This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 17 February 2024 (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 12:59, 17 February 2024 by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < October 30 | November 1 > |
|---|
October 31
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy closing this as a WP:POINT nomination. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:TFMWNCB age 4.jpg
The Fat Man claims that he releases this into the public domain as the copyright holder. I call shenanigans. How could he have snapped this photo of himself at age 4? He needs to provide proof to OTRS that the photographer released this into the public domain. I'm sorry, but if this turns out to be a false claim of copyright ownership, this will severely hurt his chances of being elected to ArbCom. Mike R (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come on, it comes from his parent. Although technically you might be correct, this is nitpicking to the highest degree. One can assume that TFMWNCB can get a written transfer of copyright from his own parents without actually requiring the proof. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Image:CARBON LEAF2.jpg + Image:FISHER BLUE MERLE1.jpg
Uploaded by ScottFisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of Scottfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned for multiple image-copyvio issues and dishonest licence claims. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kaiser wilhelm der grosse portrait.jpg
"Source" does not give any information about the source or copyright status of the image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this image at The Great Ocean Liner and atMaritimeQuest. So it can possibly be a free or public domain image. Both website did not cite this image's source. Aquitania (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Possibly" is not enough; as the author is unknown there is no basis for the assertion of PD status based on the conjectured year of the author's death. Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:KWDG SINKING.jpg
No indication of date of publication to confirm public domain-ness. The date indicated in the description is the date that the event depicted occurred. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If this image is an unfree image, is it will work if I change it from colorful to black and white? Aquitania (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- NO. A non-free image does not become free just because you convert it to black and white. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kwdg03.jpg
No indication of date of image to give an idea of public domain-ness. The date indicated on the description is the date the event depicted occurred, and not necessarily the date of publication of this image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:SS Lurline.jpg
No indication from stated source that this is actually a Coast Guard photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:CharlotteDayTripping.jpg
The image has a watermark in the bottom right corner...the watermark "Markus L. Blackwell Jr." is inconsistent with the name "Dragan Blazevic". From looking at the user's talk page and contributions, it appears that he has uploaded many non-free images as "public domain"...for instance, the user claimed that the UNC Charlotte logo is public domain, and many images looked like they had been taken off the Web (although I could certainly be wrong). It seems to be more of a matter of him being unclear on what public domain is and the rules for uploading images on Misplaced Pages rather than him being malicious. — Scootey (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC).
Image:Chrissmithhaynes.jpg
No indication why this government site would have public domain images. At the same time, orphaned and now UE. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ely.jpg
No reason why this image would be in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wheelbarrel.jpg
No indication why this image would be in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Stout.gif
File history shows this icon is likely a derivative of a copyrighted image that has been photoshopped to conceal its source. Therefore improper licensing as a free image. MBisanz 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. If there's any copyright to this image, it belongs to the photographer (since any copyright interest in the logo vanished when it was photoshopped away, and the glass itself is a non-copyrightable useful article). If the uploader is the photographer, everything should be in order. Even if not, though, the image is hardly distinguishable from any other equivalent image of a stout glass. Even though U.S. case law has traditionally set the threshold of originality for photographs very low, I'd still argue that any copyright on this image is tenuous at best. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
DonePutting a keep on the 2nd version (1st version was probably too derivative too keep) - Ilmari Karonen's rationale is right about the threshold on this version. Skier Dude (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hot sauce small.png
Non-free derivative of a copyrighted image showing a product and its logo. MBisanz 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The situation might be different if the image was larger, but 16 pixels wide, the picture does not actually show any copyrightable features of the logo. See also commons:Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging, which references Ets-Hokin vs. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. In fact, in the light of that case, even the eligibility of the Tabasco sauce label for copyright is questionable: it's not much more creative than the SKYY vodka label (which was ruled ineligible), consisting mainly of simple text with a clear and inseparable function of describing the content of the bottle. Also, most of the arguably creative features of the label are present in this version from c. 1905, whose copyright has long since expired. Since minor variations of a public domain image do not create a new copyright, there's a good chance the label is not protected by copyright (though it almost certainly is trademarked). Indeed, Commons seems to agree. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Done removed tag from article - given the Project packing "norm" at commons & the size of the item, while the (t) remains, it's highly questionable that the (c) would be. Skier Dude (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oil_on_sea_otter.jpg
Considering that this photo is watermarked with a copyright statement, I would suggest that it's not actually PD-USGov. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Possible copy from http://www.perlgurl.org/archives/wildlife/ Copyright LED is Laureen E Darcy. MilborneOne (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted as blatant copyvio of image here --Rlandmann (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lee Petty.jpg
Derivative photograph of a likely copyrighted image cannot be licensed without their permission. — Royalbroil 20:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I happen to shoot that while in Talladega, Alabama while on vacation, cameras are allowed inside the International Motorsport Hall of Fame & Museum TVSRR (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but you didn't draw the portrait. The photo is derivative of the portrait. —teb728 t c 06:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:OhioDUIplate.jpg
Tagged PD-USGov but clearly not a work of the US federal government. —teb728 t c 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, should easily qualify as {{PD-ineligible}} under U.S. law. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, definitely PD-ineligible per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
kept, but changed license. - Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
