| Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied"
If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion I9. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}. If an image is missing a source, evidence of permission, or license information, place either use: 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 or criterion 11 for images. Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{subst:Image source|Image:image name}} and {{image copyright}} 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 user. If an image is indisputably non-free, and its possible use can comply with our non-free content policy, be bold and retag it as a non-free image with an appropriate tag instead of taking it to this page. |
|
Contents |
This page is for listing and discussing images that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed. Images that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here.
Before listing, remember that images which are already marked unfree and used under fair use should not be listed here.
To list an image on this page:
| I |
Edit the image page.
Add {{pui|log=2008 October 8}} to the image page. If the image is in use, also add {{puic|Image:Image_name.ext|log=2008 October 8}} to the caption(s). |
|---|---|
| II |
Create its PUI subsection.
Follow this edit link and list the image at the bottom of that page using {{subst:pui2|image=Image_name.ext|reason=reason}} — ~~~~. (remember to exclude the Image: prefix). |
| III |
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:idw-pui|Image:Image_name.ext}}
|
Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.
Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well.
Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.
An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.
| This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
The image on flickr has been deleted, and this image was incorrectly tagged with commons:User:FlickreviewR, which is a process only used on Wikimedia Commons. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Tagged as work of the US Federal Government, which it is not. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Uploader has used the "attribution" template, but has failed to elaborate on this. Seems unconvincing. — Jameboy (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) This picture has been up for years I am surprised at the sudden interest, I have plenty of other pictures which i personally took of Jones in his playing days at man united which I can put up if that is any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.47.249 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of Creative Commons license in the source Rettetast (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am the photographer who captured this image of Dr. Brooks at the ground breaking of Gorge Wyth Univerity. Yes it is true that I did give permission for this photo to be used in a wikipedia article about Dr. Brooks. BUT the requester asked for permission using the initials O.D. And the email address odemille@gmail.com. I mistakenly thought the author of the article was Dr. Oliver DeMille as I was led falsely to believe so. I withdraw my permission to use the image as I have no idea who this author is or what his/her intentions may be. Anyone who pretends to be someone else instead of being upfront with their intentions cannot possibly be "trusted" to tell the "truth".
Tamra Hyde www.modernexpressionsphoto.com
The photographer just confirmed to me in an e-mail that she is withdrawing permission for its use in Wikipedia. Please delete the photo. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
User talk: Olivia Bush has a history of uploading copyright violating images. This image is a supposed cover art of Britney Spears new single Womanizer Jive records or sony BMG haven't released the official artwork yet. An obvious fake please delete asap Ogioh (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Another editor uploaded it as a music video clip, doesn't take a rocket scientist...— Realist2 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From Eonline.com Ebyabe (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
While the image page license is listed as PD-self, the users gallery page, User:Christophore/Gallery indicates that the images are ONLY to be used on Wikipedia and other uses require permission. Below are the other images in the gallery and their licensing status:
Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of a television station ID that's marked as GDFL? Doesn't seem right. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
A photograph of a ship, tagged with Non-free logo licensing tag, plus no mention of a source -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No indication why this is supposed to be in the public domain. It's a WWII photo; the author may well have died less than 70 years ago. Sandstein 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a professional promotional shot of web resolution - that coupled with the lack of Exif data makes me suspect it is not free Peripitus (Talk) 23:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
My apologies as I may have done this wrong. I have a release notice authorizing Mr. Hairston to use this photograph in any way he deems necessary. How can I change the use if needed and provide you with the release notice if needed? Please let me know what I need to do in order to keep the photo here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahtoo (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a hard time crediting the contributor's assertion that the image is self-made. Not only does it look like a long-ago publicity shot, but I found the same image at http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3e/200px-BennettCerf1.jpg Orlady (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a publicity photo, and thus not likely to be a self-made image by the contributor, as asserted. Indeed, the same image is on http://rockermouse.com/whatsmyline.html, where it is identified as a CBS publicity photo. Orlady (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
See next
To date, User:LamyQ has uploaded many images, all of which have been listed as "his" and all of which have been found to belong to someone else. These are more of the same. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence that there is no copyright on this image as stated on image page. Garion96 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
