Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 25
March 25
Unable to find CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Website states "©2009 KEOS 89.1 FM College Station", unable to find CC. — neuro(talk)(review) 05:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No PD at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Unable to find CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Unable to find CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted tape inlay, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the software which this is a screenshot of is not GFDL. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the software which this is a screenshot of is not GFDL. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Unable to find CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 06:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's 13, or at least his userpage says so (Baseball Bugs notwithstanding), so I'd agree. -kotra (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The purported author is also the subject, which is highly unlikely. The copyright belongs to the person taking the picture (unless this was a work for hire), not the person in the picture. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The campaign paid for all rights to this picture, which I released in 2007 under GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader is indeed the subject of the photo, as verified by Pete Forsyth [1]. I see no reason to distrust his assertion that he (or his campaign) purchased the rights and therefore can release them under GFDL. -kotra (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please update the information for the image then with the author's name. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be pedantic, but the author's name isn't strictly necessary (for copyright reasons, at least) if the author sold all rights to the image. It would be nice to have the author's name for those interested, but it's not essential. -kotra (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, but the current listing on the description page is not correct, and needs to be updated to reflect what has been described here. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be pedantic, but the author's name isn't strictly necessary (for copyright reasons, at least) if the author sold all rights to the image. It would be nice to have the author's name for those interested, but it's not essential. -kotra (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right. I hadn't noticed that. -kotra (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Does not appear that uploader is the copyright holder Stifle (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If we assume that the source is the website, there is no CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If we assume that the source is the website, there is no CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 12:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted DVD cover, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this image is a public domain, and uploader is unlikely the copyright holder. Karppinen (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Watermarked, copyrighted to 'Dourbin'. — neuro(talk)(review) 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Source says "Copyright © 2002–2009 Literatur-Couch Medien GmbH & Co. KG. " — neuro(talk)(review) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, this isn't the tag I wanted to use, must have accidentally scrolled around in the "chose license" field before saving. Was supposed to be copyrighted image allowed on wikipedia. -- Imladros (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Low res, no meta-data, publicity shot, probably taken from elsewhere. Uploader has tagged other images they have admitted to taking from elsewhere as being own work. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is--see here at the bottom of the page. Fleetflame 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this have been tagged with {{npd}}?
I also observed that the CC is located at the bottom of source.ReadQT (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No evidence of permission, no GFDL at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Contains multiple unfree logos. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which ones in particular? Logos are permitted on Wikipedia under fair use. Futhermor, they are all VERY low resolution, used in an article to illustrate the topic, do not replace them commercially, and part of software screen shot. Mattnad (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I get it. I'll change the licensing for that of Logos.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Mixed messages on the description page- no explicit source, claimed PD and nomcom. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Mixed messages about licensing on article page, source website does not seem to indicate PD. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so how does one exactly use an image under “Fair use”? This image is important because it shows that the Julleuchter is still used in the modern world. The Julleuchter in the photo is of the new Neo-Pagan type. It is historically important and is used as subject of commentary. I don’t want to be blocked because of uploading bad images. I am trying to do things right in regard to copyright status. I just don’t know what I am doing and am trying to figure things out through trial and error.nicholasweed (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) --nicholasweed (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Promotional image, uploader is highly unlikely to be copyright holder. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely uploader is copyright holder - watermarked. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Image is apparently not from a photograph taken by uploader but scanned in from some source in print (see the top edge on the right-hand side) and edited with Adobe Photoshop (file contains telltale "JFIF/Adobe/Ducky"). Uploader has history of supplying dubious public-domain claims. --Lambiam 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
