Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talkpage is for discussing the Possibly unfree images page and process. It is not a forum for general image copyright help. Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to ask general questions, where you will normally get a rapid answer. This page is not as well monitored.

Archives

1 (Sep 2004–Aug 2005) 2 (Aug 2005–Jan 2007) 3 (Jan 2007–June 2007)

[edit] CopyrightByWikimedia

BetacommandBot has been active lately tagging a bunch of images bearing the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} tag as orphaned non-free images (such as Image:Edit.JPG, for example), despite the fact that these images are used on pages in the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces. Many of these are screenshots of Wikipedia glitches, proposals for new layouts, or similar. Are we really claiming that these images are unfree simply because they happen to contain the Wikipedia logo? We consider images such as Image:Day114ftimesquareef.JPG free even though they incidentally contain many non-free logos. —Bkell (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I've pointed out before a) Commons accepts them[1] and they only take free media and b) the Foundation has promised to work on a policy incorporating the logo but hasn't done it yet[2]. It's silly for us to not take images that Commons accepts. I personally suggest removing the category non-free media from such images, it would take them off the bot's watchlist. They're already in the copyright by wikimedia category, which is the right category for them. -N 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While we could make the decision to delete them all just to spite the Foundation for its silly decision to regard them as non-free content (which would be sure to create lots of drama), I agree with N, and think that we should remove {{Non-free media}} from {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} (because the former's transclusion list is what BetacommandBot goes off of), so I have gone ahead and commented it out. --Iamunknown 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images probably in the public domain

I have raised a question here about how to handle images which are probably, but not certainly, in the public domain. I'd appreciate any feedback there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions please

Hello. I received a note from an IP address and no instructions. Is this a Wikiproject? Who are the members and under what authority do you operate, like a list of guidelines you could point me to or something? Thanks for any clues. -Susanlesch 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for list of images you may dispute

Hello, sorry if this is a FAQ. Could you please give me a list of all media that I uploaded that you think could be disputed? I have uploaded a bunch of images to Wikipedia since I started editing a little over one year ago. I will be happy to deal with them in a batch. I try very hard to ask for the rules and follow them and don't have any idea what images you think should be disputed, or how to assemble that list, or I would do this myself. -Susanlesch 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all your images, but Image:Restored-PDP-1.jpg seems replaceable per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Anybody could go to the museum and take a picture. No need for a non-free content image here. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nice of you, Garion96. I tagged it db-author. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable image

Image:Terminal medford airport.jpg I'm guessing its somebody whose new to copyright stuff and doesn't quite understand it. Jason McHuff 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When will I receive a reply?

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_28#Image:Bob-Mould-press-photo-2005.jpg, when will I receive a reply from the Communications Committee? Thank you. -Susanlesch 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog of 40 days :( Anyway, I searched for you, and I cannot find anything with Bob Mould in it in permissions-en. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan (talk • contribs)

[edit] How should administrators "process"

As an administrator, I'm totally unclear on how this page should be processed. The instructions for adding an image are very detailed, but there are few instructions for dealing with the images in the holding cell. Of course, I have some idea (e.g. some can be deleted on various WP:CSD grounds, others go to WP:IFD, etc.). But there's nothing on, for instance, when and how I should remove a log page (like Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 14). Some better direction would help remove the backlog, in my opinion. Superm401 - Talk 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I do it. When I think it's unfree I delete it. When I don't think so I simply remove the tag from the image page. When there is a large discussion on the image page I say that I kept or deleted the image, when kept I copy the discussion to the image talk page. I wouldn't go to IFD, that is just double process unless you want another or more opinions. CSD criteria shouldn't come up often since if an image is a blatant copyvio it doesn't belong on this page anyway but should already be deleted per WP:CSD#G12 or listed (if assertion of permission) on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Garion96 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Clearly"

Shouldn't images that are "clearly" non-free but licensed as PD-self or similar, be tagged for speedy as opposed to be listed here? Lara❤Love 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, if it is a clear copyvio it should be speedy deleted. If there is an assertion of permisson it should go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, for other cases PUI. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "licensed under an indisputably free license"

Sfacets (talk · contribs), an editor with a history of questionably self-tagged images, has come up with a novel theory to defend his images from deletion here. Relying on the language at WP:PUI that states "Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license", he asserts that images with free license tags can be unlisted regardless whether the propriety of the tags is disputed. In my view, this interpretation can't be correct, as the statement at the top of WP:PUI indicates that "This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information." Indeed, one of the primary uses of WP:PUI is to discuss images with dubious free licenses. Free license tags cannot insulate an image from scrutiny. Does anyone agree with him? Does anyone agree with me??

The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is here. BTW, Sfacets was just blocked for 72 by another admin, so any questions for him should be left on his talk page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yasser Arafat and Ahmad Yassin

The Image:Arafat & Yassin 1997.jpg has been on the list for over 14 days and the discussion has not been closed. I'm not very familiar with this wikifield, so I'm not sure if this is very common. The image is not free, however the fair use rationale for its placement in the Yasser Arafat article is valid. --Al Ameer son 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G12 vs. I9

This is a relatively small point, but I changed the text of the header to note that speedy-able images can be deleted per criterion I9, rather than G12. I know that general criteria apply to all namespaces, but when you click on the wikilink to G12, the CSD page points you to I9. I eliminated the middle man. If that's a bit too bold, someone feel free to revert it. Cheers! Esrever (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How long should an image be listed here before it should be delisted? Sfacets 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be "delisted". If satisfactory copyright information isn't provided within two weeks, images are deleted. --B (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up on processing

