Misplaced Pages

:Possibly unfree files: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:40, 16 May 2006 editJiang (talk | contribs)43,437 edits →15 May← Previous edit Revision as of 05:29, 16 May 2006 edit undoEvrik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,476 editsm →15 MayNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 245: Line 245:
**This image is the official portrait of a Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. It is on display at their headquarters. The commission for the painting was to ]. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. The reason he is listed as the image source was because the US DOL has not placed an electronic image online. Whitney has given permission for his electonic image of the work to be dispayed. I would refer you all to this category for ]. ] edits and lack of dialog are close to vandalism. --] 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) **This image is the official portrait of a Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. It is on display at their headquarters. The commission for the painting was to ]. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. The reason he is listed as the image source was because the US DOL has not placed an electronic image online. Whitney has given permission for his electonic image of the work to be dispayed. I would refer you all to this category for ]. ] edits and lack of dialog are close to vandalism. --] 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
***but as you acknowledge, it was '''commissioned''' to Richard Whitney, so it is not a work of the U.S. federal government, since contractors are not employees. states "A 'work of the United States Government' is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." Was Whitney ever an employee of the federal government? It doesn't look like it. He was simply commissioned to paint a portrait of Robert Reich. --] 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC) ***but as you acknowledge, it was '''commissioned''' to Richard Whitney, so it is not a work of the U.S. federal government, since contractors are not employees. states "A 'work of the United States Government' is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." Was Whitney ever an employee of the federal government? It doesn't look like it. He was simply commissioned to paint a portrait of Robert Reich. --] 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
**What planet do you live on? Do you not know what an '''official portrait''' is? Did you not look at ] to see ''paintings'' of all the Secretaries? The portraits are commisioned by private individuals and donated to the government. It's owned by the U.S. people. I'd like to quote from above:
<blockquote>'''Note:''' Images can be unlisted immediately if they are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.&mdash;see ] for more on these). Images which are claim ] must have two people agree to this.<blockquote>
***First you '''incorrectly''' kept reverting the page.
***Then you '''incorrectly''' list the image as ''Possibly unfree."
::I reverted your change because the painting is in the public domain, and the artist gave permission to use the picture from his website, because DOL had not posted it electronically yet. What get me is that you claim to be acting in good faith, but you did not engage in any dialog as you were doing these edits. Then you threathened to have me ] because I disagree with yoour actions. I was wrong in calling you a vandal, you are really a bully. --] 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*] - Image is tagged with norightsreserved, but summary indicates it is "used with permission". Sounds like a nonfree license to me. --] 02:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) *] - Image is tagged with norightsreserved, but summary indicates it is "used with permission". Sounds like a nonfree license to me. --] 02:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*] - Author is unknown, how does he know it's copyrighted free use? --] 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC) *] - Author is unknown, how does he know it's copyrighted free use? --] 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:29, 16 May 2006

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

Place either:

or

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

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

Shortcut
  • ]

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

Instructions

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

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

To list an image on this page:

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

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

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

Holding cell

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

March 17

  • In fact the tag itself contain the link to the source of all the pictures, so there's no need to claim the pics are unsourced. They are sourced, just follow the link and go one level up. The page is in English, so you won't have trouble locating the right picture. Other than that, I'm currently negotiating the commercial use of those pics with the Polish ministry. I wonder why is wikipedia interested in doing that as it is not us to use them commercially, but it's another story. Halibutt 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo says that noncommercial images aren't to be used on Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

April 23

  • This is an unusual listing, and I apologize for that. I request review of the entire upload log of indefinitely blocked user Roitr. The majority of the images are military insignia. All are tagged GFDL-self, which is improbable. The US ones should, in fact, be public domain (though wouldn't it be nice to have a source?). The Chinese and Russian ones need to be investigated. If there's a better way to do this let me know. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

