Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 9



Image:Mandy Tam baptism.jpg
This is a copyrighted imaged used to depict a purely biographical and non-historical event in Hong Kong politics. A copyright-free image of a living person is already used in this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for images that are marked as free but may not be. For images already marked non-free and used under a fair use claim, use {{subst:rfu}} if you think the image is replaceable and if you think the rationale provided doesn't justify its use. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now retagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sanghi.jpg
The image is taken from the website which clearly mentions all copyrights are reserved with web-site pruthvi (talk)

Image:Bell hooks2005InterculturalCtr.jpg
Unclear status, the external link provided http://soaw.org/img/original/hooks1.jpg links to a different picture of the individual than the one given on the image page. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is of terrible quality, which is why it was replaced. It is also now orphaned and might as well be deleted. &mdash; Godheval T C W 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be hasty. Both images are contested. Why delete them before discussion is resolved?--Knulclunk (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bell hooks creative commons.jpg
Image is located here http://www.infed.org/thinkers/hooks.htm - but the copyright information at that website here http://www.infed.org/h-copy.htm states: ''Many of the photographs and illustrations on the pages are in, we believe, the public domain, some are licensed to us, others have come from projects etc. that have given their permission for use on these pages. Acknowledgement of the source and status should be available via the image's alt tag. There are not many pictures and illustrations that we are in a position to give permission to others to reproduce. '' Therefore it is questionable whether the license tags on the image page are correct. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that h-copy.htm page, but as you have written, it says that the licensing information is in the ALT tag of the image. That tag says to "see below" for the Creative Commons license, which reads as follows: The picture of bell hooks was taken in 2007 by  Kevin Andre Elliott. It is reproduced here under a Creative Commons   Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Licence.  Wikipedia, being a non-commercial website, qualifies as being able to use the image under the Non-Commercial-Share Alike license. &mdash; Godheval T C W 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedied under I3. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The license does not say that is "non-commercial ONLY".  Key word: ONLY.  I will be re-uploading the image.  I love how admins just come in and delete things without discussion.  Speedy my ass. &mdash; Godheval T C W 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Since the admins continue to demonstrate such proclivity for being flaming douchebags, I'll just find another image, or find a way to get permission to use the image from the creator.  Oops, that was me being uncivil again!  But then, I take dumps on you all for fun.&mdash; Godheval T C W 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-commercial only images are considered non-free. Although Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, we cannot use it under the Non-commercial license because Wikipedia policy states we can only use it under fair use. ViperSnake151 20:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Princess alice disaster.jpg
Seems unlikely that the uploader created this him/herself Stifle (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) &mdash; Godheval T C W 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) &mdash; Godheval T C W 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And you base that assumption on what? Oh, nothing at all?  I see. What happened to "Assume Good Faith".  Isn't that a "pillar" or something?  Man the people here piss me off. &mdash; Godheval T C W 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than spout off, why not explain where you got the image. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the image creator, so I can't explain anything. My point was that it would be in good faith to assume that the uploader was being honest in saying that s/he created it.  Now had you found a similar or identical image elsewhere, that would be the time to post it here. As it stands now, with no proof at all that the uploader was not also the creator, the image doesn't belong on this page.
 * That's not how it works. See where it says "Possibly unfree images"? This page is the place where users can list images of whose copyright status that they are concerned. Ideally there would be a rigorous checking process for all images uploaded to verify their release under a free license or fair use, but as that would take far more in terms of resources than we have, the system is reversed — images are presumed to be valid for use here, but in the event that a user questions the freedom of an image, the burden of proof flips back to the uploader to show that the use is valid. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My question remains, why does the user (in this case, you) question the freedom of the image? That is, on what basis do you question it, other than lack of good faith?
 * Simply because it appears to me that the uploader did not create this image and/or the depicted painting — it appears to be a cellphone photograph of a painting. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zanzibar palace guard low.JPG
I originally uploaded this as a fair-use image, but it has been pointed out that it probably doesn't come under fair use. On reflection I agree and this image adds little to the article it was at and should go. Dumelow (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, posted to wrong place, now fixed with correct tag - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Uilogogif.gif
Copyrighted logo of University of Iloilo. OsamaK 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--OsamaK 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wire99 1.JPG...
and other uploads by User:Headgit. It seems this user has uploaded several images pretending he was the author, which doesn't seem possible unless he's more than a person at once. See, where I had transfered the cited above image, that has been deleted by an admin for the reason I've said. I just transmit the recommandation of this admin (last message on the page). Please excuse my poor english.

Thanks. Xic667 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)