free press photo is not no copyright or a cc license. Garion96 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence permission was granted to use under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Author claims they have released it into the public domain, but appears on a BBC article with a source as the official website (but I can't find it there). No mention of license on the BBC page or licensing for media on his official website. mattbr 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia logo is not in the public domain. Nv8200p talk 11:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Software shown is not public domain Nv8200p talk 11:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of a sprite, which is a copyrighted image. Also, this is only used on the uploader's userpage, and hence it would be orphaned when the correct license was applied. Asenine 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Blatant infringement of copyright, all of the images in this are Pokémon sprites. Asenine 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free liense. probably a promophoto Rettetast (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. probably a promophoto. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No source,no purpose. Fireaxe888 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Source site says All Rights Reserved. No evidence permission was granted to use the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 01:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Talk:Lolcat#Removal_of_Image:Cat-cheezburgur-bird-2.jpg, potentially unfree image, though complicated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The summary suggests the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence permission was granted to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
image has visible copyright notice with All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Basically the same map as the one from Amtrak's website but with colors and size changed. — D.B.talk•contribs 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Basically the same map as the one from Amtrak's website but with colors and size changed. — D.B.talk•contribs 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This mascot may be copyrighted to the university. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
TV news screenshot. Uploader removed "no permission" tag without explaining why the image is GFDL. dave pape (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a photo of a photo; probably not free as a derivative work. Chick Bowen 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a photo of a poster at the Delta Music Museum.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the agency which created the map has licensed it. Jason McHuff (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
All of uploader's other images have been copyvios. I can't find this image's original URL, but I find it highly suspect the uploader took this shot as claimed by the license. --EEMIV (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing suggesting that Haye Hinrichsen himself has uploaded these images ([1]) or released them as PD. An OTRS permission would be needed to assure that this is the case. Lokal_Profil 15:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Watermarking indicates copyright despite tagging as {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The picture is from Renne's Covergirl shoot in the last episode of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8 and as such would be under copyright. I would have speedy'd it, but it was uploaded to Flickr and "verified" by a bot. — SKS2K6 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
Copyrighted Adversting, since is from 1954 (54 years ago) Alx 91 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright holder has contacted contributor asking for payment if the image is not removed. Contributor wishes to remove image to avoid problems. Emana (Talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Author wrote "I allow it to be used on Wikipedia", I think it meets CSD. OsamaK 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As per the summary, It is a screenshot from a copyrighted video clip. OsamaK 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair use image, wrong license, no rationale OsamaK 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks a copyrighted screenshot, uploaded by a new user. OsamaK 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Another verison of Image:Caitlin04.jpg. OsamaK 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong license, no rationale. OsamaK 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong license, no rationale. OsamaK 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As per the summary, it is a copyrighted screenshot from Pokemon Anime. OsamaK 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
User is unresponsive to requests for appropriate sources and tags. cygnis insignis 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A digital photo of a painting; incorrectly licensed as "own work". jnestorius(talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims copyright when the original copyright will belong with the record company which is releasing Circus (either Jive Records or Zomba Label Group) as the image is claimed to be a derivative work. JD554 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No source, but identical to this "all rights reserved" image on flickr. dave pape (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No source. From the information in Edwin Wijeyeratne, probably dates to 1940s or 1950s, so I wouldn't just assume "own work". dave pape (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Promo image; no justification given for GFDL claim. dave pape (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
All derivatives of photograph seen here by unknown author. Postdlf (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of photograph seen here by unknown author. Postdlf (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable (if still needed) screenshot on Windows XP, includes copyrighted items. OsamaK 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Copied from somewhere, wrong license. A higher quality avaliable here. OsamaK 20:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of photograph seen here, © The Lotte Jacobi Collection, University of New Hampshire. Postdlf (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of 1926 photograph seen here, by Berenice Abbott (1898 - 1991). No reason to believe photograph is in the public domain. Postdlf (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivatives of photograph seen here, credited to Getty Images. No reason to believe photograph is in the public domain. Postdlf (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks an official