Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Place either:

{{subst:nsd}} for no source

or

{{subst:nld}} for no license

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

[[:|WP:PUI]]

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

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

To list an image on this page:

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.
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.
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.
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 Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

Holding cell

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

August 18

The following images from Pet skunk seem to be mistagged or have other problems. The uploader seems to have left Wikipedia.
- Image:Radio Flyer Skunk.jpg - No evidence (on Jane Bone's website or elsewhere) that it has been released into the public ___domain.
- Image:Old-timey-skunks.jpg - Source information is muddy. The webpage it came from talks about some WWII film; given the look of the images, it seems plausible they are from the film.
- Image:Skunk busted.jpg - No evidence of "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose"
- Image:Child holding skunk.jpg - No evidence (on Jane Bone's website or elsewhere) that it has been released into the public ___domain.
- Image:Bu & sassy1.jpg - No evidence that it has been released into the public ___domain.
- Image:Mocha & celery.jpg - No evidence that it has been released into the public ___domain.
- Image:Mocha skunk.jpg - No evidence that it has been released into the public ___domain.
- Image:Skunk blanket.jpg - No evidence that it has been released into the public ___domain. Punctured Bicycle 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have e-mailed Jane Bone to ask if she will license the images under a free license. Please don't delete them yet; I'll let you know when I hear from her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sthlmstadcoa.jpg -- Coat of arms are copyright by the creator, in this case Stockholm City. / Fred-Chess 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dkilgour.jpg -- unlikely GFDL claim. Jkelly 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AlysonHau2.jpg -- GFDL claimed, but not likely. —LactoseTI^T 05:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate image uploaded here Image:Alyson_H2.jpg after marking the old one as a PUI... not sure if I should tag this one, too? —LactoseTI^T 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlysonHauWallpaper01.jpg -- GFDL claimed, not likely —LactoseTI^T 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Image:Lss2.jpg and Image:Yi Sunshin.jpg - uploader claims PD-100 - but Korean government site claims [1] - it was only painted in 1954. Korea appears to be life+50 [2] and there is no proof the painter is dead. Megapixie 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep The painter, Jang Wooseong, died in 2005. See [3] (in Korean) Ginnre 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete. If he died in 2005 the work won't be public ___domain in Korea until January 1, 2056, and January 1, 2076 in most other countries. User:Angr 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonfree then if the artist died last year. Its probably what copyright should be, after the artist dies, but unfortunately not the case. Kevin_b_er 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De Havilland Flamingo.jpg; Image:Hawker Hind.jpg; Image:Martin PBM2 Mariner.jpg; Image:Saro Lerwick.jpg; Image:Saro London.jpg; Image:Supermarine Stranraer.jpg; and in fact everything at User:Keith Edkins/AFPCopyVio - Per the discussion at Commons:Template talk:PD-UK-photo-pre-1945, pre-1945 photos from the UK can't be automatically assumed to be public ___domain. The 70-year rule still applies. The corresponding images on Commons have already been deleted. User:Angr 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stephonmarbury.jpg - no evidence that this picture came from a press kit or indication of who owns the copyright. Ytny 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LeBronJames.jpg - marked as No Copyright, but no source given except that it's taken by a "friend". Looks like a professional photo. Ytny 08:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Judy.jpg - Listed as PD-USgov but lists source as Yale University. Ytny 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dolphins stadium 5.jpg - Marked as promotional, nothing to suggest it. Ytny 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:07 sentra 02-1.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "All materials on this web site are the sole property of Nissan North America, Inc." and "All news releases and photography posted on this site may only be reprinted, broadcast or published online by legitimate, professional news organizations for editorial use." as well as "Under no circumstances, may any material contained on this web site be repurposed for commercial or personal use without the express written consent of Nissan North America, Inc. - this includes, but is not limited to, advertising, promotions, publicity and enthusiast web sites." (it may be promo). // Liftarn 11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1488th.jpg - GFDL-self claimed but gives http://trunk.com/ as source and they say "©2002 The Trunk Shop". // Liftarn 12:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:13thwjposter.jpg - GFDL claimed, but it's only scanned by the uploader. // Liftarn 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1978sapporo.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site gives no information. // Liftarn 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dwight-howard.JPG - The original site makes it clear it does NOT own the image. No evidence of ownership or that it's a promo image. Ytny 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several photos from http://vdb.jikos.cz/pic_antisoc2001/antisoc2001.html that are labelled GFDL, but the source site has no copyright info. // Liftarn 15:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploads by User:Archemetre. Claims GFDL but source sites either claim copyright or have no info. BrownCow  (how now?) 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:THEBUS 006.jpg - Tagged CopyrightedFreeUse with no such indication at source. howch e ng {chat} 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg - Derivative work. The sculptor has to agree to the publication of this photo. --Kjetil_r 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who took the photograph, I have changed the license on this image to Template:Statue to better fit the license qualifications of derivitive works. I didn't know this about statues. --Jeff 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the use of this photo fair use in the article Michigan State University. User:Jeffness has not provided a fair use rationale for it's use in this article, and I doubt that it is possible to make such a rationale. In an article about the sculptor, maybe one could argue for fair use, but not in an article about a university. --Kjetil _r 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate how you are wasting my time like this. Really. The copyright status, fortunately, does not hinge upon what you *THINK* it is. My fair use rationale is that Sparty is the mascot of Michigan State University and is an important part of illustrating the school. Also, the statue was originally created by the University's art director in 1945, and the University itself is a Land-Grant college which is in turn very much in the end "owned" by the citizenry. I'm not sure if this effects copyright status, but I can't imagine anyone ever disagreeing with an image of Sparty being used on any wikipedia page. Get a life and quit trolling wikipedia for potential violations that aren't violations and wasting anyones time. I'm removing the tag. --Jeff 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the fair use tag: "It is believed that the use of a picture to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs (...) qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement". You do not use this photo in a way described here, therfore is it a violation of copyright.

Please avoid calling me a troll and say that I should get a life, use only rational arguments in this discussion.

I have not yet retagged the photo as a PUI, as I will not get into an edit war with Mr. Jeff. But I find it very rude to remove a tag from a disputed image. --Kjetil _r 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added a referenced description of the statue's artistic genre, and mentioned the original sculptor in the MSU article. Now the Fair use rationale is satisfied. Lovelac7 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20030713 Loudon Wainwright III Duisburg.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 07:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Update: On my talk page he says "Prior to posting the picture that I had found on a LWIII fan site, I got in touch with the author by e-mail and he granted permission. This was some time ago, and I didn't keep a record of our e-mail exchange. Hope this helps." // Liftarn 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LocoTy2.jpg - GFDL claimed, source says nothing. May be Polish PD. // Liftarn 08:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Locosm42.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says "Copyright (C) 1999-2005 Motronik". // Liftarn 08:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Major Payne.gif - {{NoRightsReserved}}, doubtful if it is from vg cats. Kotepho 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:YarrowStade.jpg – tagged GFDL-self, but very likely owned by the stadium or ticket agency. I have not been able to find the image on the internet, though. ×Meegs 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mazda capella 1279 0.jpg - NoRightsReserved claimed, but source site says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.". // Liftarn 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:41032509 lloyd203.jpg - GFDL claimed, but I dubt BBC have released the image as such. // Liftarn 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:55K.jpg and Image:KleemannK.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says "Copyright © 2001-2006 RSportsCars.com. All rights reserved.". // Liftarn 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Update: see User talk:ArchonMeld#Unfree Images. // Liftarn 07:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:631302.jpg - GFDL claimed, but it's obviously not. // Liftarn 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MonacoRoyalBox.jpg - Tagged as CC-BY-SA but [4] states it's CC-BY-NC. Alexj2002 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:=Gaz-33097 01.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:80Continental.jpg - GFDL claimed, but I dubt they would license their design sketches as GFDL. // Liftarn 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1963JeepWagoneer.jpg - definitely not 100 years old. "Copyright © wrangler4you.com - All rights reserved" according to source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- wrangler4you.com appears to have hijacked it themselves; it's from period Jeep advertising - I've seen that picture before (though it was part of a magazine ad for sale at a car show, I have no means of proof). I'm sure DaimlerChrysler would view it as fair use, since it's merely documenting a discontinued vehicle. Yiddophile, too lazy to log in
Image:250px-Dawsons Field hijacking.jpg - Even "extensively modifing" a scanned image does not make you the creator. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pokeball.png - looks like a Poké Ball to me, which is probably copyrighted by Nintendo... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aljazeera-qatar.jpg - claimed cc-By-2.5 when the source link says it's cc-by-nd-2.0 Alexj2002 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aag-forwiki.jpg and Image:Aagforwiki2.jpg are screenshots of a swbsite. GFDL claimed, but the copyright should be owne by the site designer. // Liftarn 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some Odd World images, taken from site and GFDL claimed.

