| < October 24 | October 26 > |
|---|
This image is definitely not Rmcclen's. Take a peek at this image from Wal-Mart Stores's official website, and you'll notice a lot of similarities. Too many similarities. Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the similarities are as follows: a) the flag is folded by wind exactly in the same spots b) the plants didn't change color at all between the two pictures c) the same blue truck is to the left of the sign (in the parking lot) d) Same tree to the right........and there's a lot more. Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary indicates that uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 02:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The image was declined as speedy. It is not a screenshot of a website, but rather a photograph which is not covered by a free licence by any details on the Ministry of Defence website. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A pro head shot that I don't believe the uploader owns the copyright to. Nv8200p talk 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication on either the image description page or the source page that this was actually created by the government of the United Kingdom, rather than a private individual. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly an incorrect claim by the uploader. This uploader has made similar unfounded PD claims on many other images. See User talk:Aquitania. Virtually every image uploaded by this user is suspect. Kablammo ( talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in United States copyright law. Depicts a subject who passed away in 1929, so no presumption that copyright expired. Uploader appears to have been unaware that underlying copyright may apply to the statue. — Durova Charge! 05:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
Unlikely that artist would give away their inventory. No evidence that "This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright." listed on image page. Uploader absent and has a history of image and other issues on talk page. -- Suntag ☼ 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
The summary and article use indicate the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Minovici died in 1933. No indication of why this should be in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication of why the image is GFDL. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that the painting was first published prior to 1923. The date on the caption at Eugen Suchoň says 1941. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be post 1923 - but looks to me as though it may qualify under fair use (see
Wikipedia:Fair Use) --
Smerus (
talk)
09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would, except there isn't a source still. If I find one, I'll create it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be post 1923 - but looks to me as though it may qualify under fair use (see
Wikipedia:Fair Use) --
Smerus (
talk)
09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a studio portrait. I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Murgaš died in 1929 so I'm not sure that the image is necessarily in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Alexy died in 1980 so it's unclear why this should be in the public domain. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Janko Alexy died in 1970 so it's unclear why this should be in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ggg.jpg looks like a derivative work based upon one or more of the preexisting works this, this, this, and/or this. There is a .png version at Image:Wpxboxlogo.png. -- Suntag ☼ 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in your evidence that even suggests our image is unfree. Second our image has been reformed to fit the criteria of a commons admin. This image has been up for months and has been viewed by tons of editors and a lot of admins. Our X is a 3D object and you’re telling me it looks like a sketch of an Xbox? Please tell me where you’re seeing the resemblance. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the stylized X in Image:Ggg.jpg. The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the vertical lines in Image:Ggg.jpg. The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the 3D stylized x having a green center and having extending side lines. Image:Ggg.jpg appears to use copyrighted aspects of Microsoft's original, previously created works and does not contain a substantial amount of new material. The XBox itself is 3D and the linked images in the nom include 3D aspects. Please identify the the substantial amount of new material in Image:Ggg.jpg. Even if the copyright issues are overcome, I don't think the trademark issues of identifying Wikiprojects using Microsofts trademark can be overcome. Microsoft's trademark seems to be a part of Image:Ggg.jpg, and Image:Ggg.jpg is used to identify a WikiProject dealing with the video game console. -- Suntag ☼ 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would need to strongly disagree w/ Suntag's assessment and evidence he/she has provided. The "X" image has many differences from the images Suntag has provided. 1.- It has a main color of gray, which is not present in any Xbox images. 2. The "X" is 3D, when the xbox itself is 3D in the Microsoft images. Also let me point out, because I have done my research on this before, that Microsoft only has a copyright on one "X". That copyrighted "X" is green and in a completely different shape. The "X" on the Xbox and the "X" the wikiproject is a standardize "X", in which the project "X" is 3D and the Microsoft "X" is not.-- DJS 24 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Suntag's reasoning. Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from A Man Called Brian likely non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Noora likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Homeless (film) likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Book cover likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Homeless (film) likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No reason why that software is freely licensed. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
| < October 24 | October 26 > |
|---|