photo, it is very rare to be its own. OsamaK 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Same photo is avaliable here. OsamaK 10:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded by the uploader of Image:Sanjana.jpg. Mostly it was copied from somewhere. OsamaK 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As written, it is a screenshot from Operator Please. Orphaned. OsamaK 11:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In the summary: "All rights reserved". Orphaned. OsamaK 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software. OsamaK 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software. (See++) OsamaK 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphan screenshot for a non-free website. OsamaK 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphan screenshot of a non-free website. OsamaK 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of a non-free website using IE. OsamaK 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Clearly not the uploader creation. I could not find a link in a quick Google search. OsamaK 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Another version of Image:Selena1971.jpg. OsamaK 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software (See++) OsamaK 13:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software, Orphaned. OsamaK 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Orphaned. OsamaK 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software. OsamaK 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website. OsamaK 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website. OsamaK 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free video game, Orphaned. OsamaK 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Orphaned. OsamaK 13:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Orphaned. OsamaK 13:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is not the creator per the summary. Wrong license, Orphan. OsamaK 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is not the creator per the summary. Wrong license, Orphan. OsamaK 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is not the creator per the summary. Wrong license, Orphan. OsamaK 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free logo, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free movie, as per the summary. OsamaK 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect source information—this is clearly not a scan of an album cover, but one created digitally, possibly fan-made. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Scanning from a newspaper, orphan non-free image, with wrong license. OsamaK 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free logo of a website, Orphaned, Wrong license. OsamaK 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of presumably copyrighted photograph seen here, unknown author. Postdlf (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted software screenshot, ie not PD. Asenine 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary states this is a trademark, and it is indeed a copyrighted logo, not CC. Asenine 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Source website does not state GNU. Asenine 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made an edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PrestonLions_final2007_002.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonia1903 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
States permission, links to discussion page for permission, but this is not adequate. This is what OTRS is for. Asenine 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No case to answer. The image owner has given permission to use it with CC3. I have forwarded the owner's e-mail granting the license to the en-wikipedia permissions address. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
States permission but no OTRS, a plea on the description page will not help. Asenine 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is stated that permission has been acquired, but there is no OTRS link. Asenine 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a promotional image from the band's Myspace page, but is marked GDFL? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://regmedia.co.uk/2004/06/16/psx-5100.jpg, which is The Register's imgserv. Register images are not GNU. Asenine 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
States permission as an "Advisor to the Commissioner for Human Rights", but there is no OTRS link. Asenine 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Source does not state CC. Asenine 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Source does not state CC. Asenine 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free game, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free game, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
States CC/GNU dual, but contains military insignia. Asenine 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is my work ...... I have used the recommended copyright option given by Wiki as I dont mind people using it. All of the images contained within this image are made created by me. I am also a member of the Leicestershire Yeomanry Association and maintain the www.paoyeomanry.co.uk website. Any images contained therein are from regimental archives or have been contributed by relatives or former mebers and therefore have given full consent for the images to be used to promote the Regiment and its descendants. You may contact me through the website at www.paoyeomanry.co.uk if you wish to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffMJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable (if still needed) screenshot on Mac, includes non-free items. I'm not sure about the software itself. Orphaned. OsamaK 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks a screenshot, the uploader mostly is not the author. Orphaned. OsamaK 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free website, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 17:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free logo, Wrong license, Orphaned. OsamaK 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a film or tv still, which is likely the property of the production company and not the uploader. Uploader is releasing the image into the public domain, yet asserting copyright and ownership. See related discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a film or tv still, which is likely the property of the production company and not the uploader. Uploader is releasing the image into the public domain, yet asserting copyright and ownership. See related discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)