// Liftarn 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Image:Castoroides1.jpg, Image:Cadborosaurus.jpg: no evidence of NoRightsReserved —Steven G. Johnson 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by same uploader: Image:Blue-tiger3 edited.jpg, incorrectly tagged GFDL-self when taken from someone else's web site —Steven G. Johnson 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:41601430 christopheralaneme203.jpg - taken from the BBC website and thus probably not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Airmax2black.jpg and Image:Airmax2.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ak-47 square.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says "Copyright © 2002-2006 T16.COM. All rights reserved." // Liftarn 11:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ahkna.jpg - claims self-made, but I very much dubt it. // Liftarn 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Afghanturban.jpg - GFDL claimed but I dub't Seattle Times use GFDL. They also say " Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company". // Liftarn 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Qabili.jpg claimes CopyrightedFreeUse, but source site says nothing. // Liftarn 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Haiiti1.jpg, Image:Indep 1.jpg, Image:Maj Gen Mutukumaru.jpg, and Image:Lmgfire.jpg - source says "Copyright © 2006 Sri Lanka Army. All Rights Reserved" --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MUC-s1990.JPG - copyrighted trading cards, surely not created by uploader. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nlb-096.jpg - nothing supports GFDL claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Netscape8.1.png - scrrenshot of copyrighted software. Uploader is probably in no position to release this into the public ___domain. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JFKStadium 1110660267 image.png - source given is not the image's original source, and uses image without permission under fair use. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Amx30.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "Copyright Ministère de la Défense 2004". // Liftarn 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Savannahcat.jpg - Uploader claims rights free, but I've seen this image in print, copyrighted to Cris Kelly. The image, attributed to Cris Kelly are also at http://www.hdw-inc.com/sunnyspots.htm.

August 27

Image:Ana-356-10000.jpg - uploader claims own work, but I dubt it. // Liftarn 08:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ana-main-fporsche-2006.jpg - ditto // Liftarn 08:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ana-manofsteel.jpg - same uploader, same issue. // Liftarn 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ana-vw3s-2006.jpg - and again... // Liftarn 08:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anadrol.jpg and Image:Winstrol.jpg - uploader claims own work, but the images have copyright messages. // Liftarn 08:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anatolypetrovich.gif and Image:Anatolypetrovich.jpg are images of a stamps, but yet GFDL is claimed... // Liftarn 08:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beirut-smoke.jpg - I originally taged this for speedy deletion (CSD I7) because it's so obviously not a magazine cover, but that tag was removed... anyway, it's still no magazine cover and should not be kept with this tag. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged that picture with "unverifiedimage"? LOL!

But seriously ... Wikipedia:Fair use says "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." This is a low resolution version of an image (but not a photo!) that is newsworthy in itself. Moreover, the copyright holder has renounced it. How about switching to (say) {{Fair use in}} Adnan Hajj, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Reuters etc? CWC(talk) 11:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled the tag to HistoricPhoto and added a rationale. This one of the few times where a fairuse rationale actually makes sense. Megapixie 13:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is Gerph, the guy who uploaded that image. Sorry for not putting in the proper copyright source, but "historic photo" wasn't listed among the sources for copyright (I wasn't even aware it existed), so I found the closest that I thought would be the most suitable. Wikipedia needs to list all of the copyright possibilities so future confusions would be prevented. --Gerph (Talk) 17:34, 29 August 2006

Image:The Basilica the Kremlin and the Bridge.jpg - source ("All rights reserved") and summary ("May not be reproduced without permission from the author.") contradict license claim (cc-by-sa-2.5). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ana-003-grandfawillard.jpg - I dubt it's self created. // Liftarn 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Simpsonsdvdtimeline2real.jpg, Image:TheSimpsonsDVDSets.jpg, Image:GREYSANATOMYAD.jpg, Image:DESPERATEHOUSEWIVESADno2.jpg - incorporate copyrighted promotional material, uploader is probably in no position to release this into the public ___domain. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Friction Welded Aluminum.jpg - couldn't find anything at source to support pd claim. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Angel.jpg - GFDL claimed, no source. // Liftarn 10:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Angelica Pickels.JPG and Image:Angelica Rugrats.JPG (and probaly Image:Angelica.JPG too) are scanned from books, but uploader claims own work. // Liftarn 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Wil hil ohr.png - source doesn't match license tag. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Whs.PNG - source doesn't match license tag. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:EvaGoreBooth1a.jpg - source claims "circa 1930" but license tag only applies for image older than 1923. Also the source given is not the original source of the image. Demiurge 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
image:Uddevalla bridge.jpg -- Licensed under "CopyrightedFreeUse" but also states "May not be used in advertising or propaganda without author consent" / Fred-Chess 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Image:P1 manning all.jpg: From CNN/Sports Illustrated's website. The possibily of this being released for any use whatsoever by them is slim to none. Its an orphan currently as well. Kevin_b_er 05:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anti-piracy4.jpg claims GFDL-self, but it's a anti-piracy poster (the irony!). // Liftarn 07:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Antarktis.jpg claims GFDL, but source site says "copyright Uwe Kils" and "these images are free for k12 education commercial users need written permission" // Liftarn 08:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lipizzaner PRMO.jpg claims "attribution", but the conditions on the source website say that the image be used just for the promotion of Slovenia. bogdan 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Karachi-1993.jpg no permission stated on the source website. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- it should not be removedOne2one 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Molluck and Abe.jpg Convoy of Conwy claims GFDL-self, but the image appears to be a screenshot or promotional artwork. Foobaz·o< 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1084849.jpg Is copyrighted, no permission has been given. pdrap 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Angerbillboard.jpg - Currently tagged as a Copyrighted Free Use image, however according to the source's copyright and terms of service, it seems that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it but only if it is non-commerical, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.[5] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ace ventura has refused one request [6] and ignored another (on their talk page) to provide the exact source of these images or evidence that they are licensed under the GFDL. ×Meegs 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mramo has a history of uploaded several unfree images without specifying source. These are marked as GFDL, clearly are not.