April 24

  • Image:MuslimOccupation.jpg, Image:Iberia 1150.gif, Image:Iberia 1300.gif - These images were all uploaded as "public domain". When no sourced the author kept on saying he made them and reverting... finally, he linked to this free map as being there source which I see in no way being possible. Furthermore he doesn't mention the source for the non-geographic historical information. I found the maps in one image on this page (image) but it doesn't give a soruce... It bothers me that this user doesn't seem forthcoming in telling us exactly how it was created if the user created it. If he could tell us the exact source as to why he drew the lines exactly where he did that would be great or if he could make us a cleaner version or give us the layers to play around with. The problem is that not being forthcoming on all of this makes it seem like he didn't make it. gren グレン 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
User Gren: As I stated before I created those maps. The link you list above from www.allempires.com is that user copying my map which I had posted on Misplaced Pages and not the other way around. The map was made from a blank template of spain and the lines were drawn to reflect the ones you can see here. The programs that I used was Microsoft Paint and Paint Shop Pro. Making maps is extremely easy once you know how. Now unless you have something else that you need to know please be so kind as to retag my maps with the tag I had set--Aesed 22:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
But where did you get the blank template of Spain? That's what the issue is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And he told me he didn't use that UTexas source to demarcate the lines since they are not all from the same dates--although that's more unreliability of the image than the copyright status. gren グレン 13:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April 30

