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 20:58, 5 October 2006 editRrburke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,420 edits →October 5← Previous edit Revision as of 20:58, 5 October 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →October 5Next edit →
Line 574: Line 574:
::::I never cared for that little blurb at the top of the page. So we're a bunch of writers and researchers, can't we find some french speakers to help us determine where this image came from? ] 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC) ::::I never cared for that little blurb at the top of the page. So we're a bunch of writers and researchers, can't we find some french speakers to help us determine where this image came from? ] 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, that text is an essay on the question ], French translation published by permission of Editions de l’éclat . No word, though, where the photograph came from. ] 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) :::::Well, that text is an essay on the question ], French translation published by permission of Editions de l’éclat . No word, though, where the photograph came from. ] 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::How do you happen upon this image, as a matter of interest Dr Zak? The same way you've found articles I create that you don't like? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
* ] - claimed copyrightedfreeuse, but I can't find any evidence of this on the website (woz.org). ] 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) * ] - claimed copyrightedfreeuse, but I can't find any evidence of this on the website (woz.org). ] 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*] -- ] claimed public domain, but the image dates from later than January 1, 1923, and the offered as a source for information on the public domain status of the image: 1) contains no such information; 2) contains copyright information about an (unrelated) image which asserts a copyright claim by the , meaning that the source, which is also the source for the disputed image, retains copyright over at least some of its images. Absent evidence to the contrary, ] ought to be treated presumptively as copyrighted. --] 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) *] -- ] claimed public domain, but the image dates from later than January 1, 1923, and the offered as a source for information on the public domain status of the image: 1) contains no such information; 2) contains copyright information about an (unrelated) image which asserts a copyright claim by the , meaning that the source, which is also the source for the disputed image, retains copyright over at least some of its images. Absent evidence to the contrary, ] ought to be treated presumptively as copyrighted. --] 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:58, 5 October 2006

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:

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 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
  • ]

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 undisputably in the 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 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.

September 9

September 10

September 11

September 12

Yep, it's by Reuters. -Elmer Clark 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Image:Time1.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Time2.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Time3.gif, no evidence on source page or elsewhere that image is GFDL. Foobaz·o< 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    The Time* images above were, according to John Titor, posted on a bulletin board. The photographs are supposedly taken by the author but the drawing from an instruction manual from the future! :-) Do future documents have copyrights in the past? Oh, this is just too good! :-D
    I imagine that the images are in the public domain but don't know if the bulletin board where they were posted has some copyright clause. I've emailed the webmaster of http://www.johntitorweb.com/ asking for information since the images seem to be (have been) hosted on that site. --Swift 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think we should retain it. We might need the images for references in the future ;) 219.93.44.71 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Reguardless of any dispute about time travel, or future governments. The FACT is that they were originally created and/or distributed by the individual "John Titor" in public domain, via a message board. They are not copyrighted by anyone or any organization, except "John Titor" of course. And if John Titor would like to complain about these images breaching any of his copyrights under the law, he is most certainly welcome to do so. Otherwise, it's assumed that "John Titor" released them without any copyrights to the public domain via the forum in which he originally posted them at. Even if you wish to argue the point of the drawing coming from the future, (in which that is neither confirmed nor is it disproven) copyrights in the future have no effect on the present, as they are not currently copyrighted. (IceSage 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC))
    You cannot assume these are not copyrighted. Every creative work is copyrighted by default in most countries of the world. The author or copyright holder would have to specifically state the images are in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Granted, but can we assume so because the pictures were posted on an internet forum and exist on several websites without being contested? If not, I'll try contacting some other holders of the images or the original forum posts. --Swift 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. --Kjetil_r 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Original image is much higher resolution - this is a lower resolution image made for the web. Photo is specifically for promotional purposes, directly from Westfield. As there is no other available photo submitted to Wiki, this seemed appropriate. The URL on the car in the picture is not prominent, but the image can be modified to remove the information. Really no different than a direct external link to the Westfield Sportscars website which currently exists on the main Westfield listing.

September 13

September 14

- Never found copyright owner; replaced image with another & can be deleted: Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg. -Wikid77 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to point out for those who might be confused that "Родина японских машин" just means "Cars made in Japan", and is the title of the site. --Fastfission 13:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

September 15

  • Image:Canton10 Herzeg Bosnia.gif - The image has not been indentified by the author. Seems that it has been taken online from: worldstatesmen which states that everything is under copyright. Files can only be purchased and the author must give approval for its use.

