Misplaced Pages

:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:09, 19 July 2006 editThuresson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,379 edits →July 19← Previous edit Revision as of 20:22, 19 July 2006 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →July 19Next edit →
Line 298: Line 298:
**I would prefer to keep my real name out of it. Misplaced Pages should afford me privacy. ] 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) **I would prefer to keep my real name out of it. Misplaced Pages should afford me privacy. ] 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
**This nomination is a personal attack against me and gaming the system related to the AFD of ] and debates about ]. User Hypocrite(sp?) has many such contributions in their contributions listing. ] 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) **This nomination is a personal attack against me and gaming the system related to the AFD of ] and debates about ]. User Hypocrite(sp?) has many such contributions in their contributions listing. ] 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
***Agreed. Hipocrite did this after Hardvice offered additional support in a comment related to conflict caused by Hipocrite's friend MONGO. Retailitory. ] 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
**I have this image as a self portrait on my user page. If have to have a story embarrassing me and giving out my personal information then I will not use it and would want it to be deleted. ] 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) **I have this image as a self portrait on my user page. If have to have a story embarrassing me and giving out my personal information then I will not use it and would want it to be deleted. ] 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 19 July 2006

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

Place either:

or

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s) (the templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own). It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

Shortcut
  • ]

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

Instructions

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

  1. Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
    • {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
    • {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
  2. Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
  3. Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
  4. List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

Holding cell

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

16 May

20 June

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

6 July

  • Image:Urifink.jpg - uploader took it from Hebrew Misplaced Pages, whose image description states public domain (apparently no source listed). However, it appears also on so I'm not sure who copied who. Kimchi.sg 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Sega GameGear.jpg - tagged PD-self, but gives url as source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    Weak keep angle of the shot in the uploaded image is different, and the reflections are different. It looks like a completely different photograph, as if it were taken by the editor. Another possibility is that the source information is wrong. However, I'm no expert; I didn't upload this image. --DavidHOzAu 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:M3a.jpg - listed as a government image, but at the bottom of the image cites a blog. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Teen pagent nat.jpg - listed as a poster for an event, but it's clearly not. Instead, it's an apparently non-promotional image of an event that is likely still under the copyright of the photographer. Powers 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • IMAGE NOT SAFE FOR WORK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on website source, not a poster for an event at all; simple a picture of and event. I would also question the ages of some of the individuals, & the fact therefore this image may not be legal on where the WP servers are. Also concur w/Hippocrite above.Bridesmill
    • Delete. Copyvio of commercially used image. Femto 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is absolutely no evidence that the photo is copyrighted and it appears to be a personal photograph taken at an event. Objections here are content-based (e.g., "image not safe for work"), rather than copyright. If someone visits the wiki article on nudism at work or home, they should expect to see nudism. Unless critics produce actual evidence of a copyright violation, it should absolutely be retained.--Liveandletlive 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      On the contrary, the image is to be assumed unfree until there is evidence that the owner released it. It's reasonable to assume the rights are owned by BeBareToo.com (note the cut off logo, the owner wouldn't need to do that). Femto 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
BeBareToo.com is notorious for fixing their logo on every photo, including public domain photos. For example, is a photo on purenudism.com without a logo. The same photo is doctored on the BeBareToo.com site with their logo. I have every reason to believe the nude teen pageant photo is a legitimate poster photo falling under the fair use doctrine. Clearly, the critics here have complaints that have nothing to do with the copyright issue. I will look for the same image on internet without the BeBaretoo logo so that is no longer an issue. --Liveandletlive 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That will not satisfy our fair use requirements. My objection, if you'll observe, had nothing to do with the content. You said yourself "it appears to be a personal photograph taken at an event." The copyright, by default, belongs to the photographer. Unless we find evidence that a) the copyright no longer rests with the (unknown) photographer, or b) that the photographer has released the picture under a free licence, we can't use this picture. It has nothing to do with whose logo is on it. Powers 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If it falls under a "fair use" exception, it's in. And if it is part of a promotional poster for an event, it would indeed be fair use.--Liveandletlive 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No, if it was the WHOLE poster, it MIGHT be fair use. As it is, it's a photograph, not a poster. Promotional posters are things like Image:Minstrel PosterBillyVanWare.jpg and Image:Star Trek I.jpg. This is just a photo; whether it's part of a poster or not is irrelevant. You can claim fair use on some other grounds, but not as a promotional poster. Powers 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This was a candidate for speedy deletion under I7. I've deleted it. Jkelly 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

7 July

8 July

These images are listed as public domain, however the license at says that permission requests need to be made for publication. Chaos syndrome 14:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
These images are listed as being in the public domain, however investigation of the source site provides no indication of this. Uploader is a known copyright violator. Chaos syndrome 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

July 9

  • Image:Adel panorama.jpg Terms of the image's source site say as follows: "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." This image is pretty much non-commercial then, unless the uploader, Beneaththelandslide says otherwise. Kevin_b_er 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:666.jpg has been copied from and is tagged as GFDL, but according to , ‘Images are supplied for teaching and research purposes; beyond that, they should not be used or reproduced without explicit prior consent.’ and while the document in the photograph is not protected by copyright, the entire composition, photographed, may be non-trivial enough to be protected. A prior request for clarification has not been answered by the uploader. —xyzzyn 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

TomTheHand 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

July 10

Of course it is copyrighted image from FHM. If it weren't a possible copyright infringement, we wouldn't need to claim "fair use". I'm confused by this listing. Jkelly 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

July 11

July 12

*Image:Black Hole (2006).jpg listed as web-screenshot, but is not a screen capture of a website and appears to be a copyrighted image. Ytny 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
They still need fair use rationale and I'm not sure if all or some of them qualify as fair use. Ytny 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Refixed it. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A Reuters photo, actually. :) Ytny 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was there, and they aren't the photographer. I've reverted them, but will leave the image tagged for a reasonable period of time.
— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

July 13

Uploader owns the website - see User talk:ScottMainwaring near the bottom. --Liface 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Rosales2003.jpg - Uploader claims that this 2003 photo is public domain according to the copyright law of the Philippines. This law protect photos for 50 years after first publication, eg. photos from 1955 or earlier are public domain. No source was given that the photographer released the photo to the public domain. Thuresson 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Lain.jpg - uploader claims to be the person who took the photo, yet this claim seems suspicious, and the uploader has not yet come back with further details to back claim up. A quick Google Image Search reveals a possible source for this image: here. Yet the source website does not list there how it got the image in the first place, nor can I see any copyright info. Further searching with Google does not reveal any additional info. Tabercil 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Granville Street Map.jpg - uploader lists the image as a web screenshot, but is clearly an image cropped out of a Google Maps page, not of the website itself. And as with the case with all Google Maps images, all rights reserved. Ytny 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

July 14

it is screenshot, not downloaded image. site generate them using jscript. Elk Salmon 09:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm this. Of course, that still leaves the issue of the watermark and the fact that it could only be used in articles about the website, rather than the buildings. And there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag.--Daduzi 10:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Made a couple of minor errors in the above. Where I wrote "there's no articles about the website, nor are there likely to be", I should have said "there is an article about the website". And where I said "I've tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, and removed the PUI tag" I should have said "I've removed the PUI tag but haven't tagged it for speedy deletion as orphaned fair use, as doing so would be the act of a foolish individual who fails to carefully check search results and/or user contributions." Apologies for any confusion. --Daduzi 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
So it's a (or from a) screenshot, but I've visited skyscraperPage.com and it doesn't appear to be a screenshot of a web page, but instead an image taken from a screenshot, which the web-screenshot license covers, and it still needs a fair use rationale. Ytny 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Other images uploaded by user without fairuse rationale are: Image:J Finch.jpg, Image:Gulbis.JPG, Image:Francoeur.jpg (misused promo tag), Image:ScottField.jpg, Image:TMKParkNight.jpg and Image:TMKPark.jpg.

July 15

  • Image:S'mores.jpg Page is copyrighted and in Japanese so no way to confirm (and it is doubtful) that the image is copyright free use -Nv8200p talk 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Twoflue 2.GIF - Image does not qualify for fair use (see my talk page for dispute details). Also, no fair use rationale provided. --Hetar 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it does. The source is clearly provided, links and copyrights are provided. I checked everything out and it is easily fair use. The image is clearly used on the harpoon article, since it is a harpoon and that is all. From reading User_talk:Hetar#Image:Twoflue_2.GIF, I do think it has to be used on the museum page, since the only way that this image is connected to the musuem is just that the image came from that museums's website. I do not think the musuem even has an article. Besides that, this image, IMHO, meets all of the requirements of fair use and has a lot better fair use rationale than many of the photos we have. User:Zscout370 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the crux of the matter here is "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Are two-flue harpoons so rare that it would be impossible to find or create a free image of one? User:Angr 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Or can a gif image of the harpoon work, assuming one of us recreates it by hand? User:Zscout370 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
          • One final thought before I sleep, I notice some public domain photos at , since there is a drawing from the 1600's showing the harpoon clearly in action. should be public domain, since it was made in 1677. How does that sound? User:Zscout370 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm still a bit boggled by this. We've agreed that the image is well sourced, and yet there is a template on the image and article page saying that it's not sourced, and soon to be deleted. We've agreed that (like many other images from museums on Misplaced Pages), it's used with a carefully written justification of fair use rationale with respect to a specific article. Hetar has gone from topic to topic to topic, each time changing the suggestion of what it is that he's concerned about. First it was that the image had no copyright information. Then it was that the image violated counter-example 2 in WP:FAIR. Then it was that the image had a copyright notice that was not a template. Now, it's a claim that there are other images to use. My head is spinning, and I'm left wondering: if the original reason for concern is refuted, then how long do I have to spend on this one minor image? If we're looking to combat unfree images, then I think we're done, and we can go back to working on improving Misplaced Pages. -Harmil 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Longewala.jpg - Two conflicting licenses, I don't believe the uploader knows what license (if any) it is released under. --Hetar 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Attack Lebanon 2006.JPG - from the biggest norwegian newspaper, who for sure does not post under GNU Røed 16:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Garda Jeep Cherokee.jpg and Image:Garda Ford Mondeo.jpg -- uploader contends that images can be used for any purpose because the website instructs users how to save images. No mention at website that commercial and derivative use is acceptable. Jkelly 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment uploader is now asserting "with permission" on the individual description pages. Jkelly 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

July 16

This is a digital image of an album cover. Jkelly 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Iraqi News Agency photo. was a government controlled news agency under saddam. since his government was overthrown, i assumed copyright claims became null.Anthonymendoza 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If possible, show that the overthrow of the Iraqi government had any effect on copyright law. Thank you. Thuresson 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

July 17

July 18

July 19

And also Image:Jordan-scottie.jpg by the same user, marked as promo. Ytny 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions Add topic