Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 9



Image:Reviewcentresceenshot.gif
Screenshot of non-free website. Orphaned. OsamaK 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ronn_Winter-1-.JPG
"Promotional Poster", Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Smiles_United_Football_Club.jpg
Non-free logo, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stefan_De_Battista.jpg
Looks a non-free album cover. OsamaK 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bell system map.png
According to the description, the image appears to have originated from copyrighted content in Disconnect magazine. However, the uploader appears to have made modifications to the original copyrighted content and released the whole thing in the public domain, which I don't believe you can do? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw this tagged on Project Bell System. It does appear that this image is a derivative work made from a copyrighted image, as it was from a magazine. Thus likely in violtion of . Arakunem Talk 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove Such an image belongs in Uncyclopedia, not here in Wikipedia. Image is not useful for a serious encyclopedia. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from the project page. The only place now that links to the image is a talk page, where it is only there to say "this doesn't belong here". Essentially an orphaned image now. Arakunem Talk 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p1.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) --- Deleted, this an the other "life goes on" images listed on this page. From the discussion above and on one of the image's discussion pages it seems that "partial reproduction" is allowed. But that does not imply that alterations are ok. Therefore they are not 'free' enough for Wikipedia. A case could be made for one of the images to pass the non-free content criteria. Feel free to message me to undelete one of the images for that reason. Garion96 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WH Coordinator. --KoberTalk 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WH Coordinator. Geagea (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be some likely POV pushing on both sides here. I have argued elsewhere that similar Russian government documents are free enough for Wikipedia. I don't buy Russavia's argument that these are somehow different. I want to assume good faith here on both sides, but it is kind of tough. A couple of points I want to mention: I think the images are a bit out of project scope (or at least posting all of them is). They also seem a little bit WP:SOAPY (That's an issue for WP:IFD though). It also seems a little bit odd when an editor with a pro-Kremlin POV cited on their user page seems to contradict their earlier arguments about Russian copyrights. That being said, however, it seems like an attribution licence to me and for that reason alone, the images should be kept for now. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response In the reply that I received from the Kremlin, it was noted that CC is not on the Statutes of the Russian Federation. Doing further research myself, when it is stated "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства", it is intended only to allow reprinting of information with reference; it does not allow for derivative works which are taken out of context nor which change the purpose of the work. In short, this means it is not allowable for WP. Based upon the response from the Kremlin Press Office, I have changed my stance based upon that, and that alone. We need to contact these publications directly and specifically ask for CC licencing on their works, and this is in the works; Krasnaya Zvezda can be included in the list of those to contact if desired, but for now they are not within the confines of the attribution licence, and hence need to be removed. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p2.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p3.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p4.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the 1st image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any problem here. --KoberTalk 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p5.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the 1st image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p6.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the 1st image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Life goes on p7.png
The website of Krasnaya Zvezda states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This could be construed as "Attribution", however, the licence doesn't explicitly allow for derivative works of the material. This is much like the instances of the Kremlin.ru materials, which were deleted as they didn't explicitly allow for derivative works. The Russian laws says that news reports of informational character are not copyrighted; this is not a news report of informational character; i.e. it is not an announcement that the Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance. It is why RIA Novosti (owned by the government) has copyright over their materials. Another argument is that this is an official document. Krasnaya Zvezda is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. It is not an official document. Official documents refers to laws, decrees, civil codes, government proceedings, and the like. It does not apply to all publications of the government and its agencies. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have addressed all above mentioned concerns in the talk page of the 1st image. In a nutshell (1)"partial reproduction" is the same thing as "derivative attribution", (2) Red Star is an official document (The header states that it is a "Central Organ of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation"), (3) Life Goes On (The Article) is a "news report of informational character" that is the same as "Lefortovo Tunnel will be closed tomorrow for maintenance", only it deals with the different subject. WH Coordinator (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, concerns have not been addressed. The fact that a newspaper is published by a government department, does not equate it being an official document of the government; it is not a law, nor decree, etc. It is not a news article of informational character either. Regardless, the disclaimer on the site states: "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws."). This does not explicitly allow for derivative work of the document; this means that you can take the document and twist it to portray something that is not written. Haven seen discussions for Kremlin.ru images in the past, and having gotten permission for them now, we need to have explicit permission to use these under CC licencing. Editor's desire to keep these screenshots to meet their own end is not reason to disregard the laws regarding copyrights. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kanjeng Ratu Kidul.png
