Looks suspiciously professional, I do not think any fan seating would offer an angle from which to take such a photograph. No information about when the photo was taken, or how the uploader (who claims to be the photographer) got to take it, uploader also has other questionable image uploads.
W.marsh 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm a professional photographer. Did that ever cross your mind when making these accusations? --
Goodfellajohnny 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, assuming
good faith. However, Goodfellajohnny, please provide the information requested (date, place, etc. of photo). Of course, if this is shown to be an infringement, it will be deleted.
Superm401 -
Talk 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as copyright violation. Goodfellajonny is lying; the image is an Associated Press photo by Bill Kostroun. It's pretty old, so I can only find a scaled-down version of image in a sports news aggregator blog
here, but the image that it links to has the exact same dimensions. --
RG2 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Clearly a copyvio given Goodfellajohnny's history of uploading stock images and claiming to be the photographer. Goodfellajohnny previously uploaded File:Fullj.getty-73396548me010 boston red so.jpg, a similar image of Clemens. I speedily deleted the image after I located it on Getty Images under image #76383195, by Mike Ehrmann.
Rhobite 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I found the photo linked from
mlb.com. This proves that Goodfellajohnny appropriated it as his own work. Changing to speedy delete.
Rhobite 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I've speedily deleted this image as a copyright violation (G12). The rest of his images are on their way out anyway per the nominations below, so I don't think any of us need to waste our time finding a smoking gun to argue for speedy deletion. --
RG2 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Erm, yeah, I was wondering if that image would last. I guess I'll look up more info on converting PNG to SVG.
TuvokT@lk/Improve me] 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Calliopejen1 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not to be obtuse, but WTF is this for? Looks like an image uploaded by the user to whom that sig belongs, for no apparent reason.
TuvokT@lk/Improve me] 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic as far as i can te
Calliopejen1 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Contested. This is a picture of the former Jack Boland Rose Garden at
Living Enrichment Center. A bit of a backstory. Jack Bolan was an important figure in
New Thought.
Mary Morrissey has claimed him as a spiritual mentor, which is why there was a Jack Bolan Rose Gardener at Morrissey's church,
Living Enrichment Center. Further, he is the original minister of the
Church of Today, which was later led by celebrity spiritual writer
Marianne Williamson. Living Enrichment Center is now closed, and it closed in a great deal of controversy; see the articles. Therefore, this image is of historical importance. It can probably be used on the article about Living Enrichment Center, or even about Church of Today. --
Delete. It doesn't seem like a particularly useful picture. It doesn't even show the garden in question.
Superm401 -
Talk 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It doesn't show the garden in question because Living Enrichment Center had already closed at that point and the garden was obliterated. --
Copy Editor 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic as far as i can tell, possible Copyright violation (appears to be a publicity shot)
Calliopejen1 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic - was originally used on
Suwud page (created by same author) that was speedy deleted (A7).
Snigbrook 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
While the garden gnome will be non-free in any photo, the photo itself could be replaced by one under a free license. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't an actual logo, and I don't think it's a necessary fair use. The uploader did say, "I am an employee of OCLC and do have an express request and permission to add the WorldCat search box image to Wikipedia, so that more people will understand the concept of WorldCat." but no proof of this permission is given, and it probably doesn't extend to all third parties.-
Superm401 -
Talk 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. What does "non-copyrightable" mean? A sampling of Dominican Republic government sites show that all rights are reserved (for example,
here). --
RG2 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Though it's indicated that the work is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5, it states that "Permision was given by him to the uploader for any and all non-lucrative and/or educational purpose." Clearly, the intended release by the copyright holder is much more restrictive than the license the uploader chose to display. --
RG2 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Source gives no indication that shot has been release into the public domain by the federal government. --
RG2 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication credited photographer in source has released the image into the public domain. --
RG2 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
No indication credited photographer has released work into the public domain. Deleted versions of this same image (redundant images speedily deleted) indicated Viorel Florescu worked as a Newsday photographer. It is extremely unlikely that such images are released, especially given this user's suspect upload history, especially
here. --
RG2 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Unsourced image; uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Looks like a screencap. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks suspiciously professional, I do not think any fan seating would offer an angle from which to take such a photograph. No information about when the photo was taken, or how the uploader (who claims to be the photographer) got to take it, uploader also has other questionable image uploads.
