material. I know because when I visited the Wallace collection the exact same image was on one of their leaflets. And the image is their copyright photo. The uploader of flicker has falsely posted it as his image (& no image metadata as proof). The Wallace collection owns the legal copyright for this image. Please see another shot of the helmet on Anglo Sikh Heritage website. On the description it say the helmet is owned by "Asian Art Museum of San Francisco" this false and a lie it is owned by the Wallace collection in London. Please delete the image wikipedia does not have copyright permission from the Wallace collection in London for use of it.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum. This image is on Commons.  You should nominate it for deletion there.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natearchibald.jpg
Looks like a pro headshot. I don't believe the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 22:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg
watermarked, copyrighted image VartanM (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oil Nobel.jpg
same image as Image:102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg, covered the watermark with the coin image. VartanM (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:103 023 taghiyev album2.jpg
watermarked image VartanM (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)