This is not a screenshot of a copyrighted Wikipedia web page, it appears to be a painting. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Siobhandillon.jpg
No evidence of a free license at http://uk.myspace.com/siobhandillonmusic dave pape (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be tagged {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Franjackson.jpg
"Promotional Shot from Acting Portfolio" - no evidence of 'own work' or free license. dave pape (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nicole Linkletter ANTM.jpg
no evidence of 'own work' or free license dave pape (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Created from Nicole's Ford Model contact sheet. Shot not used in Portfolio, and therefore not licensed. Daibh (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bosret6.png
Duplicate of Image:Bostret6.png, which was recently deleted as a non-free image failing the NFCC. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i am the creator of both images and i deleted the first one to coincide the name with the other Boston Red Sox retired numbers. It has the same copyright status as all the other retired number images Pharos04 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metallica My Apocalypse waveform.png
Okay, I'm crossed. Part of my mind says derivative work, while the other half says geometry constructed by GPL licenced code.

Would this be a derivative, or am I just going crazy? ViperSnake151 19:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems this is the equivalent of a quote for text...85.28.87.67 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just an image created by a GPL licensed program, which just happened to be generated from copyrighted music. There could be theoretically an infinite number of sound files which would produce almost exactly the same waveform, so I don't see the problem with this. 70.162.159.216 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that one could copyright squiggly lines. It's not as if anyone could make any money off of the image. Who would have controlling interest and what would that interest be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.23.92 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The image does not contain enough information to even begin to sound like the song. It's simply not possible. Therefore, what copyright has been breached? It's simply an artistic visual rendering of a song made in whatever program the original poster used. Definitely do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.252.111 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete. Just a screenshot from a free program that does a grea job of showing the issue. No other way fo doing it. This should NOT be deleted. --Arnies (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How could a low-definition picture of a song's wave form be copyright infringement? The reason for deletion makes no sense to me. chad. (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the use of the song in this case is sufficiently transformative that any remaining similarity would be de minimis and that the image should therefore be considered free. As 124.171.252.111 notes, the waveform does not contain enough information to allow reconstruction of anything resembling the original song; even recognizing the song without being told would be somewhat difficult, though I suppose it might be done by carefully comparing the timing of the variations in the envelope. As an analogy, if I were to shred a newspaper, soak it in water and use the resulting papier mâché to make a sculpture, there's no way the publisher of the newspaper would have a copyright claim on the sculpture, even if careful examination of the mashed paper might still allow the name and issue of the original newspaper to be identified. I believe the same principle applies here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that waveform images made it into Wikipedia in the past, for example there are plenty of them in the Loudness war article and nobody wants to delete it. --149.156.124.20 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC) -- kept - Garion96 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:FMAmovieposter.jpg
Movie Poster Image. Uploader used "GNU Free Documentation License" Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Factoflifecdcover.jpg
Summary says All copyright or image/CD is owned by the artist, Steve Sauve. License is under 'GNU Free Documentation License' Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fancy2.jpg
Scan/Photo of a newspaper article. No Fair Use rationale. License with Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and GNU Free Documentation License Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:First sfd.jpg
Scan/Photo of a Newspaper. No Free Use Rationale. License: GNU Free Documentation License Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:SFDaily.jpg
Scan/Photo of a Newspaper. No Free Use Rationale. License: GNU Free Documentation License Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:PaloAltoDaily.jpg
Scan/Photo of a Newspaper. No Free Use Rationale. License: GNU Free Documentation License Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:SSStemple.jpg
The uploader of the image stated the image's source as "File provided for use by the Fiji Visitor's Bureau" and added the GFDL-presumed license. As such it would be very unlikely to be GFDL licensed. It was deleted from commons because of the presumed license. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)