My version is the original colour, (not Brightened as per the other example) and is a larger resolution. It should be kept and replace the other version of the file.
Fosnez 04:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep: It appears to be the high-resolution uncropped image available upon request from NASA.
[1] Fosnez, I wonder if you have considered uploading the high-resolution version to Commons?
[2] --
Walter Siegmund(talk) 03:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
It is a photo released by NASA under their licence, I am no expert in copyright, but if it can be uploaded then please do so.
Fosnez 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Hardouin (notify |
contribs). False "fair use" claim: Clearly, there are portraits of De Gaulle in PD -- `'
mikkanarxi 04:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
H1523702 (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, no plausable fair use claim can be made (it's just a photo of a plane) and the article already have several free images.-
Sherool(talk) 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aramgutang (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, as I understand it's a fairly common moth so getting a
free licensed replacement should be doable, hence no plausable fair use claim per
WP:FUC #1-
Sherool(talk) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aramgutang (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, as I understand it's a fairly common moth so getting a
free licensed replacement should be doable, hence no plausable fair use claim per
WP:FUC #1-
Sherool(talk) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Neutrality (notify |
contribs). This featured picture is available on Commons as
Image:Hans Holbein d. J. 065.jpg. Listing here (instead of deleting under CSD I8) because the Commons image is using a different (lossy) file format. Please note that the Commons image has significantly higher resolution.-
Conscious 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The Commons version might be a higher resolution, but its actually significantly lower quality. Note for example the lack of detail above the eyebrow. --
Solipsist 08:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I've added GFDL-self (presumably the problem was with the licensing of the image; hopefully that solves the problem).
Glogger 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Almaqdisi (notify |
contribs). Says PD, but it's clearly not. Also violates FUC#1, and should not be used under a fair use claim. -- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Almaqdisi (notify |
contribs). Says PD, but it's clearly not. Also violates FUC#1, and should not be used under a fair use claim. -- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Rnt20 (notify |
contribs). Unnecessary use of copyrighted image. --
Arniep 15:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The image was put on wikipedia because it was required as a source for the
Foreign relations of the United States page, giving an example of foreign media coverage of US foreign policy.
Rnt20 09:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Deleted. In order to use this image, you would have to discuss this specific issue of the newspaper and why it was significant. howcheng {
chat} 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Soumyasch (notify |
contribs). All fair use. Absolutely no way these qualify, free alternative(s) could easily be created - there must be hundreds of Wikipedians with this phone. --
Mark83 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Dalobuca (notify |
contribs). Being sent an image in spam does not allow you to release it into the Public Domain, as has been asserted by the uploader as the image's origin. This is a copyrighted image with no fair-use rationale given. --
Seidenstud 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
This picture is the official campaign picture for Correa and it is on the ballots used for the election. It is fair to consider it public domain. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.63.224.57 (
talk •
contribs)
How is it fair to consider someone's work public domain just because it is distributed? I could see fair-use, but no rationale has been given, and wouldn't that imply that there are no free alternatives available? But do we actually have any reason to beleive that there aren't any?? -
Seidenstud 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Copyrighted image being released as public domain without permission. -
Nv8200ptalk 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, should have done this while logged in - the above submit was mine. This image is listed on the image page as copyright-free because it it a work of the Federal government, but it is actually the work of a county schoolboard, and as such is not copyright-free. The uploader has also had other problems with improperly using image that were then later removed (see edit history on
Syracuse, Utah). Also the image really adds no real value to the
Davis School District article, and so I commented it out so it's not currently visable. --
FishUtah 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
My version is the original colour, (not Brightened as per the other example) and is a larger resolution. It should be kept and replace the other version of the file.
Fosnez 04:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep: It appears to be the high-resolution uncropped image available upon request from NASA.
[1] Fosnez, I wonder if you have considered uploading the high-resolution version to Commons?
[2] --
Walter Siegmund(talk) 03:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
It is a photo released by NASA under their licence, I am no expert in copyright, but if it can be uploaded then please do so.
Fosnez 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Hardouin (notify |
contribs). False "fair use" claim: Clearly, there are portraits of De Gaulle in PD -- `'
mikkanarxi 04:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
H1523702 (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, no plausable fair use claim can be made (it's just a photo of a plane) and the article already have several free images.-
Sherool(talk) 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aramgutang (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, as I understand it's a fairly common moth so getting a
free licensed replacement should be doable, hence no plausable fair use claim per
WP:FUC #1-
Sherool(talk) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aramgutang (notify |
contribs). Non-commercial use only image, as I understand it's a fairly common moth so getting a
free licensed replacement should be doable, hence no plausable fair use claim per
WP:FUC #1-
Sherool(talk) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Neutrality (notify |
contribs). This featured picture is available on Commons as
Image:Hans Holbein d. J. 065.jpg. Listing here (instead of deleting under CSD I8) because the Commons image is using a different (lossy) file format. Please note that the Commons image has significantly higher resolution.-
Conscious 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The Commons version might be a higher resolution, but its actually significantly lower quality. Note for example the lack of detail above the eyebrow. --
Solipsist 08:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I've added GFDL-self (presumably the problem was with the licensing of the image; hopefully that solves the problem).
Glogger 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Almaqdisi (notify |
contribs). Says PD, but it's clearly not. Also violates FUC#1, and should not be used under a fair use claim. -- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Almaqdisi (notify |
contribs). Says PD, but it's clearly not. Also violates FUC#1, and should not be used under a fair use claim. -- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Rnt20 (notify |
contribs). Unnecessary use of copyrighted image. --
Arniep 15:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The image was put on wikipedia because it was required as a source for the
Foreign relations of the United States page, giving an example of foreign media coverage of US foreign policy.
Rnt20 09:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Deleted. In order to use this image, you would have to discuss this specific issue of the newspaper and why it was significant. howcheng {
chat} 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Soumyasch (notify |
contribs). All fair use. Absolutely no way these qualify, free alternative(s) could easily be created - there must be hundreds of Wikipedians with this phone. --
Mark83 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Dalobuca (notify |
contribs). Being sent an image in spam does not allow you to release it into the Public Domain, as has been asserted by the uploader as the image's origin. This is a copyrighted image with no fair-use rationale given. --
Seidenstud 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
This picture is the official campaign picture for Correa and it is on the ballots used for the election. It is fair to consider it public domain. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.63.224.57 (
talk •
contribs)
How is it fair to consider someone's work public domain just because it is distributed? I could see fair-use, but no rationale has been given, and wouldn't that imply that there are no free alternatives available? But do we actually have any reason to beleive that there aren't any?? -
Seidenstud 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Copyrighted image being released as public domain without permission. -
Nv8200ptalk 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, should have done this while logged in - the above submit was mine. This image is listed on the image page as copyright-free because it it a work of the Federal government, but it is actually the work of a county schoolboard, and as such is not copyright-free. The uploader has also had other problems with improperly using image that were then later removed (see edit history on
Syracuse, Utah). Also the image really adds no real value to the
Davis School District article, and so I commented it out so it's not currently visable. --
FishUtah 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply