Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 5



Image:Wolfpackofficial.jpg
There is no credible evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this image Asher196 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scott-Holman-Trio-featuring-Jens-Bunge.jpg
No indication of GFDL at http://www.jazzpages.com/JensBunge/news_d.htm Bigr  Tex  01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rank.jpg
I find it difficult to believe the NYPD released these images into the public domain; further, there is no corroboration for such licensing claim. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Action2norway1.jpg
Source and author provided is lead me to believe that this image is a promotional one which is copyrighted. -MBK004 06:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:SS-logo.jpg
Unlikely that the uploader has the right to release this image. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shipston LogoSmall.jpg
Unlikely that the uploader has the right to release this image. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it unlikely? I am on the managment commitee of Shipston RFC? Cardibling (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to verify that in the way that I explained to you on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Klippekort.jpg
The ticket design is copyrighted; it is unlikely that the uploader has the right to release it. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are other klippekort images on Wikimedia : presumably your argument should apply to them too? In this instance, I have specifically requested permission from Movia for use of the image.  If this does not satisfy, perhaps my cropping the image to show just the specific timestamps would be better?  The image is specifically to highlight non-standard non-24-hour timestamp systems, after all, and is not intended to necessarily convey any impression of the klippekort system per se. Daen (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, seeing as you are so clear as to its copyright status, could you perhaps, if you really want to be helpful, find me a link or reference? Daen (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's for the person uploading the image to prove they have permission, not for those opposing it to show that it is a copyright violation. If Movia is happy for us to use the image, please forward the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org quoting the image name. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will mail such permission once it is forthcoming. However, it seems to me that my burden of provision of proof of permission still does not preclude your passing on such pertinent information which you may yourself have unearthed which pertains to the image's disputed copyright status, if you would only be so polite as to do so.  I asked especially because of the apparent certainty of your claim to knowledge of the klippekort copyright. Daen (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple — every creative work is automatically copyrighted unless it is released. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, there are other clipcard images I can see, shouldn't they be also marked as unfree? While I wait for permission, I have cropped the clipcard image to just show the timestamp. Daen (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission has now been received from DSB and forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, so I have restored the original image. Daen (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg
Apparent violations of U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia media policy based on it. Derive from the same Website/blog/Museum exhibit photograph/properties and appear to violate copyrights protected in the U.S. and Wikipedia media content policy. Unlikely that the uploader has the right to release this image. NYScholar (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC) http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/01/nazi-copyright-question.html The above link also links to a non-English news source in which a woman who painted images of victimc under duress wants the paintings back from a museum but her rights to the paintings are not recognized. Poland has made everything made by Nazis of their victims public media. No one owns the right to profit from them and no one may object to its inclusion in an encyclopedia issued for free. - 32.156.45.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Images and media for deletion/2008_September 5. Result: speedy closed. --Poeticbent talk  15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With the recommendation that the image be listed here, which I have now done. --NYScholar (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image public domain in country of origin, which the user ADMITS. Use in the United States is acknowledged as fair use. What's the problem? This is "possibly unfree images" not "images which may be unfree but which qualify as fair use anyway." -Nard 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will post it here as well:


 * "The right to profit from them" is not the point; the books with such photographs of the Museum's exhibits are sold in its shop; what happens w/ the proceeds is not the issue. United States copyright law and Wikipedia media policy for what content users of Wikipedia can upload to it under GFDL-compatible licenses (see below edit box and templates w/ policies) are what matter in this discussion fo editing this image page.  See earlier reply placed below to this anon IP user's comment there too. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Images made by the Nazi regime are in the public domain within the United States. They cannot be copyrighted under the law.Nrswanson (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [Copy of message below; see related image below; "2" is enlarged and cropped version of righthand pose in image of photograph:] According to the current notices on the image (and related images in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons/duplicate images or nearly-duplicate images), it is still not clear what its proper licensing is and that "If" above is still being investigated by others. --NYScholar (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See possible U.S. precedent: Talk:Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg
Apparent violations of U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia media policy based on it. Derive from the same Website/blog/Museum exhibit photograph/properties and appear to violate copyrights protected in the U.S. and Wikipedia media content policy. Unlikely that the uploader has the right to release this image. NYScholar (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Images and media for deletion/2008_September 5. Result: speedy closed. --Poeticbent talk  15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With the recommendation that the image be listed here, which I have now done. --NYScholar (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image public domain in country of origin, which the user ADMITS. Use in the United States is properly tagged as fair use. What's the problem? -Nard 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the claim of "public domain" in Poland is disputed and that its fair use rationale is disputed; it is not established that the image is in the public domain in Poland; public domain in the United States is different from pubic domain in Poland, and there are still the same unresolved potential copyright violations that are not answered in the fair use rationale. This claim that "the user ADMITS" public domain is false if Nard is referring to me; I have explicitly disputed this claim of public domain, and he knows it.  I suggest he reread the comments that I responded to him in the now "speedy closed" deletion page that he started.   See link above. If anyone has changed the template that I posted and inserted "public domain" in it again, I will correct it to my intended template.  Users have distorted the template by adding words that I did not write in it and then claimed that I wrote the words.  That is false.  It appears to me now that Nard is engaging in both disruptive editing practices throughout now both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, once again, is the link to the previous discussion, where I explain before what I have just reiterated: I dispute the "public domain in Poland" claim for this and the other image: Wikipedia:Images and Media for Deletion 2008 September 5. --NYScholar (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The following passage refers to Nard, who listed this image in Images and Media for Deletion: "The result of the debate was: speedy closed. This image and the one below were nominated by a user who actually wanted them kept, not deleted. I can't quite fathom the reasons for doing so, but it seems to have been an attempt to disturb the process of a parallel listing at WP:FUR. I note that it really doesn't belong there either; it really belongs at WP:PUI, but in any case, I don't see that it's doing anything constructive here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)" [copy from previous link.] Since thhen I posted listed both images here in WP:PUI as suggested. --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a situation just like this: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/01/nazi-copyright-question.html It links to a non-English news article. Nazi works and those of concentration camp victims cannot be copyrighted. Neither photographer nor museum can claim the photos. - 32.156.45.64 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia media content (and all content) is governed by United States copyright law and Wikipedia media policy. Those statements by the anon. IP user make no sense.  The self-published blog is not a reliable source of anything anyway, and a non-English news article is useless in this context.  This is English Wikipedia.  That material cannot be useful in resolving these issues.  Wikipedia has a strict position re: media uploading/image uploading.   The owner of the indoor exhibit of the photographs (Block no. 6: Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoners), from which these images derive is the Museum; some sources identify Wilhelm Brasse as the photographer of this particular portion of the photographs in the exhibition; the images are also in part shown in the film about him The Portraitist; the source of the video clip and blog from which the uploader Poeticbent took these images is not identified and is clearly unauthorized by the Museum, as it prohibits such photography by its visitors.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable official sources of the Museum's statements and copyright notices about its Website featured photographs from its own indoor exhibits are already cited with verifiable links in the articles on Kwoka, Brasse, and The Portraitist, which is also copyright-protected property in both Poland and in the United States and from which the uploader to YouTube ("tomasmarec")--one of the sources apparently used by Poeticbent--could have also taken the photograph; another unacknowledged possible source is a newspaper article (in English) in a Fredericksburg, VA newspaper (cited in discussions earlier), which gives credit for the photograph to both the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and the Associated Press; the photograph matches the one in the image uploaded by Poeticbent. Websites (Poeticbent's sources apparently) infringe others' copyrights and the copyright infringement gets passed on to Wikipedia by uploaders, using copyrighted materials without permission and without proper fair use rationales and proper licensing.  Please consult the article and other discussions, w/ the information and links.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: I would like to see these images properly presented with proper fair use rationales (if possible) and proper licenses with regard to U.S. copyright as is required in Wikipedia; they do not conform to requirements for Wikipedia Commons and have already been removed once (in a larger version of several "identity pictures" from the same Museum exhibition) due to "copyright violation" there. If they are not within fair use and not in the public domain in the United States, then they cannot be used in either Wikipedia or in Wikipedia Commons.  Another similar image from same exhibition apparently is also nominated for deletion in Wikipedia/Wikipedia Commons.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that 32.156.45.64 is correct that photos taken by the Nazi regime cannot be copywrited and are in the public domain.Nrswanson (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is what the copyright status is in the United States, not Poland. Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright laws.  We need to know how to present the image, how to state what its actual "source" is/are, and how to present the image page in terms of licenses that are valid in the United States.  --NYScholar (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * URAA. If the image is in the public domain by January 1996 in its home country, it is public domain in the US. That is all you need to know. ViperSnake151 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the current notices on the image (and related images in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons/duplicate images or nearly-duplicate images), it is still not clear what its proper licensing is and that "If" above is still being investigated by others. --NYScholar (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See possible U.S. precedent: Talk:Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:John_fox.jpg
Can't find anyting on the source website that support the public domain tag. Sherool (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:John_maver_photo_jpg.jpg
Can't find any info on the source websit about this beeing public domain. The PDF referenced is gone, but the site itself carry a typical "© Copyright Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust 2008" notice. Sherool (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kambon.jpg
Can't find any info on the source website about this beeing PD. The site itself is scertainly not released as PD. Sherool (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)