August 29

Image:Johnnycash.jpg - claimed fairuse - but basically a random image pulled from the internet - with no clear source and no real fair use rationale. Megapixie 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anusha dhandekar.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "Copyright © 1999-2006 IndianMagic". // Liftarn 08:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bellbutton.jpg - PD-self claimed, but I doubt it. Has no metadata to suggest the use of a camera. User's only edits were to upload this image and add it to Umbilicus. I suspect it is actually a copyright violation with the face cropped out. —freak(talk) 09:51, Aug. 29, 2006 (UTC)

That is my picture taken a few years ago and I did cut the top of it off because I don't think it needs a face showing. The one there now with a big belly don't have a face. The camera was a Casio digital camera if that's what metadata means. I don't know why it is disputed.

Image:Annie McNamara.jpg - claims both self made and gives a web source (that don't say anything about GFDL). // Liftarn 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anzu mazaki trading cards3.png - GFDL claimes, but they are scanned and I dubt the actual source has released them acording to GFDL. // Liftarn 11:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Jordan just seems to have uploaded a bunch of web found pcitures and given them a false licence.

So far, checking only two, the Dick Cheney image (Image:Ijoji.JPG, which I deleted) was stolen from Associated Press, and the HFordJr.jpg image was stolen from Time.com [7]. I've warned him, I think all images he has uploaded should be deleted at once, and if he uploads any more I think he should be blocked. Note that he erased the copyright notice on the AP image (if you google it, it was in the lower left). Antandrus (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out how anyone could upload an image if you cannot use ones from the web. Also, Antandrus has a hell of alot of time on his/her hands. - --Ninja Jordan 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I take time to defend the project from blatant copyright violations, and so should you. I left a second warning: please do not upload any more "found" images unless they are explicitly stated to be free for others to use. Antandrus (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bbiih2.JPG, apparently taken from Agence France-Presse, [8]. Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1981 Great Waikino flood..jpg No evidence user has rights to release this image under Creative Commons -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AxlRose.jpg uploaded by User:BertieBasset contains a false license. --Ninja Jordan 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eulji.jpg—Darkstyx claims that www.koreandb.net owns the copyright and has released all rights to it. No evidence for either assertion is provided. Foobaz·o< 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Image:Sherbrooke.jpg -- nothing at source indicates that the content can be used commercially or allows derivative works. Jkelly 02:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- http://agora.qc.ca/mot.nsf/Dossiers/Sherbrooke: "Reproduction autorisée avec mention de la source" means "Reproduction authorized where the source is mentioned." Is that not good enough? --Nephtes 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to know explicitly that commercial and derivative works are okay, but I wouldn't have nominated this here if there had been a link to that statement. Jkelly 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VFR.jpg and Image:DFR.jpg -- nothing at source indicates this is {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} Ytny 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bodiroga Dec22 2002.jpg -- no indication that this is an {{Attribution}} image. Ytny 02:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:IRA.jpg, Image:Portugal2004martin.jpg — clearly inaccurate licensing tags (logo/political poster when they're clearly not). Demiurge 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Goguryeo.jpg -- source seems gone now, but it seems almost impossible that a news site would release their copyright... Komdori 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ashmit patel2.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "Copyright © 2001-2003 Chantu.Com. All Rights Reserved.". // Liftarn 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Art 003.jpg - photo of artwork = derivative work // Liftarn 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Art 001.jpg - photo of artwork = derivative work // Liftarn 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AprilHunter.jpg - claims own work, I dubt it. // Liftarn 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost certainly not own work. I found a smaller version of the same image here with an unknown logo on the image. I think the photo is at best a promo photo. Tabercil 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AprilFlowers2.jpg - claims own work, I dubt it. // Liftarn 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Asianexcellenceawards.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "© 2000-2006 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors.". // Liftarn 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AutoDiana.jpg - claims own work, but it looks scanned. // Liftarn 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Austinkinkead.JPG - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture in question is free for use by Wikipedia, as the author has licensed his photos under the Creative Commons. See here. The license the user has put the image under is incorrect, which I will correct. Tabercil 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aurra sing3.jpg - claims self made, but is probably a screenshot. // Liftarn 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aurora 2.jpg - claims self made, but is probably a screenshot. // Liftarn 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Felis Chaus.jpg - NoRightsReserved claimed, source site says "Copyright © Haryana Online and haryana-online.com 2000-2006. All rights reserved." and "Contents on this site are a copyright of www.haryana-online.com, and may not be reproduced without prior permission.". // Liftarn 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Female raptorjp3.jpg and Image:Female raptorjptlw.jpg claims NoRightsReserved, but source site says " © 2003 Jurassic Park Movie Universe". // Liftarn 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Male raptortlw.jpg and Image:Male raptorjp3.jpg has the same problem. Source site seems not to have released the rights. // Liftarn 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Image:Fot33.jpg - NoRightsReserved claimed, but source site says "© Sergio Cabanillas, Tomajazz 2006". // Liftarn 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hazmat-MarvelComics.gif and Image:Hazmat vs Thing.jpg claims NoRightsReserved, but I dubt Marvel give away their work. // Liftarn 08:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Brenp 0101.jpg, Image:Nwide 0005.jpg, Image:Oh jewels.jpg, Image:Oh guest 2.jpg, Image:Oh mam 1.jpg, Image:Oh guest 5.jpg, Image:Oh guest 4.jpg, Image:Oh guest 3.jpg, Image:Oh guest 1.jpg, Image:Readingnews 94.jpg, Image:People year awards.jpg, Image:Oh 11110.jpg, Image:Mk eurovision 95.jpg, Image:Mk00001.jpg, Image:Match 05.jpg, Image:Match 01.jpg, Image:Irishredxross.jpg, Image:Paddy dog.jpg, Image:Mk 00013.jpg, Image:Ks signed 010.jpg, Image:Signed.jpg, Image:Paptigers.jpg, Image:Mk0003.jpg, Image:Mk0002.jpg, and Image:Mk0001.jpg - all from the same uploader, who claims to be the creator when most of these clearly are screenshots. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bio32.gif - Source gives no indication of release under the GFDL. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Swrebellion.jpg: Claimed GFDL-self, but image is a scan of a video game box. —Bkell (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thedonegalpaper.jpg - clearly false copyright tag, scan of a newspaper but claims self-created. Demiurge 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i scanned it is that not alrite. if u scan somethin can you not put it on wiki--Qwertyuiopasdfgh vfen 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Zhimo.jpg - claims PD-old-50, but author also unknown. If you don't know when the author died, how can you use this tag? Also there's no proof that it was ever published in the US before 1923. --BrownCow  (how now?) 17:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg - derivative work. // Liftarn 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Robertscoble.jpg - email conversation listed as image source. Impossible to verify according to Wikipedia:Verifiability --TAG 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on Commons, so we can't delete it here... and we do have a method for verifying email sources. I've left a note to kick that method off. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on both your talk pages now, I've forwarded it to the permissions. I contacted him after he mentioned us at the start of an interview. -- Zanimum 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 1