  • Image:Blk-ipod-wacces.jpg - no reason given for 'no rights reserved' -SCEhardT 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Multiple Image Copyright Violations and Mislabellings on the Hwang Woo-Suk page
    • Of the 18 images currently on that article page, I believe 14 are in violation of copyright and are labelled incorrectly.
      • Image:Dr-hwang-athis-office.jpg. Poster claims this is a press release or press kit image, but says vaguely it comes from Yahoo or AP. Based on the other possibly copyright violation images posted by the same user in the Hwanga article, poster seem to erroneously think that press kit content for fair use means ANY image or content in ANY news media report, regardless of commercial ownership, when in fact only official press releases and images by press/publicity offices count as per Misplaced Pages:Publicity_photos. No source given. The image looks like a paparazzi shot not a publicity shot. Dubious fair use rationale given - claim for fair use is made that the image of Hwang walking through anonymous doorway helps us understand he works in an university office. Image is over 40kb - not clear that this is really a reduced image. Bwithh 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:DrHwang-and-president.jpg Poster claims this is a press release or press kit image, but this simply an assumption and there is no evidence for this. May well be copyrighted to the Korea Times newspaper as evidenced by the source links given Bwithh 03:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Commemorative-stamp-stem-cell.jpg Poster, as with the other images he/she posted to this page, does not understand the meaning of "press release" - assumes that ALL content from commercial news media counts as "press releases" when in fact only official press releases and images by press/publicity offices count as per Misplaced Pages:Publicity_photos. He claims this is a "press release" image from Reuters. In fact this is most likely a copyrighted commercial news property of Reuters. No evidence that this is a press release. Source url has expired. Bwithh 03:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Dr-hwang-and-team.jpgPoster, as with the other images he/she posted to this page, does not understand the meaning of "press release" - assumes that ALL content from commercial news media counts as "press releases", when in fact only official press releases and images by press/publicity offices count as per Misplaced Pages:Publicity_photos. He claims this is a "press release" image from Yahoo or AP. In fact this is most likely a copyrighted commercial news property of AP. No evidence that this is a press release. Source url has expired. Bwithh 03:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Hwang conference.jpg Poster, as with the other images he/she posted to this page, does not understand the meaning of "press release" or "press kit" - assumes that ALL content from commercial news media counts as "press releases" or "press kits", when in fact only official press releases and images by press/publicity offices count as per Misplaced Pages:Publicity_photos. He claims this is part of a "press kit" from AP saying that "The original image it seems to come from a press kit, of Associated Press thus distribuied to TV Networks and newspapers." This makes no sense - Associated Press is a commercial news agency and is unlikely to be distributing press kits unless they were about AP's own organization's events. Also "seems to come" vagueness is not acceptable for a copyright fair use justification. Source appears to be expired. Bwithh 03:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Steam-cells-technique.PNG 1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content are press releases 2)This image is claimed as "press release" material, but is clear from the source uRL that produced by the commercially produced New Scientist magazine graphics department expressly for use in their own article. Clear copyright violation. No fair use argument as poster could have drawn a similar diagram himself/herself Bwithh 03:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Hwang Woo-suk-cloning.jpg 1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given is a Norwegian TV channel webpage. Going to this source indicates the image is attributed to SCANPIX (as written below the image). Scanpix is a commercial photojournalist and news photo agency. Using this image clearly violates their copyright Bwithh 03:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Doctor-hwang-reporters.PNG 1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given is AP/Newsday commercial news article. Images appears to be violating AP / Newsday copyright Bwithh 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Doctor-hwang-and-doctor-ianwilmut.jpg1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as "Korea Times by Press release". In fact, there is no indication that this is a press release. Going to the source url shows that the image is attributed to the company, Yonhap, a commercial Korean newswire service, as written under the image. Bwithh 04:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Doctor-hwang-quits.jpg1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as "Yahoo News and Reuters press release". this makes no sense, as these commercial news agencies would not be distributing press releases about events not involving their own companies. A BMJ link is also given, which is also a commercial link. All links are outdated. Bwithh 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg 1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as Le Monde newspaper website - this is described as a "press release" which is wrong - Le Monde newspaper articles are not "press releases". The article source link is now behind a pay-archive login - naturally, as Le Monde is a commercial operation. Bwithh 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Dr-hwang-2005-panel-snu.jpg1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as press release distributed from Yahoo / AP, with the attribution "(AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)". This attribution indicates that the source was a AP photojournalist or a freelancer who sold the photo to AP. This suggests this is not a press release photo. Source link is out of date Bwithh 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Dr-hwang-korean-flag.PNG1) Poster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as Yahoo/Reuters press release. This makes no sense as yahoo and reuters do not distribute press releases about other organizations. Image is attibuted to a named Reuters photojournalist or a freelancer who sold the image to Reuters, You Sung-Ho. This is a commercial image. 3) Fair use rationale claims this photo shows the "historical significant photo" of "massive rallies...supporting Dr.Hwang's cause after he announced his resignation." The photo shows precisely two actual people standing quietly, not "massive rallies". 4) source url is outdated. 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Image:Korean-support-hwang.jpgPoster does not understand what a press release or press kit is, thinks wrongly that all news media content counts as press release material 2) Source given as press release to Yahoo/Reuters. No evidence of this. The image shows a photojournalist in the background. This image is likely a photojournalist shot, not a publicist shot. Source url is out of date
Bwithh 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I User:HappyApple the uploader, sincerely apologice to all the missunderstanding that can be carried out by the wrongly labelling on those images, and the possibility of them to be deleted.
  • Here are my impressions.
  • Images which were claimed press kit with their respective templates now were changed to {{fairusein|}} template.
  • The images in fact got a valid and verificable source which was available at the time they were uploaded to Misplaced Pages servers.
  • Lemonde image on Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg which user:Bwithh was referring is not in use in the article, so i think this argument is no longer valid. (another image, from Yahoo News properly fair use rationale claimed is already in use).
  • If two people are standing holding candles as they do during a candle light vigil makes clear the point, that a massive rally was going to be held on that day (any many people were beside and below and infront of those, which actually they dont appear in the picture), hence makes this clear to the general public. (A little bit of the topic but, does anybody has witnessed a candle light vigil to support a scientific and worldwide personality consisting of only two people?, does this makes sence?, i think not, of course it was a massive rally).
  • Unfortunatelly right now, there is no free equivalent available or could be created that would adequately give the same information as all of those images do in the article related to Hwang Woo Suk. All of them, have a purpose, and this is to explain the readers how the course of the scandal towards his investigation developed. And because of this i am claiming and assuming good faith fair use historical on those images, because each one represents, events of historical nature related to the scandal of Hwang Woo Suk.
  • Most of the images are from Yahoo News, and they were taken by AP and Reuters photographers and i clearly understand the nature of their work is copyright - able however, if the community believes they should be deleted because they dont fit or disqualifies for fair use, and decides to speedied (speedy deletion) that would be a pitty because i feel the article would loss in a significant level its current quality that even brought the attention of the New York Times on January 3, 2006, per see New York Times article or New York Times article 2. However the decision in the hands of the people, so i ask to others leave (if they want) your opinions about this.--HappyApple 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a legal issue of copyright protection, not a matter of preference or the outcoming of voting on Misplaced Pages forums (Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and also does not pass or determine laws).Good Faith reasoning does not count after you know that you are breaking copyright (that would in fact, be Bad Faith). Of course if Misplaced Pages ignored all copyright, there'd be millions of wonderful images that could be used to enrich the wikipedia experience. Of course, Misplaced Pages would then be sued out of existence. Bwithh 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