This image is definitely not Rmcclen's. Take a peek at this image from Wal-Mart Stores's official website, and you'll notice a lot of similarities. Too many similarities. Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the similarities are as follows: a) the flag is folded by wind exactly in the same spots b) the plants didn't change color at all between the two pictures c) the same blue truck is to the left of the sign (in the parking lot) d) Same tree to the right........and there's a lot more. Jonathan ( talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary indicates that uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 02:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The image was declined as speedy. It is not a screenshot of a website, but rather a photograph which is not covered by a free licence by any details on the Ministry of Defence website. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A pro head shot that I don't believe the uploader owns the copyright to. Nv8200p talk 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication on either the image description page or the source page that this was actually created by the government of the United Kingdom, rather than a private individual. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly an incorrect claim by the uploader. This uploader has made similar unfounded PD claims on many other images. See User talk:Aquitania. Virtually every image uploaded by this user is suspect. Kablammo ( talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in United States copyright law. Depicts a subject who passed away in 1929, so no presumption that copyright expired. Uploader appears to have been unaware that underlying copyright may apply to the statue. — Durova Charge! 05:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
Unlikely that artist would give away their inventory. No evidence that "This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright." listed on image page. Uploader absent and has a history of image and other issues on talk page. -- Suntag ☼ 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
The summary and article use indicate the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Work by Ľudovít Fulla who died in 1980. Uploader has a habit of questionable uploads. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Minovici died in 1933. No indication of why this should be in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication of why the image is GFDL. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that the painting was first published prior to 1923. The date on the caption at Eugen Suchoň says 1941. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be post 1923 - but looks to me as though it may qualify under fair use (see
Wikipedia:Fair Use) --
Smerus (
talk)
09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would, except there isn't a source still. If I find one, I'll create it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be post 1923 - but looks to me as though it may qualify under fair use (see
Wikipedia:Fair Use) --
Smerus (
talk)
09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a studio portrait. I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200p talk 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Murgaš died in 1929 so I'm not sure that the image is necessarily in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Alexy died in 1980 so it's unclear why this should be in the public domain. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Janko Alexy died in 1970 so it's unclear why this should be in the public domain. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ggg.jpg looks like a derivative work based upon one or more of the preexisting works this, this, this, and/or this. There is a .png version at Image:Wpxboxlogo.png. -- Suntag ☼ 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in your evidence that even suggests our image is unfree. Second our image has been reformed to fit the criteria of a commons admin. This image has been up for months and has been viewed by tons of editors and a lot of admins. Our X is a 3D object and you’re telling me it looks like a sketch of an Xbox? Please tell me where you’re seeing the resemblance. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the stylized X in Image:Ggg.jpg. The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the vertical lines in Image:Ggg.jpg. The copyright in this image seems to anticipate the 3D stylized x having a green center and having extending side lines. Image:Ggg.jpg appears to use copyrighted aspects of Microsoft's original, previously created works and does not contain a substantial amount of new material. The XBox itself is 3D and the linked images in the nom include 3D aspects. Please identify the the substantial amount of new material in Image:Ggg.jpg. Even if the copyright issues are overcome, I don't think the trademark issues of identifying Wikiprojects using Microsofts trademark can be overcome. Microsoft's trademark seems to be a part of Image:Ggg.jpg, and Image:Ggg.jpg is used to identify a WikiProject dealing with the video game console. -- Suntag ☼ 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would need to strongly disagree w/ Suntag's assessment and evidence he/she has provided. The "X" image has many differences from the images Suntag has provided. 1.- It has a main color of gray, which is not present in any Xbox images. 2. The "X" is 3D, when the xbox itself is 3D in the Microsoft images. Also let me point out, because I have done my research on this before, that Microsoft only has a copyright on one "X". That copyrighted "X" is green and in a completely different shape. The "X" on the Xbox and the "X" the wikiproject is a standardize "X", in which the project "X" is 3D and the Microsoft "X" is not.-- DJS 24 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Suntag's reasoning. Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from A Man Called Brian likely non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Noora likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Homeless (film) likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Book cover likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Screen shot from Homeless (film) likely is non-free -- Suntag ☼ 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No indication that image is in the public domain. Baidu.com is a search engine, not a publisher of material. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No reason why that software is freely licensed. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)