Image:Warrentrophy.jpg, claimed GFDL, source given [9] says: "Copyright The Origin Museum, 2000-2004. All rights reserved. Please do not copy any files or images from this site without written permission from the author.". No evidence given that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. Combination 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alicia simmons.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says nothing about it. // Liftarn 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AwkwardTurtle.jpg - PD claimed, but I very much dubt it. Source has gone 404. // Liftarn 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Avianosets Kiev 1.jpeg claims PD, but source site says "©1998-2003 Created by Andrei Pupko". // Liftarn 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Auteuil.jpg - PD claimed, but source is a blog that doesn't give copyright info. // Liftarn 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Austin-Healey-Sprite-'61.jpg claims PD, but source site says "© RacingSportsCars (2002-2006) - data, texts and all other information is protected by copyright law and cannot be used without permission. All pictures on this page are in property of their original authors, photographers or owners and have been kindly provided to RSC just for use on this website and it is expressely forbidden to use them elsewhere without prior written permission of RacingSportsCars and the copyright owner.". // Liftarn 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Austin-Healey-Frogeye-Sprin.jpg claims PD, but source site says "© 1998-2006 Conceptcarz.com". // Liftarn 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BallBearings.jpg claims PD, but the FAQ at the source site clearly says "Are the images in the public ___domain? No, all images are still property of their respective owner and have granted you a usage license under the morguefile TOS."[10] // Liftarn 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BachemBa349.jpg claims self made, but it's a WW2 photo so I have my dubts. // Liftarn 13:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BMWbike.jpg claims PD, but source site disagree[11]. // Liftarn 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BMW507.jpg claims PD, but source site says "© BMW World 1999-2005. All Rights Reserved.". // Liftarn 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tajik synagogue 3.jpg: Claims both {{attribution}} and {{cc-by-2.5}}, but source site [12] says, "Copyright © 1999-2004 BukharianJews.com All Rights Reserved. … No images or content on this site may be used or reproduced without written permission from the editor of the website and reference to www.BukharianJews.com". Plainly more than simple attribution is required to use the content (you also need explicit written permission from the editor), and there's no mention of a Creative Commons license anywhere. —Bkell (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Audi Nuvolari Quattro.jpg claims PD, but source site disagree[13]. // Liftarn 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AshiharaSabaki.jpg - PD claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Arrest of Falun Gong Practitioners.jpg - PD claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Arm260.gif - PD claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Welrod4.jpg- - PD claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Blackbabyjeebus.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says "Copying images from this site is NOT ALLOWED!". // Liftarn 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Billwalsh.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says "We hereby authorize you to copy materials published on this website for your non-commercial, private use only". // Liftarn 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Billparker.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says "All content © 2006 Kettering Borough Council". // Liftarn 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bigshow.jpg - IGN image, certainly not PD. // Liftarn 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Berry 162x294.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says "Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co. Inc.". // Liftarn 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Belphegor.gif - PD claimed, but source site claims copyright. However, I dubt they are the original creators. May be PD-old. // Liftarn 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Benavides.jpg - Uploader claims "NoRightsReserved". Photo comes from somebody's photo blog [14] that has no copyright info and has not been updated since January 2006. Thuresson 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hugo Pratt.jpg - "I found it on several websites" isn't a good enough reason to assume an image is public ___domain. Angr 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MatthewShepard.jpg - User just assumes that image is public ___domain but no such information is given on website which image comes from. --Strothra 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've e-mailed the Matthew Shepard Foundation; I assume this is an old family photo (Shepard didn't become famous until after death), hopefully they will allow use. His parents would no doubt endorse Wikipedia's use. Yiddophile, currently not logged in
  - Please note the image is on Commons, not on Wikipedia! If you doubt the source please nominate it for deletion at Commons, not here. Angr 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Image:Lenakatinaformtatyuk.jpg Image that has been cropped from tatu's official site. It is not public ___domain. Dowew 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bell16.jpg - PD claimed, but source site says nothing. // Liftarn 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:161477.jpg - derivative work? // Liftarn 08:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It blatently obviously says that i'm the author of that image. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be the photographer, but if you're not the designer of the packaging, you don't hold the copyright of that image. Please see Commons:Derivative works (it's explained better at Commons than anywhere at Wikipedia) for discussion. Angr 08:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for telling me about well a.. blank page. Also the packaging isnt copyrighted (makes no claim on the box) -- The wolf could be trademarked but i dont know. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not a derivitive anymore. It's new primary purpose is to illustrate draws. It just happens a box of cookie crisp got in the way. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry about the link; it's Commons:Commons:Derivative works. And the packaging doesn't need a copyright statement to be copyrighted. Every creative work is copyrighted, whether it's marked as such or not, unless it's specifically put into the public ___domain or its copyright has expired. Angr 10:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Definately a derivative work. If I sit in a cinema with a video camera, am I producing a new work entitled "people watching a summer blockbuster" or am I breaching someones copyright ?
        
        Can we roll back to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/d2/20060728213407%21161477.jpg or upload this image http://www.cerealpartners.co.uk/images/pic.p_cookie_crisp.gif and claim fairuse ? Megapixie 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bruno-bbc.jpg claims PD, but I have my doubts. // Liftarn 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Traudlhead.jpg no reason to believe this is public ___domain, as it's only 61 years old. Angr 08:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the picture from her state security pass and so is I believe now pd under German law Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brummbaer.jpg - unclear copyright, PD claimed. // Liftarn 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BrickWall.jpg - PD claimed, but source site has a different idea[15]. // Liftarn 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ImageAfter site where the image originates from states that: Image*After is a large online free photo collection. You can download and use any image or texture from our site and use it in your own work, either personal or commercial. I have removed the tag, Please let me know if there are problems-- Chris 73 | Talk 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They also say that you can't "use it in any other essential manner in a product that will be resold or redistributed". // Liftarn 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pilate-inscription 03.jpg -- URL Source - http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/latin/pilate.html -- why GFDL? / Fred-Chess 12:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nokia 5500 FCC Front Back.png - claimed as PD US GOV but the source clearly attributes the copyright to Nokia. --Hetar 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
image:Anugoogle.JPG, Image:Vivstadium.jpeg and image:Viv richards stadium.JPG are all taken from Google Earth so they are copyrighted and cannot be released under the {{PD-self}} licence.--Cherry blossom tree 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
image:Wbspencer.jpg: the uploader claims "I bought it and thus own the picture" which just isn't how copyright works. --Cherry blossom tree 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Image:Sofia by night.jpg — claimed {{PD-self}}, in fact nicked from http://www.grandhotelsofia.bg/. Todor →Bozhinov 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Motithos.jpg From a copyrighted website -Nv8200p talk 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Persepolis-at-night.jpg - uploader claimed source http://www.persianscholarship.org "allow the free use of their materials without any condition." and {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. I cannot find this anywhere at their site, though I do find © 2006 The Persian Scholarship Foundation. KWH 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Carlitocool.jpg - claims PD, but source site says "© 2006 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.". // Liftarn 08:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:C3 Doug2.jpg claims PD, but source site says "All Graphics, Photos, and Images © Britt Dietz & the 501st. Please ask permission before using any items from this site.". // Liftarn 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Burnallgifs.png claims PD, but source site says that it "may be used freely by those wishing to show support for www.burnallgifs.org.". Ok, quite close to PD, but the image is unused awyway. // Liftarn 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bunkers.jpg claims PD, but source site says not. // Liftarn 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bulletin 1966-01-01 1 page002 img004 large.gif claims PD, but source site says "Copyright © 2006 UNODC, All Rights Reserve". Image unused and quite horrible anyway. // Liftarn 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bulldogs2004.jpg - PD claimed, source site says "© 2006 ABC" and "This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), Reuters, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.". // Liftarn 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Eveenslersalmahayekvdayharlem.jpg — claims public ___domain but source site says "Copyright 2000-2005 by V-Day." [16]. Demiurge 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Trichome-close-up.jpg- No reason to believe that Overgrow.com released its pictures as copyrighted free use. Overgrow has been shut down by the police and archive.org doesn't mirror it, but in Dec 2005 when it was up, someone left a comment on the uploader's talk page, so it probably does not. --Rory096 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Trichome-cystolithhairs.jpg too. Also note that another image he uploaded with the same "from overgrow.com" was deleted as orphaned fair use, probably after someone changed that image to a fair use tag after they realized it was copyrighted. --Rory096 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

