Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 6



Image:NarrowPoint-79.jpg
Taken from a British Newspaper which retains copyright Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:G-25-C-band-cropped.jpg
Website given as the source for this image states "All rights reserved" on its site. It has not released this image for use under the license asserted on the image page. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite obviously a copyvio unless we have proof otherwise. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:G-25-Ku-band-cropped.jpg
Website given as the source for this image states "All rights reserved" on its site. It has not released this image for use under the license asserted on the image page. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite obviously a copyvio unless we have proof otherwise. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:200 Volksmusik TV Logo.jpg
Source website does not state on its site that this image is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Verification of this would be needed to assert appropriate usage of this image. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite obviously a copyvio unless we have proof otherwise. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Medvedev,Bagapsh,Kokoity.jpg
Please refer to this deletion discussion on Commons and current undelete discussion on Commons. Until the usability of photos is sorted, we can't use these photos yet. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are in no way bound by the personal opinions and decisions of a very narrow slice of Commons users and administrators. Regardless of how much good faith those decisions were made with, it doesn't mean that they cannot be reexamined, revisited and overturned as wrong. To me, the free license status of this image seems rather clear. Government documents from the office of the Kremlin are released with a free licence. The language in the licence provides examples of uses, not restrictions. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not bound by Commons, as above. I'm inclined to keep this. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Evodom_Logo.png
Game LOGO, No evidence of OTRS Ticket. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg
Image is non-free because the logos are not free. We cannot claim fair use in this situation. See discussion at. There is also a long and flame-filled discussion at Talk:The_Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force. Apoc2400 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are not the logos of Hamas and Hezbollah already on Wikipedia? In the case of Hamas, "Fair Use" was argued for the following reasons for fair use on Hamas:

-This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a political party. -This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. -this image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. -Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.

In the case of Hezbollah, we have "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."

What gives? This current ruling does not seem consistent w/ the ruling of the past. Furthermore, the logos and artwork in question in this photo are of extreme low-resolution. Again, it is my firm belief that this image does help enhance the article as it helps explain what the organization does. It's a shame anyone would dispute this fact. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The cartoon in the image is by Nabucho from the Arab-European League.. Copyright clearance required. --John Nagle (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Helpful may be(according to each one POV, and the translation is essential and will not be helpful), But do we must violate copyright according to each editor “firm belief”? « PuTTY Sch OOL 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the JIDF, the screenshot "author", can license logos and a cartoon whose copyrights are held by others. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with the screen shot is that it was specifically constructed to be picked up by us. A capture of the JIDF page as it was before they became a subject of an article here, or one in a year's time when we are not high in their thoughts, might be informative as a naturalistic image of how they typically present themselves and of what opposing groups are attracting their attention. In that way it might contriubute to the understanding of the subjects of the article.


 * But, as I said, the image we have was constructed by JIDF for us to pick up. It is therefore a propaganda artifact and not somethign that is naturalistic and informative. A Hezbollah fansite, a holocaust denial site and a Hamas one, are they representative of the typical targets of JIDF. I don't know, but to make a decision would require Original Research and an accurate caption would actually have to reflect that decision. (Ps. ED is currently blocked, so people may wish to delay closing for 1 week to give opportunity to reply)--Peter cohen (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:5006-FE.jpg
Claim of permssion - No OTRS ticket Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For this and the following one - Copyrighted image that is tagged as such, and fair-use rationale given.
 * And what the heck is a OTRS ticket? --Rindis (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:5502-AdvMis.jpg
Permission claim - No evidence of OTRS ticket Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)