| Revision as of 14:42, 30 November 2008 editSoundvisions1 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,256 edits →Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:14, 1 December 2008 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Image:MLV1.jpg: wtfNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
| Its copyright may not have expired <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000">] (])</span> 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | Its copyright may not have expired <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000">] (])</span> 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Precisely what basis is used for the claim? The magazine was quite explicit. ] (]) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
Revision as of 03:14, 1 December 2008
| < November 26 | November 28 > |
|---|
November 27
Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg
The World Stadiums site (http://www.worldstadiums.com/) claims to host free photos of football (soccer) stadiums around the world. However, investigations will show that it is a indiscriminate host of copyright violations. They have taken André Zahn's CC by 2.0 Image:Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg here on Commons, and used it. Slapping their watermark on it, they did not bother to mention anywhere that Zahn was the original author. Furthermore, they should have released their modified image under a similar CC license but nowhere do their policies or actions come to that effect. This goes against the CC by 2.0 license Zahn has made the image available for use. Further examples of blatant copyright violation:
- BBC's file photo of the Emirates stadium — A reduced watermarked photo on World Stadiums
- Anfield stadium's tour site — Cropped, resized, and watermarked on World Stadiums (note the "rubber stamping" editing for the world stadium picture to remove the logo)
- Again for Anfield, the aerial view is an unmarked and larger version used as the background at this fansite (image URL is http://www.premiershipteamnews.co.uk/images/liverpoolcropped.jpg — the "cropped" suggests that this fansite has cropped it from a larger original photo). The World Stadiums site never used the larger original photo. More incriminating is that they use the same cropping boundaries as this fansite's background. Hence, they must have resized it and slapped their watermark on it to make it their own.
- World Stadium's picture on the Kingston Communications Stadium blatantly reuses Skysport's interior shot and an edited version of this (resize, rotate, and stamp out the shadows)
- World Stadium's exterior shot of the Busan Asiad Stadium is taken again from the BBC (direct image location). They just resized it.
- The Denver Invesco shot on World Stadiums is a resized cropped copyright violation from Colorado Aerial
- Their Maksimir stadium shots are taken from here and here (further evidence jutarnji has original shot—another view. For the aerial view, World Stadiums resized and rotated the original image, "rubber stamping" (copy and paste) surrounding areas to fill out the space opened by the rotation. They even edited out the tower in the adjacent building.
All photos hosted on the site are very likely copyviolations. Agreement from Commons administrators here.Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tehelne Pole.jpg.jpg
Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maksimirworldstadiums.jpg
Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is the same as the next image. Please note that you haven't got enough sufficient proof of a copyright violation here. There are numerous possible explanations which I doubt you have considered. Perhaps WorldStadiums actually have been granted permission to host those images under their own name; this is a common practice between two different domains in an attempt to increase awareness. Perhaps the original author of the image you think is being stolen wanted his image to be displayed on a very public and specific site suchh as WorldStadiums. You are going to have to e-mail WorldStadiums and bring this issue up with them and then post back here with results.
- Additionally, just because they stole one image, it doesn't mean they have stolen all their images. Unless you can provide direct evidence that Image:Maksimirworldstadiums.jpg has been stolen from another domain and is originally NOT under a free license, then the image may stand without deletion. Providing possible light evidence of other images being infringed is not an eligible argument to delete a completely unrelated image. That goes for all the images you have marked for deletion simply because they are from WorldStadiums. Domiy (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. If one is to use a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, one has to show that the source fulfills our criteria for reliability. Likewise, when one wish to use a "free" image, then one needs to show that the image is indeed truly free. The reliability of the image source comes into play here. It is up to you, the uploader of the image, to verify the veracity of the image site's claim. Here, I have proven them to be false on numerous occasions, and there is agreement. World Stadiums is not to be trusted on their claim that their images are free. As for this picture, the Maksimir stadium shots are taken from here and here (further evidence jutarnji has original shot—another view. For the aerial view, World Stadiums resized and rotated the original image, "rubber stamping" (copy and paste) surrounding areas to fill out the space opened by the rotation. They even edited out the tower in the adjacent building. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg
Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted image to the prior version. Better image and it is not watermarked with a website URL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sandpoint22.jpg
Labeled attribution at base of photo is to William B. Stegath which does not appear to match user.. and not declared self-made as others by user. Challenge right to issue under GNU License. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sandpoint16.jpg
Marker is clearly labeled property of State of Michigan and does not fall in public domain. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're absolutely right as to the other pic by the uploader on this page, but in this case, if the uploader took the picture himself, the fact that the marker is the property of the State of Michigan does not, by itself, give the state copyright in the marker. Generally, copyright does not prohibit "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." 17 U.S.C. § 120(a). Copyright in the text might be a closer call, but I think its incorporation in the "structure" of the marker brings it within the statute, as well. Audemus Defendere (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work, the United States only has freedom of panorama for architectural works such as buildings. ViperSnake151 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:001 Match Mar11.jpg
Appears to be a magazine cover, but is marked as {{pd-self}}. Seems unlikely. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:DovHikind.jpg
This is an image of a state assemblyman, not a federal official, no source it given. MBisanz 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- It would appear the photo is from his state website. see, http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=048&sh=bio . The US Government tag is probably incorrect. However, if there is source evidence that the photo is a freely distributed publicity photo, it is likely the image has entered the public domain. There is discussion of a similar politician's publicity photo, including cites to relevant legal authorities, at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_November_24#Image:Troyking3.jpg Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 24 1.13 Image:Troyking3.jpg]. Audemus Defendere (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:MLV1.jpg
Its copyright may not have expired Kris (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely what basis is used for the claim? The magazine was quite explicit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Atypical lcyte.jpg
The image is taken from a website and the user released it into the public domain? The uploader does not appear to be the original creator of the image so this appears to be copyvio. Nick Garvey (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
