Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 19 March 21 >

Contents

[edit] March 20

[edit] Image:Service line.jpg

Appears to be a derivatve from http://www.daewoobrenic.com/eng/AC_1_01.asp Whpq (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thenewman.JPG

Orphaned image, not used in any article, also for verification purposes for a WP:BLP, best to delete this version of the image, move it to Wikimedia Commons, and have the image creator contact WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Improper forum for this request. You haven't stated any reason this image is unfree. -Nard 02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but why the need to keep an orphaned image, not used anywhere or in any articles? WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to take that query to WP:IFD. Kept. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg

copied from a book; not sensible fair use rationale Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image was produced by Jose Villagran Garcia, I it is really old and the author might be death. --20-dude (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg

copied from book, not sensible rationale Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ashlynn_brooke01.jpg

OTRS permission not received to use this image, and "source" is Photobucket. -Nard 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Olga Kurylenko.jpg

The image is clearly a professional photo and it's credited to "REUTERS/UNI". However, it's being released as GFDL and CC, which doesn't look at all kosher. Additionally, three other identical versions of this image have been uploaded by the same editor with different licensing info on each one. (I've already speedied those as redundant.) — Hux (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Howardmills.jpg

Bad source, no evidence of GFDL licence. Nesodak (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The originating website is a forum where users send stuff, so I doubt they originally took this photo. Delete User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. That is why I replaced the initial image, from 2007, with a newer one in 2008. You're referring to two different images. However, if I cannot find the licensing for the newer version, I would agree that it should also be deleted. MrPrada (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Finding a source is easy, but regardless, it will not fall under that current license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:27976536.RMillenium07.12.JPG

I can't find where the author explicitly licensed this image under CC. -- Bojan  11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Laratop50.jpg

Claim of self-work, but it is copyrighted material from Femina magazine. Mspraveen (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vartika Nanda.JPG

identified as self-made public domain but is clearly a photo of a TV screen Whpq (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:QOOLPARK FOUNDATION.png

Organization logo, so obviously *not* PD. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ymck.gif

Artist 'image', almost certainly not GNU, and Rockmyv is unlikely to be the creator. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aufstand68-web.jpg

A painting of the swiss painter Mario Comensoli who died in 1993. According to swiss law, it's copyrighted until 70 years after his death. We would need an explicit permission by his heirs to use it (unless we claim fair use) — Kam Solusar (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hilmiozkok.jpg

No evidence of release to the public domain in the release. That it is a press photo fro free use does not mean that it is in the public domain. Rettetast (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Priest_shooting_caric.gif

Source is dead. It is unlikely that the copyright holder has released the image under GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)