W.marsh 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm a professional photographer. Did that ever cross your mind when making these accusations? --
Goodfellajohnny 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, assuming
good faith. However, Goodfellajohnny, please provide the information requested (date, place, etc. of photo). Of course, if this is shown to be an infringement, it will be deleted.
Superm401 -
Talk 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as copyright violation. Goodfellajonny is lying; the image is an Associated Press photo by Bill Kostroun. It's pretty old, so I can only find a scaled-down version of image in a sports news aggregator blog
here, but the image that it links to has the exact same dimensions. --
RG2 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Clearly a copyvio given Goodfellajohnny's history of uploading stock images and claiming to be the photographer. Goodfellajohnny previously uploaded File:Fullj.getty-73396548me010 boston red so.jpg, a similar image of Clemens. I speedily deleted the image after I located it on Getty Images under image #76383195, by Mike Ehrmann.
Rhobite 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I found the photo linked from
mlb.com. This proves that Goodfellajohnny appropriated it as his own work. Changing to speedy delete.
Rhobite 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I've speedily deleted this image as a copyright violation (G12). The rest of his images are on their way out anyway per the nominations below, so I don't think any of us need to waste our time finding a smoking gun to argue for speedy deletion. --
RG2 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Erm, yeah, I was wondering if that image would last. I guess I'll look up more info on converting PNG to SVG.
TuvokT@lk/Improve me] 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Calliopejen1 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not to be obtuse, but WTF is this for? Looks like an image uploaded by the user to whom that sig belongs, for no apparent reason.
TuvokT@lk/Improve me] 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic as far as i can te
Calliopejen1 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Contested. This is a picture of the former Jack Boland Rose Garden at
Living Enrichment Center. A bit of a backstory. Jack Bolan was an important figure in
New Thought.
Mary Morrissey has claimed him as a spiritual mentor, which is why there was a Jack Bolan Rose Gardener at Morrissey's church,
Living Enrichment Center. Further, he is the original minister of the
Church of Today, which was later led by celebrity spiritual writer
Marianne Williamson. Living Enrichment Center is now closed, and it closed in a great deal of controversy; see the articles. Therefore, this image is of historical importance. It can probably be used on the article about Living Enrichment Center, or even about Church of Today. --
Delete. It doesn't seem like a particularly useful picture. It doesn't even show the garden in question.
Superm401 -
Talk 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It doesn't show the garden in question because Living Enrichment Center had already closed at that point and the garden was obliterated. --
Copy Editor 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic as far as i can tell, possible Copyright violation (appears to be a publicity shot)
Calliopejen1 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic - was originally used on
Suwud page (created by same author) that was speedy deleted (A7).
Snigbrook 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
While the garden gnome will be non-free in any photo, the photo itself could be replaced by one under a free license. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't an actual logo, and I don't think it's a necessary fair use. The uploader did say, "I am an employee of OCLC and do have an express request and permission to add the WorldCat search box image to Wikipedia, so that more people will understand the concept of WorldCat." but no proof of this permission is given, and it probably doesn't extend to all third parties.-
Superm401 -
Talk 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. What does "non-copyrightable" mean? A sampling of Dominican Republic government sites show that all rights are reserved (for example,
here). --
RG2 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Though it's indicated that the work is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5, it states that "Permision was given by him to the uploader for any and all non-lucrative and/or educational purpose." Clearly, the intended release by the copyright holder is much more restrictive than the license the uploader chose to display. --
RG2 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Tag is wrong, as this is allegedly a work of the New York state (not federal) government. Mugshots are often released to the public, but they are not automatically free. --
RG2 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Source gives no indication that shot has been release into the public domain by the federal government. --
RG2 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication credited photographer in source has released the image into the public domain. --
RG2 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
No indication credited photographer has released work into the public domain. Deleted versions of this same image (redundant images speedily deleted) indicated Viorel Florescu worked as a Newsday photographer. It is extremely unlikely that such images are released, especially given this user's suspect upload history, especially
here. --
RG2 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Unsourced image; uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Looks like a screencap. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible copyright violation. Uploader not likely to hold rights to image, especially given questionable upload history and
lies to cover that up. --
RG2 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply