Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 8
October 8
[edit]It's a replaceable fair-use publicity portrait for which we already have replacements (e.g. Image:Ron Paul, official 109th Congress photo.jpg.) The campaign web site from which it is taken says, "©2007 Ron Paul 2008 PCC" 1of3 02:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Permission is asserted but needs to be confirmed through OTRS. But|seriously|folks 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that I should confirm the assertion oe the managment company? If It's me I gladly confirm. If you need confirmation from Peter Corry's management comapny it's [email protected] Tony handles Peter Corry. Austenlennon 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon
- Mistagged, as uploader is not owner. Advised on talk page to follow procedure at WP:COPYREQ. -- But|seriously|folks 21:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Image and image information is not found at source. Claims it is a work of the federal government but is an image of a mayor and is either likely the work of city government or the media. — Medvedenko 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image appeared on CNN.com and was attributed to the AP/The Press of Atlantic City. Medvedenko 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted, copyright violation. (Note: Uploader has been indefinately blocked for many copyright violations.) -- Infrogmation 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Also Image:W3C valid-xhtml10.svg. W3C do not allow derivatives of their icons:
- Can I modify the existing icons to create my own? No. The validator's icons are distributed under the W3C document license, which allows distribution but does not allow derivative works.[1]
— Evil Monkey - Hello 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The Flicker page says "All rights reserved" for this image. Liftarn 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL-self claim. — Jusjih 17:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyright disclaimer for source website says "The materials on this web site are copyrighted. Any unauthorized use may violate copyright, trademark and other laws" No release for use of any of the websites content exists. 156.34.221.91 18:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anonymous somehow has missed the rationale and original upload information that, from [2], "The downloads ... are intended for concert promoters, publicists etc to use in their promotional material." Clearly a promophoto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept. Image was never claimed to be free. Log at WP:IFD is there is still an issue. -Nv8200p talk 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work with no sources given for originals. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in the attached email copy does the licensor mention the GFDL. Without specifying the free use licence that has been granted, we cannot be sure of the correct form of licencing. — DWaterson 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. Nv8200p talk 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
from a .edu site -> no indication it's PD Calliopejen1 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)