September 16

Copyright and permission information
We the webmasters of this site do not necessarily hold any claim to images or text in this site, unless noted otherwise. The various contributors to this site assert that use of any copyrighted material is under the United States fair use doctrine.
In other words, AllEmpires.com has no clue about where this image came from, who the copyright holder is, what its copyright status is, and so forth. There is no evidence that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. —Bkell (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Birolli nudo.jpg: Claimed PD, but according to the Renato Birolli article it was painted in 1941 by an artist who died in 1959, and no evidence is given that this painting is really in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Tag has been changed to {{PD-art}}, which claims "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years." But, as pointed out before, the artist died in 1959, so we have another 53 years until {{PD-art}} is appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    We could claim fair use - given the low resolution of the image, and the fact we are using it to indentify the artist in question, and we are using just a single image of his art. Ideally we should discuss the piece within the article. The PD claim for the photograph on the artist's page is somewhat dubious. Megapixie 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it would really be fair use in the article on the author. You should probably write a separate article on the painting, put the image there and link to it from the artist's article. The other option is to mention the painting and provide an external link. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 October 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.

September 17

This image has been nominated before. See Image talk:Mdew.png -Nv8200p talk 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I didn't notice that. I guess I should retract this under the principle of double jeopardy. —Bkell (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

September 18

September 19

September 20

September 21

September 22

Brazleton gave me permission to use it via a forum discussion of the page it is on. If I could find the post I'd give you a link, but do to the changes in the site, i think the post is lost. You are more than willing to e-mail Brazleton at his site at Theaterhopper.com H2P 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

September 23

Yes the photo is of a recent painting, but the painting was commissioned by the State of Texas and hangs in the Texas Capitol. SteveHopson 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the State of Texas doesn't hold the copyright to the image? —Bkell (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Images owned by the State of Texas are copyrighted. As a derivative work, I doubt you could claim a CC license -Nv8200p talk 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the image's license, I have added a "fair use" rationale for articles about Governor Ann Richards. -Wikid77 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the CC license. SteveHopson 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Been discussed before at User_talk:Gnevin#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Gaelicfootball.jpg

September 24

September 25

I guess there is no need to delete it, just retag as fair use. Bravada, talk - 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

September 26

Yes, the image was an edited version of that file. It wasn't taken by me... I'll edit it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yshoulduknow (talk • contribs) .
Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just delete it. YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally made this using GIMP 2.0, with my own hands from scratch. YSHOULDUKNOW123 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Then your name is James and you posted the picture here? Or your name is Chris L. and you posted the picture here? Quite a resume for a 12-year-old. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I really did use GIMP to make it, it's a MOCK-UP of the original Apple one. Look at the font!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I USED FRUTIGER INSTEAD OF MYRIAD, WHICH IS WHAT APPLE USED!!! OMG! I MADE IT WITH GIMP! Don't believe me? Look at the Myriad (typeface) font's letter i, then look at the Frutiger font's i, then look at my image, and this official image from the show: http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/itv.jpg. Now, do you believe me? If you don't, I don't know what else to tell you. YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
OMG!!!! I JUST REALIZED, THAT SECOND SITE, THAT'S MY IMAGE THAT I MADE. I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING. OH MY GOD, YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE ME, BUT THEY MUST HAVE SEEN IT ON WIKIPEDIA AND TOOK IT. I'M SORRY YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE ME, BUT THAT IS MY IMAGE THAT I MADE ON BOTH OF THOSE SITES! YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I really do have a good resume (HA! I love making other peolpes stupid sarcasm and making it real). Look, the people from those sites, saw it here, and posted the image on their sites, because I listed the image as public domain. They used my image, which is fine, because it's public domain. I really don't know what else to say. I can't simply post my Photobucket account... I can't do anything about it... Believe me or not, I made it, and I think it should stay. Wait, I can mail the people from those sites... I'll post their e-mails when they respond to my e-mail I'm sending them... YSHOULDUKNOW123 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made it on September 16, I made it for my old NSider thread about Apple, and it took me about 2 hours to make. YSHOULDUKNOW123 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you post a higher resolution version of the same image ? Say 1000 pixels wide - this would prove that you created the image. Megapixie 08:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*Sure, here you are... http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:ITV_Black123.PNG YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - After taking a look at the images - the Chris L posting appears to have occured on September 18 - two days after the original image was uploaded to wikipedia. I can't find the image on the tech routlette site (could you provide a direct link ?). I'm inclined to side with YOUSHOULDKNOW - in that he produced the original image and the second higher resolution image. The images themselves are not outside of what someone could create in GIMP with a little time and work. The fact that the image appears to have been uploaded first to wiki - and then borrowed (perfectly legally) by several other sites- based on the PD tag attached to the image. Megapixie 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote on keeping the image! YSHOULDUKNOW123 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:NY75FC.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If these images are photographs of licens plates then they are derivative work and as such inherit the copyright of the original design. Therefor the licens of thes images depend on the licenses of the real licens plates (probably varies with state) but not on whatever license they may have been released under at . This goes for all of the below images of licens plates as well.Lokal_Profil 10:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Worth noticing may be that User:Only a Few Seconds's only contributions are these PUI reports. Lokal_Profil 10:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The works of the State of New York are copyrighted. It is possible we could make a fair use claim but not in the only article the image was used US and Canadian license plates. I removed the image from that article and it is now orphaned -Nv8200p talk 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the image and the similar images below are non-free, but plates.newyorktelephone.net gets NOTHING in the matter of rights. The plates are all likely implicitly protected by copyright of the state governments, and there's no proof they're released by those governments to begin with. Florida may be the exception, but I don't even see a florida plate in this list, so consider them to all have ambigous copyright status from a varity of state governments for which no case has been made for each plate image. Kevin_b_er 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Nb87a.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Image also uploaded by banned user. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Nypud.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Njcv.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Va2002vanity.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Tnrs1242.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:NY license plate 2005.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:NJ01MUTTS.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Va2002vanity.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Nj99z.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Njcom.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:On76d.jpg, image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:ON96ST.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:NY78TV.jpg, , image from a website which states "Use of any of the images contained herein without written permission is prohibited. Images contained in this domain are forbiden for use on Misplaced Pages." Obvious copyvio. Image also uploaded by banned user who may have issues with person runnning site. Only a Few Seconds 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:150px-Jonny.jpg No evidence this image was released under Creative Commons. -Nv8200p talk 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