Image:Arne Treholt, KGB.jpg - GFDL claimed, but why would the Norwegian Police Security Agency use GFDL? // Liftarn 08:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm yeah, in hindsight that does seem a bit odd. I'll ask the original uploader on noWiki to clearify. I think we can make a pretty deacent fair use claim for the image though. The article does talk about him beeing under surveillance and we can't make a free licenced image that serve the same purpose as an actual surveillance photo of him with his contacts, there are no commercial interests etc. It may even qualify as public ___domain since it was probably part of the documentation in his trial records, though I'm not quite sure how to go about verifying that. --Sherool (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually the person contacting the Norwegian police. They said this photo has been used by so many all over the world that it de facto is a 100% free photo. In fact it is a much more free photo than GFDL since the Norwegian police has absolutely no claim on it. The GFDL tag was attached simply because I did not find any better. (Further details is linked to the Norwegian Wiki where this photo has been discussed several times.) Jakro64 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ashish Gulhati.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site says "This article may not be reproduced in any form without this copyright message. It may not be reproduced or excerpted in non-electronic form, or in any commercial publication or forum, electronic or otherwise, without prior permission from the author.". // Liftarn 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Artwork 2b to 6b.jpg claims GFDL, but source site says "©Senses0! 2000-2006". // Liftarn 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Audi S3.jpg says "The Author of this image is Matthew Andrews who has authorised its unconditional use on Wikipedia to illustrate the article around the Audi S3.", but it's tagged as GFDL. // Liftarn 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Autopsia photo.jpg - GFDL claimed, but it looks like a promo chot. The source site is gone. // Liftarn 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Azadeh moaveni 13.jpg - GFDL claimed, but image has watermark and source site says "© 2001-2006 Pars Times. All rights reserved.". // Liftarn 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hernando Magallanes.jpg - copyright and licensing status has been changed a couple of times, now claims that the unknown artist or artists has been dead for more than 200 years. The style of the artwork looks like mid- to late-20th century illustration. -- Donald Albury 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Legazpi estatua.jpg by the same uploader, and it looks like many other images. —Steven G. Johnson 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Paulino Alcantara.gif, Image:Manila Galleon Philippine - Mexico trade.jpg, Image:Blood Compact Conquistadores.jpg, Image:LapuLapu warrior.jpg, Image:Lourdes Jacqueline Blanco.jpg, Image:Jackielou blanco.jpg, Image:Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala.jpg —Steven G. Johnson 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Licensing information on Hernando Magallanes.jpg has been changed, but still has no definiton information on creation date. -- Donald Albury 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Syd1971.jpg (Syd Barret in 1971?). Uploader believes in good faith that the uploader created this and licensed it under GFDL but also added a source, www.greatestjournal.com, which is some kind of blog and probably doesn't own the copyright anyway. Thuresson 14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Asnom.gif - GFDL claimed, but source site says "© 2003-2006 Организација на жени - Свети Николе." // Liftarn 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AspenMountainTrailMap.jpg claims GFDL, but source site says "© 2006 Aspen Skiing Company. All rights reserved. ". // Liftarn 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AssyrianFlagWWI.jpg claims GFDL, but the source site[17] doesn't own the copyright. It is instead held by a David Lazar. // Liftarn 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WY2T1146 gloria1.jpg; Image:WY2T1519 south korea.jpg and Image:WY2T1125 saipan.jpg- all uploaded by User:Desk1, apparently his own work- but states only for use in Wikipedia. Has uploaded various unfree images on the Trafalgar 200 celebrations and spamming them across the wiki- most are of poor quality. Astrotrain 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While he says CC-BY-SA-2.5 he adds a note about no derivative use without permission, effectively making them by permission images - see also
- Image:Rev reh.jpg
- Image:Saipan small.jpg
- Image:WY2T1125 saipan.jpg
- Image:WY2T1765 grand turk.jpg
- Image:WY2T0771 map small.jpg
- Image:WY2T1801a.jpg
- etc... Megapixie 01:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Astacio.JPG claims GFDL, but I have my dubts. // Liftarn 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:B&Gunionweb.jpg - derivative work? // Liftarn 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BARC Appendix A 1988 - Advertising.jpg - derivative work? // Liftarn 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Spine2ks2.jpg - appears to be copied from http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/AtlanticStingray/spine2.JPG. RexNL 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tradition folklore.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BMWipodsteering.JPG and Image:BMWiPod.JPG claims own work, but it looks like promo shots. // Liftarn 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly Image:Carvolvo.jpg by the same uploader. —Steven G. Johnson 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BMW X5 2003.JPG claims GFDL, but it's from a crash test so I dubt that. // Liftarn 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BKMU.PNG claims GFDL, but source site says "Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu". // Liftarn 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Five-Points-Map.jpg and Image:FivePointsPhoto.jpg are mapquest and google earth downloads, both contain copyright notices in the image. Both are marked pd-self. --TeaDrinker 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Image:033.jpg Says from official website of Ali Rahbari so probably not GFDL-self -Nv8200p talk 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Yazdanian.jpg, Image:Rahbari-2.jpg, Image:Rahbari-1.jpg, Image:I.Pogorelich.jpg by same uploader —Steven G. Johnson 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Old bridge in Kutina.jpg, Image:The garden in Kutina.jpg, Image:The center in Kuina.jpg: claimed GFDL, but lists source as www.kutina.hr and GFDL seems unlikely —Steven G. Johnson 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Herods 3 towers.jpg, Image:Stobi1.jpg, Image:Stobi theater.jpg, Image:Stobi.jpg, Image:Veles01.gif, Image:Demir Hisar map.gif, Image:Amblem veles.jpg, Image:Markovi kuli3.jpg, Image:Markovi kuli2.jpg, Image:Markovi kuli2.jpg.jpg, Image:Markovi kuli1.jpg, Image:Markovi kuli.jpg, Image:Evlija.jpg, Image:Kumanovo monastery123.jpg, Image:Kumanovo Monastery3.jpg, Image:Kumanovo Monastery2.jpg, Image:Kumanovo Monastery1.jpg, Image:Kumanovo Monastery.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber10.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber9.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber8.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber7.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber6.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber5.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber4.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber3.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber2.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber.jpg, Image:Picture of Mersad Berber1.jpg, by same uploader, claimed GFDL but no evidence from source sites —Steven G. Johnson 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Demirhisar01.gif, Image:Demirhisar02.gif - given uploader's history, GFDL-self seems dubious (looks like a low-resolution picture taken from the web). —Steven G. Johnson 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could possibly claim fair use on one or two of the Mersad Berber painting - but not on a whole gallery full. Megapixie 08:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bach133.gif claims own work, but it looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very fishy - see possible source http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3909/Pictures/basstone.gif - why would anyone convert their own work to a gif ? Megapixie 08:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BackstreetBoysRAHFLC.jpg both claims own work and gives a source (of dubious copyright status). What is it? // Liftarn 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:BSB98MTV.jpg, Image:BSBEMA1997.jpg, Image:BSBSShow.jpg, Image:BSBVH1.jpg, Image:BSBama01.jpg, Image:BSBbillboard99.jpg, Image:BSBbw05.jpg, Image:BSBelton00.jpg, Image:BSBgrammy1999.jpg, Image:BSBmtv01.jpg, Image:BSBmtv99.jpg, Image:BSBradio00.jpg, Image:BSBunitedconcert.jpg and Image:BSBwhitee.jpg. The uploader appears to be a fan with a somewhat dim view about how copyright works ("Sorry i didn't understand. I scanned them myself."). // Liftarn 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:LisaFurukawaWithR2D2.jpg from [18]. Claimed GFDL but source site asserts copyright. --Muchness 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- According to uploader, the image's copyright holder has granted Wikipedia permission to use this image (see Talk:Lisa_Furukawa). --Muchness 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bailey jagger1.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source (BBC) say " You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use.". // Liftarn 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BaghaJatinPostage.jpg - scanned by uploader, but uploader isn't the original author. // Liftarn 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Babinski's sign.jpg looks mistagged (GFDL), but should probably be some kind of PD due to age. // Liftarn 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Barreiro1.jpg claims own work, but I dubt it. // Liftarn 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Barhayim.jpg claims own work, but it looks like a scan from a newspaper. // Liftarn 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Spinal Decay.jpg Tagged as PD-self, but has a clear copyright notice embedded in the image, and may need the approval of the people pictured. --ais523 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: The copyright message does match the uploaders username. // Liftarn
Image:Battlefield 2 3.png - derivative work? // Liftarn 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Battle-of-coruscant.gif claims own work. Possible but needs to be checked. // Liftarn 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Battle royale shuya nanahara manga.JPG claims own work, but looks scanned. // Liftarn 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Battle Apejpg.JPG - derivative work? // Liftarn 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Baseball Avatar Meez.jpg is a bit tricky. The source site (in lack of a better name) says "You may use the Meez service solely for your personal, non-commercial use.". // Liftarn 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Barry john.JPG - GFDL claimed, source site says "© Mike Burton Group Ltd 2004 - 2006" and "You may only download or print information from this site for non-commercial personal use.". // Liftarn 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1013941149 l.jpg, Image:196798632 l.jpg, Image:188046212 l.jpg, Image:188047162 l.jpg, Image:188047654 l.jpg No evidence to support these images can be released as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:115-546.jpg Looks like a screenshot of a copyrighted show. -Nv8200p talk 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bajirao.jpg claims GFDL. Source site says "Contents published on madforclicks.com cannot be used commercially without prior permission.". No mention of GFDL. // Liftarn 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:KrishnaRiver.jpg, Image:Shanivarwada.jpg, Image:Bh31.jpg, by same uploader from same site. It's possible that the uploader (User:Tugo) is the photographer (supposedly "Tushar Gokhale"), but this needs to be verified. —Steven G. Johnson 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beleth - return to eden comic.jpg - GFDL claimed, no evidence for that on source site. // Liftarn 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:8btheater.png - GFDL claimed. Author gave permission for use but no expansion on how. Fair use would be for this image as used, but the GFDL is false.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My request was clearly for use under the GFDL, and the author agreed. The e-mails are in OTRS.--Eloquence * 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Swanson5920a.jpg~~ - GFDL claimed, but to get to any photo gallery on source's site, you have to click through a big "All images are copyrighted" notice. On User talk:Ryssby there's some question as to whether the uploader actually is Robert Swanson, but he has never replied. howch e ng {chat} 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply received by email, photographer is indeed uploader. howch e ng {chat} 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Katie CouricCBSEN.jpg - Far too professional picture of a far too famous person to by taken by this guy, who has a history of unsourced and unlicensed uploads. --Rory096 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Image:Castronasty.jpg licensed as gfdl-self, but appears to be a derivative of a professional image (unknown original source). --TeaDrinker 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Coca tea1.jpg - claims own work, but also gives source that says "Photo by Erowid, © 2002 Erowid.org". // Liftarn 06:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there was a mix-up. Wrong photo uploaded. I will correct this situation shortly. Somnabot 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bellon.gif gives "my album" as source. I think we need more than that. // Liftarn 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bella-akhmadulina.jpg claims both PD and GFDL, but source says nothing. // Liftarn 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BelkacemRadjef edited.jpg - if the photographer is unknown, how can it be released as GFDL? // Liftarn 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Belgium-Beer.jpg claims GFDL, but source (now at http://picasaweb.google.com/chmouel/Belgique2004 ) says nothing. // Liftarn 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bianca-Rinaldi.JPG claims both own work and IMDB gallery (I think the later is more probable). // Liftarn 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bgemblem.PNG - I think this is just heavy cropping of a non freee photo. // Liftarn 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally Batman's logo; I modified to make it look like Batgirl's using MG1 PhotoSuite (Batgirl's logo resembling a hollowed-out version of Batman's).--DrBat 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Berard and Haggerty.jpg and Image:Peake.PNG claim own work, but it looks like a scan. // Liftarn 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Assyrian dna.svg: Claimed {{GFDL-self}}, but is a direct copy of an image at [19], just converted to SVG. Compare Image:Assyrian dna.jpg, which was listed here on PUI on August 11. —Bkell (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A little too close for comfort. While the information itself isn't copyright - the representation is - and that's more or less identical to it. Could the same information be represented in some other way/type of graph ? Megapixie 01:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you want me to redraw it using same data but for example in a vertical style? --timecop 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beneath the watchful eyes.jpg - GFDL claimed but it is a "Photoquantigraphic Image Composite derived from 8 views of London Underground sur-veillance posters.". // Liftarn 13:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Benccontest.jpg claims own work, but it's only a photo (derivative work) of a contest entry form. // Liftarn 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed license to "book cover" because no better license exists (need help) --Guroadrunner 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (uploader) Fair use to be added shortly.[reply]

Better as fair use in, although the entry form should be discussed on the page in question - i.e. "A competition entry form was included with the packaging of the game..." Megapixie 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jang_Yeongsil.jpg claims GFDL, but also says "unknown author" no source (other than an image site), no date, no mention of GFDL, etc. Komdori 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded this when I didn't even know what GFDL was. All other pictures too. But another series of recent troubles led me to understand what it is. I'll upload a temporary image until I find another one. (Wikimachine 01:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Woo Ryang Gyae.jpg claims GFDL, but no such mention on unconfirmed site Komdori 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Water Clock Made by Jang Young Sill.jpg Releasing an image for "educational purpose[s]" is not the same as releasing it under GFDL. Komdori 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hon Chon Eyee.jpg claims GFDL, but no support for it Komdori 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:475.jpg No evidence to support that this image can be relesed under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Records of Jang Young Sil.jpg claims GFDL, doubtful based on others claims for GFDL; website is gone?, no original source. Komdori 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this image, but give me 3 days to replace other images. (Wikimachine 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Bishapur zan.jpg claims own work, but it looks like a derivative work. Probably should be PD-old instead. // Liftarn 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as PD-art instead. howch e ng {chat} 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ha Long Bay88.jpg, claims NoRightsReserved with no evidence to support it at source site. howch e ng {chat} 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Geektag1.jpg, looking at the image theres a TM yet it is released under PD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right - should be {{logo}}
Image:Tammy Sytch 2006.jpg, Image:Sytch 08 05.jpg, Image:Tammy sytch 2004.jpg, Image:Tammy august 04.jpg, Image:Tammy august 06.jpg, & Image:Tammy jawbreaker.jpg - These images have been collected from other internet sites by the owner of tammysytch.net and uploaded by him with various misleading user-created tags. - Chadbryant 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Image:Ukpassport-cover.jpg and Image:British look-alike passport.jpg and Image:British passport (old style blue).jpg - GFDL claimed. These are Crown Copyright [20]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These could be fair use - given the article is actually about passports. Megapixie 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair use is likely (would it be legal in UK?) but it's not a free image is what the passport license seems to say. gren グレン 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    - In my opinion Fair Use could probably apply to one of these images in the British passport article but not the generic passport article, since free examples are probably available. Please note one of these images has now been tagged as Fair Dealing, which in my opinion would not apply. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction of the British Passport Part 7, opsi.gov.uk:

   The cover of the Passport including the Royal Arms and the inside of the Passport may also be reproduced as part of a work, including promotional and advertising works, provided that:
   * the front cover of the Passport is not reproduced as the main focus of the cover of a work or as the main focus of an advertisement. Reproduction of the Passport on a front cover or in an advertisement may only be of an incidental nature, such as part of a montage of images;
   * where reproduction includes the front cover of the Passport with the Royal Arms, the cover is reproduced without alteration (ie: no company names or other information printed on the cover of the Passport);
   * the personal details (including the actual photograph) of any individual is not used, although it is permissible to reproduce the Passport featuring a fictitious person;
   * you do not reproduce the number which appears on any actual Passport;
   * you do not reproduce the security features contained inside the Passport;
   * you do not reproduce the image in a misleading or derogatory manner;
   * the appropriate fee is paid (see paragraph 9);
   * you acknowledge that the image of the Passport is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO.

Benbread 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 9:

    * 9. The reproduction of the Passport as covered under paragraph 7 is subject to the payment of a reproduction fee details of which are available on request.

It appears these images cannot therefore be used, it may be possible though to contact OPSI and have these circumstances changed as Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation. Benbread 21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S, i'll do this now Benbread 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:52873 Ancanar FRONT.jpg No evidence this image was released under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WalterOwen.jpg Tagged as an image being "owned by the Canadian government, and is under Crown copyright" and links to the website it was copied from. However, the image is on a provincial government website [21]. None of the Canadian provinces have introduced a licencing scheme similar to that of the federal government. There is no permission on the BC Lieutenant Governor website allowing the use of images on that website. Agent 86 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: I have also flagged the following images for the same reason: Image:GeorgePearkes.jpg; Image:Bell-Irving.jpg; Image:RobertRogers.jpg; Image:DavidLam.jpg; Image:GardeGardom.jpg; Image:IonaCampagnola.jpg. Agent 86 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lata.jpg -- the site doesn't mention that it releases into the PD. It also uses non-original work so even if its own material is PD we can't tell if that picture is original or not. gren グレン 07:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Telephonecar-1-.jpg says "Photographer Harrod Blank owns all rights to this picture. You must contact him from his website, [www.harrodblank.com] to reproduce it.". // Liftarn 10:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bill Cosby 1.jpg claims own work, but it looks like a scan from a magazine. // Liftarn 11:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Billdu.png is made on a site so copyright status is a bit unclear. // Liftarn 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Biturbo730.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site says nothing. // Liftarn 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bjarne tromborg.jpg claims own work, but it looks like a standard photo (checked with google images). // Liftarn 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Blight.gif claims own work, but I dubt it. // Liftarn 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Blade Runner Icon.png - derivatrive work? // Liftarn 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Blackmerdaposter2.jpg claims own work, but ownership of the physical picture is not the same thing as owning the right to the image. // Liftarn 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bncc.JPG - GFDL claimed, source site says "© 2006 :: Bina Nusantara Computer Club". // Liftarn 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Image:Bnsg2.jpg - GFDL claimed, source is "Found on Bill Nye's public site.". // Liftarn 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bonbons.JPG says "Image for Wikipedia use only." // Liftarn 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader has been permanently blocked from the wikipedia -- but not for copyright violations.
- The uploader kept trying to trigger disputes with me -- so I noticed when they took a break for about a month. When they returned they said they had traveled to France, and they uploaded about a dozen tourist type photos.
- Other photos they had uploaded, and had tagged with {gfdl}, were noticed before they got in trouble, and they altered the liscense they released those photos under to {gfdl-self}.
- I suggest it is reasonable to change the tag on this photo to {gfdl-self}. -- Geo Swan 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it looks like a tourist shot. // Liftarn 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cocatea.jpg - derivative work? // Liftarn 08:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Oh x0001.jpg - This is a screengrab. This user uploads loads of images with bad tags. Ian Cheese 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Image:University School Shaker Small.jpg, Image:Us hv02 small.jpg, Image:University School Uniform Example.jpg, Image:University school community service.jpg, Image:University School Fields.jpg. Tagged as NoRightsReserved, but the source site says "© 2006 University School. All rights reserved." - EurekaLott 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:İlberOrtaylı.jpg Has two "free licenses" Cannot verify either is legitimate from website listed. -Nv8200p talk 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Öskjuvatn, Iceland.jpg Source is non-existant. Cannot verify GFDL claim -Nv8200p talk 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet archive to the rescue - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://world-traveller.org/ I can't find any GDFL anywhere (though not all the pages are archived). Megapixie 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source exists, and this is the relevant page: [22]. Worldtraveller 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Zyklon cannister used in WW2.JPG No evidence why User:Ear1grey can release Rich Boakes image as GFDL -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:202 savonuzzi.jpg and Image:202 nuvolari.jpg - source site seems gone, but they look old so I dubt they were originally made for that site anyway. // Liftarn 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1991lingeriecalendar.jpg claims NoRightsReserved, but somehow I dubt Playboy does that. // Liftarn 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue with Image:Tonyaoffer.jpg uploaded by the same user. // Liftarn 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1993 Alfa Romeo RZ.JPG claims NoRightsReserved, but the image seems to not be from the site claimed as source so it's impossible to tell. // Liftarn 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1985 lancia delta martini f.jpg claims free use. Source site says nothing. // Liftarn 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lancia Delta S4 (2).jpg comes from a GeoCities website. I dubt they are the original source as it looks like a promo shot. // Liftarn 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1972limo.jpg claims free use, but source site says "© Copyright The Detroit News.". // Liftarn 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Y2JIcChamp.jpg claims to be a TV screenshot, but clearly isn't. Looks more like a promo shot. Sasaki 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LaceStormIC.jpg claims to be a TV screenshot, this isn't obvious. According to my understanding of fair use the law wouldn't allow this image's use in an article about Lance Storm anyway. Sasaki 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Parma Snow.jpg: edited Google Earth screenshot. Not PD. - EurekaLott 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青被带上法庭.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青在开会.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青号召批林批孔.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青与美国总统尼克松交谈.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:江青同志与美国总统尼克松交谈.jpg is not a stamp, but is tagged with {{PD-stamp}} by the uploader, User:Highshines. --PFHLai 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bill.gif --This image was uploaded with the same name as one that previously existed and was unrelated. The copyright info on the page applies to the previous image and not to this one, which is therefore without source or copyright info. blameless 23:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Image:Aucklandprogressivepicket.jpg is not GFDL. According to the permissiom notice [23], ... feel free to use any of my pictures on wikipedia.... I would straight out copy left my pictures but am worried that they could be used innapropriatly... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be the approiate licence for this image? Lossenelin 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acalogo1234.jpg is not an original image, it is copyright from NineMSN and the A Current Affair page. Incorrect license. I suggets deletion. This user has done it many many times check his talk page. - Mike Beckham 08:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:皇后凤冠.jpg is a color photo. {{PD-old}} is obviously a wrong tag. --64.229.179.10 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for Image:慈禧太后的花盆底鞋.jpg. --64.229.179.10 08:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lecmanagementteam.jpg - derivative work (or rather a direct copy). // Liftarn 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marybaker.jpg - the source website is American governmental, but the picture does have third-party copyright, so either delete or claim fair use at related article(s). The same image at Commons has been deleted.--Jusjih 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ninoy87.jpg - Repost of Image:Naiat3.jpg. The image even has ©SOM written on it. -- Mithril Cloud 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Class334 3-car juniper.jpg - the source website is [24]. The SPT website copyright statement says content may be used for personal use only, and specifically forbids any commercial use. --Vclaw 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PICT4827.JPG - derivative work or copy of a (most likely) copyrighted image. Garion96 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avatar-arcidi1.jpg - unlikely PD-self from WP:SPA. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ICjerichoChamp.jpg - Repost of [[:Image:ICjerichoChamp.jpg] - as image listed 9 September; claims to be a TV screenshot, but clearly isn't. Looks more like a promo shot. OWW are not the author of this image as claimed. Sasaki 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Image:Nguyen Dieu Hoa.jpg tagged PD-self, but also found on [25] as [26]. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Amber1.PNG Possible CV. Uploaded by user User:ChrisRy5 without any tags or source/copyright info, and added the image to the article AMBER Alert. On 4-SEP, I asked the user to supply source information. On 5-SEP, the user added the "fair use" tag to the image (without responding to me directly), and indicated that the source of the image was taken from the "NYS Amber Alert Website - http://www.nysamber.troopers.state.ny.us ". However, when I went to that site to verify it's source, I couldn't find the image there. I asked the user for clarification. I have not been responded to since. We have no idea of where the image is actually from, so I am recommending this image for deletion as a possible copyright violation. Kevyn 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fair use in any case, unless we are talking about the specific photograph (which we aren't) Megapixie 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Fields of gold.jpg~~ - claimed as cc 2.5 but the source [27] says that the image is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. --Hetar 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: ~~Image:Fieldscape.jpg~~ and ~~Image:Clouds over hills.jpg~~ --Hetar 05:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second pages of his userpage [28] and [29] (on which all three pictures are displayed) clearly states "© This photo is public." Please remove all the tags. Nauticashades 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That means that the photo is available on flickr to the public for viewing. It says nothing of the copyright. See [30]. Garion96 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa (email added to images' talk pages). howch e ng {chat} 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:WTC attack 9-11.jpg - It is on a USGov website, but it is not the work of the USGov. This is an AP photo, see [31]. --Rory096 06:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Missed that it's a Commons image, forget it, moving this there. --Rory096 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DSC 1129.jpg No evidence copyright holder released image under GFDL -Nv8200p talk 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Image:LPD 1885.jpg - was taken no later than 1885, but claimed {{PD-self}} which is patently impossible unless the uploader was around in 1885. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Image now has proper source to justify the PD claim. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still learning about this whole thing. I will make the correct change if that is alright.
Image:DAVE-MC-WILLIAM000.jpg - one of dozens of images uploaded by User:Shanequinlan01 with made-up license/copyright tags. Demiurge 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ThomasBuffel.jpg: Orphan. Claimed PD-self, but gives a URL [32] as the source. This is probably a photo by a news agency. —Bkell (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's by Reuters. -Elmer Clark 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salute2ladies095.jpg, Image:ILUVthe70s045.jpg, and Image:Nashville004.jpg: All claim PD-self, but they look like screen captures from television programs. —Bkell (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Burnwelk, I have changed the status from PD-self to TV screenshot on all three pictures in dispute, hope that clears everything up.
Image:TimemachineCutaway.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time1.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time2.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time3.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:FOSS 115.jpg, from the website of the Norwegian Department of the Treasury. Norwegian government photos are not PD. --Kjetil _r 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag is now changed to Attribution (which is more correct), but the source does not mention the right to make derivative works. ND-licenses are not allowed on Wikipedia. --Kjetil _r 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Khamenei and Nasrallah.jpg, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is CC-BY-SA. howch e ng {chat} 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Westfield xtr2.jpg Uploader claims to have created the image, but it has www.westfield-sportscars.co.uk printed on it, and is presumably copyrighted by them. Other images of this same car have appeared on their website. -Elmer Clark 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag has now been changed to fair use but...I still don't buy it. First of all, it's 975x649, which I somehow doubt is significantly lower quality than the original. I also am not too happy with the idea of using images with URLs prominently displayed on them. Doesn't that constitute advertising, if nothing else? I still dispute this image's licensing. -Elmer Clark 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acmiexterior.jpg Image:Cinema1.gif Image:Interios.jpg Image:KEQ-001.jpg Suspected Copyright Infringements Ansett 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Image:Seamus Brennan.jpg, Image:Geoghegan-quinn.jpg, Image:E Regan cathaoirleach.jpg, Image:Archbishop Brady.jpg, Image:Eugene Regan.jpg — all uploaded by Crimson Observer (talk · contribs), claiming {{promophoto}} when they're not from a press kit, or other contradictory tags like claiming both {{fairuse}} and {{PD-release}} at the same time. Demiurge 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Image:Programmer.jpg - Source site says ©2004-2005 Jan Nordgreen and is an image commonly distributed throughout the internet, definitely not CC. --Rory096 04:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg - Apparently taken from a U.S. Senator's website, but that doesn't make it a work of the U.S. Senate. She was never a Senator anyway, so why should they have a picture of her? In short, no evidence of being in the public ___domain. Angr 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mitsubishi mirage asti 891 0.jpg claims a lot, but source site says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.". // Liftarn 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mitsubishi mirage 104107 0.jpg has same source site and the same claims. // Liftarn 10:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
And there are many more where that came from[33]. I'll be back with another load. // Liftarn
Another bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
If the images really are free (needs to be verified) it's great. If not we have some work to do. // Liftarn 10:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed CC-BY by the uploader:
And there is still more to come. // Liftarn 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the final bunch of images from AUTO.VL.RU that says "© 1999-2006 AUTO.VL.RU - Родина японских машин.", but are claimed free by the uploader:
Phew... // Liftarn 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I missed Image:Suzuki Swift.jpg. that's also from AUTO.VL.RU. // Liftarn 11:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alexandria_Map.gif. listed as PD US gov, but is the work of the City of Alexandria. The city holds copyright [34] Specifically: The digital maps provided by the City are deemed and remain hereafter proprietary information of the City, shall not be provided or assigned to other parties, without the prior written consent of the City, and are afforded the full protection of copyright law. ccwaters 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hamtaro2.gif: An animated picture of a hamster from Hamtaro. Its from a commercially produced television show, it is not free. Furthurmore, it was 'found on gifdex.com', which at the current time doesn't even load. Being on a random website of GIFs doesn't confer GFDL, and its certainly from the commercial provider. Its currently being used for mostly decoration to its purpose in the article, so I doubt it meets proper fair use requirements if it were desired to be used that way. --Kevin_b_er 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:K8530.jpg, Image:445.jpg, Image:V6330.jpg and Image:K4200.jpg - GFDL claimed, source site does not support that. // Liftarn 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SLR660.jpg - GFDL claimed, but source site[35] does not support that, but say "I allow free use, with some restrictions, of the photos I own copyright to. For manufacturer photos, you'll have to check with them yourself."[36] This is a case of manufacturer photos. // Liftarn 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GeorgeTupouV.jpg. I states that image is released under GFDL, but could only find a (c) notice on source site. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]