May 1

See also Image talk:Tpg .jpg and Image talk:Tera mod.jpg. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

May 2

Thanks Nandesuka. This is all very complex these days! I have have put an unreserved tag on it which I think should now be correct! Maustrauser 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Did the copyright holder really release all rights, or was permission given just to Misplaced Pages? In that case a fair use tag in connection with {{withpermission}} might be more appropriate... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

May 4

Yeah I uploaded those (but it was loooong back - on my first day in Misplaced Pages). But they were orphanned once I learned of their copyright status. I believe orphanned images get deleted after a week!!! Anyways, please delete those. --soUmyaSch 11:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 9

10 May

11 May

I haved mailed the author for relicensing, and it is ok now. I have moved the image to Commons. kjetil_r 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

12 May

It was the best copyright tag I could see in the list. I asked for help with the copyright on another WP page, but have not received a response yet. --JOK3R 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Btt.jpeg - uploader claims self-created PD, but gives a MySpace source. --82.83.101.76 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg. Photo of the Warsaw Uprising. Uploader did not leave any information that verifies that this photo was authored by Soviet union citizens or that it was first published in the Soviet Union. Thuresson 14:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So you have read the linked source page and are sure there is no such information?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The page has no information on the photographer and no statement about the rights to the photograph except an ‘All rights reserved’ for the entire page. —xyzzyn 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The image was published in Soviet Union in late '40s and republished in 50's in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. It was not published anywhere else, AFAIK. The publication is PD. I suggest that Thuresson be more careful. This is not the first time that this very user takes an effort that results in nothing but time wasting for Wikipedians who would rather write content than defend absolutely harmless images. Instead of encouraging contribution to grossly underrepresanted East European topics such activity is a huge discouragement. If there are problem images that may threaten a legal action against the Wiki foundation, this mid-40s image published in now defuncts USSR isn't one of them. --Irpen 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I know I should have expected a heartbreaking story from Irpen but either choose a more appropriate tag, like Template:PD-Poland or give the name of the Soviet Union citizen who took the photograph. Thuresson 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Look, your sarcasm is misplaced. I stand by my words that your umpteenth attempt to delete this or that clearly harmless image is disruptive, potentially damaging for Wikiepdia and discouraging for contributors who would like to give the Easter European topics at least some coverage, which is grossly underrepresnted for now. But I am not going to fight over this one any more than I've already explained. I uploaded this image to improve the Poland-related article and this topic is not my primary consern. I mostly contribute to Ukraine and Russia-related articles. I will leave it to Polish colleagues to justify PD-Poland if you view PD-USSR inaplicable. I simply made a case for a PD based on the PD-USSR tag which relates to "All works published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973". The image fits this description. You are welcome to join the users who support a more restrictive version of the tag. Here is the place for it. --Irpen 21:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This a a clear example of item #5 from our list of what does not constitute fair use, "A photo from a press agency (in this case the New York Entertainment Connection), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. Muhammad cartoons), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." --Hetar 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

13 May

Maybe he is the one who took the pictures? --JOK3R 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Al-Khwarizmi.png - source is stated as MacTutor. Is that PD? / Fred-Chess 16:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. MacTutor suspects the images on their site are in the public domain, but does not give any guarantees or give a source for their images. () The person who uploaded this image origianlly claimed it was a "drawing form the first millenium", which I am unable to verify. This image is used pretty widely on the Internet (including MathWorld). I guess it is public domain but I'm not absolutely sure. —Ruud 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

14 May

15 May

Oh dear, I am silly - I assumed for some reason Misplaced Pages wasn't commercial :-S Could you help find a GFDL equivalent of this image, otherwise that drastically reduces what I can use on Column of Antoninus Pius. Molto grazie. Neddyseagoon 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

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

      • First you incorrectly kept reverting the page.
      • Then you incorrectly list the image as Possibly unfree."
I reverted your change because the painting is in the public domain, and the artist gave permission to use the picture from his website, because DOL had not posted it electronically yet. What get me is that you claim to be acting in good faith, but you did not engage in any dialog as you were doing these edits. Then you threathened to have me blocked because I disagree with yoour actions. I was wrong in calling you a vandal, you are really a bully. --evrik 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)