September 27

September 28

September 29

September 30

Wrong. Only two people dispute it's use; one of the other people supports the use of this image. When a photo is taken of a books cover, the photographer is not claiming that he owns the copyright to the book cover, but he does own teh copyright to the image. I created the image, so I own the image. Some other points are, Church publications are not copyrighted, invoices/receipts from purchases are not copyrighted, and I also asked my parish priest (the owner of the document) if he would allow this image to be freely distributed, and he said yes (he then explained about the previous two points). So this image's copyright should not be disputed, and this image should not be deleted. - Ivan Kricancic 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt an invoice could be judged to be an "original work of authorship" as needed to qualify for copyright. I believe PD-ineligible would be the correct tagging. -Nv8200p talk 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the tag to "PD-ineligible", as an invoice isn't copyrighted. But I did still leave the PUI tag on it. - King Ivan 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct the tagging, then it should be ok. - 58.165.126.56 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

October 1

If I get a chance I'll take a picture of a Plus Petrol outlet myself and upload it. SMC 10:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Please see User_talk:Ozzmosis#Railway_station_photos. Maybe you can help me out. --ozzmosis 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What are the specific terms of the permission you have for these images? -SCEhardT 05:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Permission was granted by the author allowing free use of the images on the condition the {{attribution}} tag was used. His email was forwarded to permissions at wikimedia dot org in May 2006. --ozzmosis 08:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the posted permission on the image's talk page. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
How should I link to the email? Can you give me an example of where another user has done this? --ozzmosis 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2

October 3

October 4

October 5

How do you know that? SlimVirgin 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the image is already non-free. This may have been much more appropreate at IFD, since this isn't 'possibly' unfree; it is unfree. Do we have a French speaker who can help read http://www.lekti-ecriture.com/contrefeux/Qui-est-juif.html, it has a larger (more stuff visible in the crop of the image) version of the same image, and the article from the machine translation seems to indicate he wrote part of the passage, but I can't figure out the image. The website its from, is kind of confusing, and I can't tell what's going on without being able to understand what little is written. I have an idea this could turn out to be a promo image, but can't say so without some french help. Kevin_b_er 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
He's an academic. They make their photographs widely available, so it's of course likely this would have been a promo image. It's kind of silly to suggest that anyone might object to its use. I added a rationale, by the way, as you requested, Kevin. I would still like to know on what grounds Dr Zak believes the French literary journal doesn't own the copyright. SlimVirgin 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this shouldn't be listed here as the source is not missing. We should move it to IfD. SlimVirgin 06:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The source is missing. At the very least the photographer and the year the picture was taken should be mentioned. Also - I have never heard of Delirium, the journal but the website looks so amateurish that it is very unlikely that they own the copyright because they bought the rights or commissioned the picture. Did you notice that their first issue came out in 1996 and that Scholem died in 1982? Those guys "found" it somewhere out on the web, same as you.
SV, you might find it "silly" that someone might object to the picture, but copyright law and the fact that this insists on being an encyclopedia demands that images be properly attributed. PUI is a perfectly good place for this. Dr Zak 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I never cared for that little blurb at the top of the page. So we're a bunch of writers and researchers, can't we find some french speakers to help us determine where this image came from? Kevin_b_er 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that text is an essay on the question Who is a Jew, French translation published by permission of Editions de l’éclat . No word, though, where the photograph came from. Dr Zak 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you happen upon this image, as a matter of interest Dr Zak? The same way you've found articles I create that you don't like? SlimVirgin 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Link might have changed since uploader put the image online. I've searched out and updated the link, its Public Domain. Cantankrus 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Resolved. --Rrburke 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: