Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 September 27 1.1 Image:National_Building_Museum.jpg 1.2 Image:Marathon-logo.jpg 1.3 Image:Austria&Germania.jpg 1.4 Image:Bbe.jpg 1.5 Image:Suppliers.jpg 1.6 Image:Aileen_Pringle.jpg 1.7 Image:04-xmas-angel.jpg 1.8 Image:FAL 07 Liberation Yomper 50p.JPG 1.9 Image:1-catcrown-2003.jpg 1.10 Image:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg 1.11 Image:Yuya_Thuya.jpg 1.12 Image:High_School_Cn_1.jpg 1.13 Image:1stBusterBoyd.jpg 1.14 Image:The Dead Christ St. teresa's Dublin.jpg 1.15 Image:DeadChristcork.jpg 1.16 Image:Deadchrist.jpg 1.17 Image:B2B.jpg 1.18 Image:Yasuo Fukuda.jpg

[edit] September 27

[edit] Image:National_Building_Museum.jpg

not enough info on copyright owner, just "copyright status confirmed to me in email" Calliopejen1 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Marathon-logo.jpg

Can a logo be PD author if unless they are the original logo designer? After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

hell no  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.55.48 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 

Even if they are the original logo designer doesn't mean they can release it PD, because that sort of thing often gets signed away or is understood to be work-for-hire for someone else. People trying to avoid PUI deletion seem to be committing the worst form of copyright violation by using a *-self template particularly GFDL-self and PD-self. Yet there doesn't appear to be any policy or procedure to deal with this. Do people realize that by using PD-self in this way that they are committing actual copyright fraud?

Anyway--- I added the proper ICT and a FU rationale. So I'm removing the PUI tag.- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Austria&Germania.jpg

Tagged GFDL-self, "from a website", but looks old enough to be PD.  But|seriously|folks  08:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bbe.jpg

Article associated with this was CSD-A7. This should go too. Spryde 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Suppliers.jpg

Contains numerous manufacturers logos but is listed as PD — Dean Earley 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aileen_Pringle.jpg

image first published in 1924 magazine, according to image description page Calliopejen1 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:04-xmas-angel.jpg

At best, a derivative image; at worst, a copyvio. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FAL 07 Liberation Yomper 50p.JPG

see above The Evil Spartan 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1-catcrown-2003.jpg

see above The Evil Spartan 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg

Blatant copy of flag belonging to IRFU seen here and not being used in a "fair use" way — GordyB 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

• Comment - It's not an exact copy, as the center item is a generic shamrock instead of the IRFU logo. The other four elements come from free flag images. Therefore, I think the question is whether or not this synthesis of free elements to form a "not-quite-exact-but-close-enough" representation of an unfree image makes this image itself unfee. I'm not a legal expert, so I refrain from voting. Andrwsc 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As far as i am aware the IRFU have no rights on the arms of the provinces in whatever arrangment or that of a generic shamrock(which could even be removed leaving just the arms of the 4 provinces) and that the only copyrightable component of the image that the IRFU was using as the flag of Ireland was the IRFU logo itself, (but i am no legal expert either).Caomhan27 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the flag is not a copy of the IRFU flag, but does intentionally resemble it. The IRFU do not have (nor does anybody else) any copyright on the arms of the Irish provinces. What the IRFU does have copyright of is its logo. This uses a triplet of shamrocks, a rugby ball and the IRFU name and appears at the centre of its flag. In this case a shamrock is used in its place. This image looks like the IRFU flag (the intention), but is not it. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I doubt that this will be decided by votes. Either this is a copyvio or it is not, whether laymen believe it to be okay or not is rather irrelevant. We need an expert.GordyB 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to that - needs an expert view. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Needs an expert view, and as such shold not be used freely in flagicon templates until the matter is settled. The image flag is very very closely resembles a copyrighted logo/flag used by the IRFU. Until the copyright status of this flag has been sorted, {{Country data IRE}} should cease to be edit warred over. --Bob 23:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that I have protected the template for a week to prevent just that. Andrwsc 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The IRFU do not have copyright over images of the Irish Province shields, there is not copy vio. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a clear-cut example of a derivative work, which cannot legally be created without the permission of the copyright owner. Even if each individual design is PD, the arrangement of them is a major aspect of the original copyrighted work. This is no different than a self-drawn Mickey Mouse. Actually in a way this might even be worse than an exact copy, because it could tarnish their trademark by not being an true representation. Calliopejen1 03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Until expert reviews The IRFU Flag itself is a Derivative Work of an un-Copyrightable Flag of the Four Provinces. So Who's to Say that they even have the Flag Copyrighted? This Flag while similar to the IRFU does not Contain the ONLY part of the Flag that they can lay claim to. Besides I would like to find out the Copyright Status of Flags in General. So There may need to be an Expert view on this. Stabilo boss 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Calliopejen1 is a lawyer (according to his user page).GordyB 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think he is just a student at present and you would most likely need a specialist view on this area as he probably does not realise the facts about the provincial flagsCaomhan27 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This image is hosted at commons. I have nominated it for deletion there. Rettetast 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yuya_Thuya.jpg

claimed first published without copyright notice, but there is no evidence of this, or any source for the image at all Calliopejen1 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:High_School_Cn_1.jpg

no source or date or evidence there was no copyright notice Calliopejen1 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very new to wikipedia. The low resolution image of Lowell High School is also available on our website http://library.uml.edu/clh/ and I am authorized to share it, as long as there is an accompanying credit line. Durno11 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The question for Wikipedia is: Where does the image come from? If it's not clearly in the public domain (and I have no idea if it is or not), Fair use rationale needs to be added. More information can be found here. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 17:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1stBusterBoyd.jpg

no evidence that photo was first published without copyright notice Calliopejen1 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm supposed to provide proof that something doesn't exist? Huh, what? This is a photograph taken at an event that occurred on August 17, 1923, so there's your proof that it was before 1978, as was properly cited in the license notation. The copyright tag page clearly states that the Pre1978 tag is "for images published in the United States prior to 1978 without explicit notice of "copyright, year, owner" or "©" attached." Since there is no copyright notice attached, how am I supposed to provide evidence that it's not attached? Sorry, but that's just a stupid request. Please remove the removal warning from this image. --Fife Club 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where this was first published? It very well could have been from a book that was copyrighted, or a newspaper that was copyrighted, etc etc... Without knowing more about the photo, I don't think it's self-evident that the photo was published without a copyright notice. Calliopejen1 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even in the unlikely event it were first published with an attached copyright notice, it would still be in the Public Domain because it would have been first published between 1923 through 1963 without the copyright being formally renewed with the US Copyright Office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But we don't know this either, because there is no source to search the copyright renewal records for. There must be a convincing search of the records before we can accept that is has not been renewed. Calliopejen1 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it's not too late for anybody to notice this conversation. I've located a better photograph of this event. I've positively identified the source of this alternate photo and, although nobody has any record that it was ever published anyway, they definitely never had a copyright renewal before 1963. I can upload this new photo and replace the one we were talking about above. Good? --Fife Club 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B2B.jpg

Appears to incorporate a company logo, which is almost certainly tradmarked. — TeaDrinker 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Yasuo Fukuda.jpg

The uploader claims that the image was taken by him/herself but this picure could not have been taken unless he/she is a memer of the Japanese press club. This is likely copyright infringement and the image should be removed immediately. Insomniacpuppy 23:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)