Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 16	February 18 >

1 February 17

[edit] February 17

[edit] Image:Sprawltownroadplan.gif

No evidence uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Arieweb046.jpg

No evidence uploader received permission to use image under GFDL or Creative Commons. Nv8200p talk 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudsonst (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, especially the section called "When permission is confirmed". —Bkell (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to take if off. It's my picture, but I've decided not to let it be public domain. Please delete the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.177.146 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cool Hrithik.jpg

There's a copyright claim on the image, pd-self doesn't seem appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Titanic .jpg

There's a copyright claim on the image, pd-self doesn't seem appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 06:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MohanaSudharsan2.jpg

pd-self doesn't seem right Corvus cornix_talk 06:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Paula abdul.jpg

This is a derivative work of the Flickr-hosted image linked to on the image description page, but the image is not specified as being released under any free content license. The description page claims CC-BY-2.0 but I cannot find any evidence of this. --Chris (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was CC-BY-2.0 when I uploaded it. The Flickr uploader has changed the license since being uploaded to Wikipedia. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. I checked archive.org before I flagged the image but unfortunately they have no record of this page at all. It would be nice if someone had proof that it was so tagged. --Chris (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ioannis_Okkas.jpg

Looks like a proffesional photograph since it is taken at close range down at the pitch. We should have a confirmation from the uploader that this image realy is his creation. Rettetast (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is to confirm that I created this photo. It has been cropped from a digitally enhanced freeze frame picture generated from a video I took with a handheld camcorder. And hence the poor quality. Georgeg (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image kept per Georgeg -Nv8200p talk 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mugshot1.jpg

Alleged to be mugshot without source or explanation. Tagged as PD US Gov't work with no source or explanation. Most mugshots are not taken by US Gov't employees. But|seriously|folks 16:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fade eye.jpg

appears to be photoshoped version of a copywritten work see this Geni 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ger3.jpg

Claimed to be in the public domain, since "QSL cards are public domain, thus they are not copyrightable." First, this seems like backward logic to me; something is in the public domain because it is not copyrightable, not the other way around. Second, I don't know of any reason why QSL cards should not be copyrightable, and no justification for this is given. —Bkell (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The uploader has added a non-free use rationale and {{Non-free promotional}} (though this image probably did not come from a press kit). The image is still additionally tagged as being in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I updated the (c) & FUR looks appropriate to the image - old (c) version deleted. SkierRMH (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Slime creature.jpg

Listing this image here for lack of a better place. I know I've seen this before, but I don't know the creator (and I doubt that it is the uploader). Either I'm wrong, or we find who made this and get a use-with-permission notice: those are the two ways we can possibly keep this—but like I said, I doubt that it's the former. Call it a bad feeling. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 17.02.08 1832 (UTC)

Apparently the work of Patrick McEvoy - see [1]. --dave pape (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have speedied this under CSD I9. Nandesuka (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Manes-Eric.jpg

Tagged {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}; summary reads, "Eric Manes, publicity photo, fair use rationale: copyright holder grants GNU free documentation Liscense." This sounds questionable to me. If it's a publicity photo, it was probably not created by the uploader. If it wasn't created by the uploader, there is no information on who the copyright holder is, and there is no real evidence given that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. If it has been released under the GFDL, then there's no need for a fair-use rationale. —Bkell (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the uploader also claims to have created Image:Kunert-martin.jpg, but there is a higher-resolution version of that image at [2] (along with an image identical to Image:Manes-Eric.jpg). —Bkell (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

- These are PR photos which I own and supply to magazines when they do news articles on us. Publicity photos being supplied by owners is not questionable. It is standard practice. That's why they are publicity photos and not news photos. - signed: martin kunert. www.martinkunert.com and www.booyastudios.com
  - Images kept per User:Mkunert -Nv8200p talk 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gilbert Julian Snowbirds Seriograph.JPG

No proof that the uploader is, indeed, the copyright holder. The image was copied from ebay, as is clear from the watermark, and the ebay seller makes no claims to being the heir of the artist. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)