Can we come up with some manner to consistently mark those images that are "cleared" or "resolved"? It's pretty clear with the redlinks that an image has been deleted, but for the others, it would be nice to be able to go to archive page and see that all of the bluelinks have been dealt with and not just simply overlooked. A couple of options would be like this example Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 7. Another way to do this would be this way Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 15. Don't have much preference, but either way, a note on the "keep" would be handy! SkierRMH (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: This Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 22, IMHO, is not a good way to do it. SkierRMH (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US EPA seal protected?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency says on their web site that their logo (which is at Image:Environmental Protection Agency logo.svg) is protected. Specifically [3] says "We tightly limit the use of our logo and seal, and formal permission is required for organizations other than federal agencies." and [4] says "EPA Order 1015.2A (December 27, 1978), provides directions for use of the seal as the Agency Identifier, and prohibits reproduction and/or use of the symbol for commercial purposes.". Can they do that to a US Fed Gov work? The image is from the Commons but I am bringing it up here as I don't have an account there. Jason McHuff (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not copyrighted (since it's a U.S. government work), but it has trademark and similar protections. Thus, we try to avoid such logos (except possibly on the organization page) as much as possible, and they're definitely not appropriate for Commons. Superm401 - Talk 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsiveness

Hey everyone - I've noticed when processing images listed here that frequently, the uploader responds within a day or two of the nomination, but then nobody looks at it for two weeks. In cases where the uploader is the copyright holder or has a contact with the copyright holder, better responsiveness may result in being able to get a GFDL permission, whereas if two weeks pass by, if the uploader isn't a regular user, they may have given up by then. The "so what" of all this - please keep an eye out for nominations that have a reply so that if an uploader asks a question, we can give them a timely answer. --B (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with confirmation from copyright holder

A user has queried an image which I didn't upload but which is in an article I've been working on. The image is tagged {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} but as it also appears on another website (which may well be the personal site of the original uploader) the user wants to see proof that the uploader was in fact in a position to release the image. I've emailed the webmaster of the site it appears on to confirm that he/she was the uploader and does indeed hold the copyright. If I get a reply to say "yes I do", what's the next step? Do I send it to the OTRS email address......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Send the whole e-mail exchange and the link to the image to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Garion96 (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is there such an extensive backlog?

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because dealing with images causes all kinds of abuse to the deleting admin. One of the reasons why I haven't dealt with this page for a while. I will clear a few days though. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your response.--Rockfang (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Press Images

What is Wikipedia's stance on Associated Press images being used in articles? I occasionally find images here that are clearly AP images, Berlin-wall-dancing.jpg is one that I noticed that was taken by AP Photojournalist Thomas Kienzle and can be found listed in the AP Images Database under ID 8911100132. Alemily (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag captions?

I don't understand the instructions to tag caption(s) if an image is in use. Please clarify. --Una Smith (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over 100 years old = good license?

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just wondering why Image:Old_Bicycle_Path_Railroad_Crossing_in_Medford_New_York.jpg was closed as keep. It's my understand that only images published before 1923 are definitely public domain; something could have been created a while before and not published and may still be copyrighted. --NE2 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BJBot automated nominations

I plan to have BJBot tag and file here images that are in the non-free category (All Non-free media) but have a free license tag. The image either is free and somehow is is in the non-free category (FUR template, etc) or the image is non-free and yet has a free license tag. I except the numbers that meet this are going to be few. This seems like the best venue to be but I'm not sure. BJ^Talk 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some images that legitimately have both a free and a non-free tag. The most common cases are free photos of copyrighted works, such as sculptures or copyrighted characters. Kelly ^hi! 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted, it will then only report non-free images that only have a free license tag. BJ^Talk 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holding cell

The holding cell seems to be missing May 30 through June 7. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review, it has been suggested that Wikipedia:Fair use review be merged with this project.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge - Wikipedia:Fair use review is barely functioning, and editors should be redirected here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Umm, no. Fair use review is for definitely unfree images. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• No - Missed this section when I posted a related message here. This page does not seem so busy for a discussion on the merge. Per Anetode, this is only for "possibly" unfree images, non-free content image are "always" unfree. Garion96 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• comment The Fair use review is dead, most of the content which fails WP:NFCC is being dealt with at WP:IFD, this however leaves problems with media with multiple uses, such as Image:Albania FA.gif which is valid in the FA article, but not on the team article. I dont know what the solution is, but the status quo is not acceptable Fasach Nua (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Fair use review and PUI are definnitely two different things. If merging is on the table, I'm still for merging all of them into IfD. Make IfD "Images for discussion", including those cases where a binding administrative decision is needed not to delete an image but to restrict it to some of its claimed uses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:FUR is not only for images, WP:PUI is. For example, I've just added a discussion about the use of song lyrics to WP:FUR, which would not be appropriate to discuss at WP:PUI. —Angr 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexy naked catroons?

Question - where does stuff like everything on User:KingKon97 fall? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly fan art, which is definitely non-free, if the underlying characters are not free. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if the images are derivative works, they are clearly not made by the uploader. All of the user's images deleted and user warned. BJ^Talk 10:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New speedy criterion proposal

I've just put up a proposal that images that contain a source, a licence, but no evidence that the source has agreed to release the image under that licence be speedily deleted after seven days since the uploader was notified, as they are on Commons. Please comment over here. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image search engine that can help figure out copyright status.

Saw TinEye image search mentioned on slashdot. I haven't used it myself (plugins and account needed just to read the FAQ). Anyone else tried it, is it any good? -- Jeandré, 2008-08-23t15:43z

[edit] User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions

Could someone look over the images on this page. Copyright of ie. Image:PICT4175.JPG looks dubious. Taemyr (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major backlog

The holding cell is starting to get out of hand... its takes up more then a screen full on my computer. Any admins willing to take a shot and clearing some stuff up?--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to set your monitor to a higer resolution. :) I am cleaning some up. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Small text is hard to read! :-) Thanks for taking on some of these.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)