Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] February 16
[edit] Image:Adrienn_Bende,_Miss_Universe_Hungary_2006.jpg
Questionable GFDL-self claim while the image is watermarked with a web address. Jusjih (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kyoko_John.jpg
Need evidence that IMG Canada has released it under GFDL. Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EonMckai.jpg
The source site does not release to PD, so OTRS confirmation is needed. Jusjih (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mo.jpg
OR image that I doubt is public domain. Looks like a screenshot. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Derek_lundahl_2006.jpg
Uploader blanked licenses unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Waqar_Ahmed_Abbasi.JPG
Uploader blanked the page unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Falcon_Motorcycle.jpg
Uploader made varied licensing but now asks for deletion. Need comments. Jusjih (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Love2.jpg
Appars to be an album cover, definitely not {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Al_Walser.jpg
Image watermarked from MySpace. Uploader is probably not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AlexSmith(lacrosse).jpg
No evidence uploader was granted permission to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG
dubious copyright claim. User has uploaded a lot of images whith unclear copyright status. Rettetast (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a arbitrary and misleading concern with no basis. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leblebi (talk • contribs)
[edit] Image:All_6_beach_boys.jpg
No evidence uploader received permission to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Banker.jpg
No evidence that uploader holds the copyright. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What tag should I use? Grounded into a double play (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The question starts with, "where did you get it?" It doesn't look like you shot the image, so where did it come from? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alondrawebfashion.jpg
Looks like a pro photoshoot. I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alone13-11.jpg
From a video game. Doubtful the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AlphaSunTanningBooth.jpg
Looks like a promo shot. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a promo shot. I am the Director of Marketing for UVA SunSystems, Inc., the company that is the North American importer for Alpha Industries products, and as such, have the authority to license our photos, including the other tanning related photos that I have uploaded, and in most circumstances, actually photographed. Other examples include tanning lamp, tanning lotion, tanning lamp starter as well as non-tanning photos such as Abbotts Creek (actually my wife's photo) and a local winery product The Alpha Industries tanning booth image is properly licensed with proper permissions. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you call the phone number on the website credited in the photo and enter extension 126, you can speak to me directly (my real name is on my Wikipedia page, by the way...) Seems like the nominator could have found this information quite easily without the extra hassle, and could have raised the issue on my talk page first. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alpina_Sherpa_.JPG
Promo shot. no evidence that uploader was granted permission to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The manufacturer owned and provided this image for this article. I have an e-mail from them confirming permission to place the image into the public domain with no restrictions. --Hjroberts (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alpine_SubwooferTypeR.jpg
Promo shot. No evidence uploader was granted permission to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As you stated, its a promo shot, thus it was created to be reproduced. I think its a safe assumption to that the copyright owner would approve of its use here. Clown666 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The question is not whether the copyright holder would approve of its use on Wikipedia but whether the copyright holder has released it under a free license, such as the GFDL, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose. Unless evidence is presented that the copyright holder really has released it under such a free license, we cannot accept the image as free, and the image would be usable only if it met all of the non-free content criteria. But this image is easily replaceable (anyone can take a photo of these speakers and release the photo under a free license), so this image would fail the first criterion. Hence this image cannot be used on Wikipedia unless it can be conclusively established that the copyright holder has indeed freely licensed the image. —Bkell (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- A promotional issue can be used and this is clearly a promotional image. Should stay. --MiamiManny (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If the image is not released under a free license, then it can only be used if it satisfies all the terms of the non-free content criteria. One of those criteria is that the image cannot be replaced with a free image. In this case the image could most certainly be replaced with a free image, so it fails the non-free content criteria and cannot be used here. "Promotional" is not an automatic OK for images on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If Bkell has another free image, he should substitute it. Otherwise, the promo photo is good to go. I find it amazing that a number of wiki editors think they are serving the community well by looking for reasons NOT to include photos. I wish those editors would instead focus their energies on trying to keep photos within wiki. --MiamiManny (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, but that's not how the non-free content criteria work. The criterion is that the image cannot potentially be replaced by a free image. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. Non-free images like this one are contradictory to that goal, so we only accept them when absolutely necessary. The reason that the first criterion specifies that no free image could potentially be created is to encourage the creation of free content. If someone comes along and finds that the article Alpine Type-R has no image, he or she is much more likely to be motivated to create a free photograph than if the article had already had a non-free image. The end result is better in the case that non-free images like this are deleted. —Bkell (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Image:Amanda_Pere2z.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to uploader to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:America_Oggi.jpg
Derivative of a copyrighted work. Nv8200p talk 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hashim Thaci.jpg
http://www.nato.int/issues/media_library/index.html: material is available to recognised members of the press and media and for educational purposes. Please note that we require a credit mention should you make use of our images. — Saibo (Δ) 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a free license (only for informational purposes, etc.) and definitely not CC-BY-SA. Superm401 - Talk 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:American_taliban2.jpg
Derivative with no evidence of permission given to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victoria square hull yorksbank maritime museum.jpg
Tagged {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, but the Flickr source page [4] indicates that the image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Noncommercial-only images are not allowed on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed it is listed as non-commercial use and therefore breaks Wiki rules. So delete and apologies. Shame though. The copyright holder has said (on the Flickr page) that they are fine with its use here. --TFoxton (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aniket_vishwasrao_2004.jpg
Looks like a screenshot. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anne-meet-the-press.jpg
Derivative work Nv8200p talk 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Annehaddyhmartin.png
Screenshot. I doubt the upoader is the copyright holder as claimed Nv8200p talk 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AnneliesTangheEPTour3.jpg
No evidence permission has been granted to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Normal capt.olysoc70808152018.jpg
No evidence that the source site releases images under GFDL. Looks like a news image anyway. Mosmof (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mahdi.jpg
No evidence of permission, needs OTRS ticket. Mosmof (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Edna?.jpg
looks professional no evidence that uploader is John Burgos Genisock2 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anthony_Horowitz.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to use image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Antolinalcaraz.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AparecidaEdmar.jpg
There is no evidence that source site granted permission to use the image under the GFDL as claimed. Nv8200p talk 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aramex_pic3.jpg
No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
