Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Archive 3

message: Why was the entire page restored? The last post to this page before my archiving of it was on the 19th! That was 7 days, how can it be classed as 'active'? I am going to re-archive the rest.-Localzuk(talk) 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the exact circumstances, but the image(s) during those days were probably still pending review. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?? 

message: If an image is listed here and is a redlink (and is not just a typo) should it be removed, and if yes can a non-admin do this?-Localzuk(talk) 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "no." You would end up delinking just about every link since most images listed here are deleted. It's unnecessary. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about redlinks

message: I have to confess to finding the process of adding images highly confusing. I added the C. elegans image which is now being flagged as 'possibly unfree'. This image was obtained from Zeynep Altun at the Wormatlas project (www.wormatlas.org). She granted permission for it's use. Please let me know what I need to do in order to stop this image being removed.
Thanks,
Nod 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've answered this / am soon going to answer this on your talk page. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C. elegans (adult worm) image 

message: I don't understand the usage of these "public domain in country x" templates on Wikipedia. Surely it's the copyright status in the US (where the Foundation and servers are located) which is relevant? It's quite possible for material to be public domain in one country and under copyright in another: Elvis' 1956 recordings are now PD in the UK (50 yrs for audio), but try distributing them from a US site and you'd probably get your butt sued off. --kingboyk 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It tends to be the copyright in the country of origin which is the most relevant. /Lokal_Profil 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't entirely agree with Lokal.  Note that  does not appear on the list at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain while  does (since certain official German documents immediately immediately enter the public domain and are thus free in the US).  The  template merely informs German users of Wikipedia that they may have greater freedom to use the tagged image than those in US, in particular, they may be able to make use of such images without an additional license or fair use rationale. To use an image on en:WP it must have a free license (or a fair use rationale) for the US.  Take note of the statement at the top of the Other countries tag section: "Whenever an image is tagged using one of these tags, the image description page should also contain some rationale as to whether and why the image is presumed to be in the public domain in the U.S., too!"  Some of the templates make this clearer than others, e.g. . Many, many, grueling details can be found at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. —RP88 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How so? --kingboyk 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of an image which is PD-Canada and includes a rationale for PD-US, see :Image:VerePonsonby.jpg. —RP88 15:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates like PD-Germany 

message: Is it appropriate to list "promotional images" that provide no source here? I'm not going to start doing it en masse, but there was one I came across, have reverted removals of the speedy tag twice, and don't intend to revert again as it will just be a 3RR violation. (Oh, the image is :Image:Simpsons1313.jpg, which is now magically a TV screenshot) —Iamunknown 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting removal of a speedy tag is not a violation of 3RR. You should treat the removing of the tag as vandalism, and put the appropriate template on the user's talk page (and report him to the admins if he persists). —Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional images 

message: I listed many images having  as possibly unfree on 27th February, but they have remained in the holding cell for long enough without being either deleted or cleared. Is there something that is holding action on these images. If there are any issues to be discussed, I am willing to clarify further. In short, the problem I found with these images is as follows: Websites hoisted on nic.in servers are required to explicitly state the copyright status of the images on them. The images in question have been taken from websites under nic.in that have not yet complied with the guideline mentioned above, i.e. they do not write anything about the copyright status of the images. The uploaders opine that unless otherwise stated to be copyrighted, the images may be assumed to be free, while I hold that unless otherwise stated to be public domain, images are assumed to be copyrighted. I believe that the summary above explains the case neutrally. I request administrators to please go through this case and close it according to Wikipedia's policies. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images you listed are gone. So is the template, which is now redirected to Template:No license since it's not free enough for Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Chanakyathegreat, we assume that an image is copyrighted and unlicensed unless explicit evidence is given to suggest otherwise.  Do you have such evidence to suggest that all images from nic.in are licensed for use on Wikipedia under the GFDL license?  --Iamunknown 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images under PD-India-Gov 

message: This project page does not have an archive that I am aware of.  Should there be a monthly archive or similar where old discussions are kept to make it easier to see what happened, rather than having to go back through the article history?  (Note I know that this talk page has a history, I am referring to the project page.) --After Midnight 0001 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Two copyrighted map images on Operation Chengiz Khan (:Image:IAF western airfields.jpg and :Image:IAF Southern Airfields.jpg) are claimed by their uploader to be fair use because of the Indian Information Act, a legal structure which I am unfamiliar with. Can someone with more experience and legal background (US and Indian?) check these out and tell me whether they count as fair use for the purpose of Wikipedia? JRP 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images aren't free, they don't meet Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content. New maps can be drawn that present the same data. I don't know anything about the Indian Information Act but the image description page seems to indicate limited use and should not be treated as a free license. Jay32183 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Information Act 

message: This pic was tagged on March 4: no one has gotten around to resolving it. Quadzilla99 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag. Seems reasonable that it is US public domain. Nice contradiction btw, you state that direct source is German wikipedia. The german Wikipedia states that the image came from the English wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garion96 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Morris

message: Now, I know we all need something to do after the SXC image roundup (:-P), so if you're ever bored, head on over to :Category:Conditional use images, where many possibly unfree images await.  The ten images I listed under May 11 are all from there, and there appear to be many more.  I personally would like to list them all simply because the image copyright tag  does not expressly permit unrestricted, non-exclusive and non-revocable commercial reuse and derivative works, but I'm not currently up to the task.  (What do you all think of that, btw?)  --Iamunknown 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stash of possibly unfree images, found at last! 

message: this image [:Image:Sorbus-americana.jpg] is attributed to "RHW" at the page it appears on and this is associated with "RHW - R. Harrison Wiegand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service. www.dnr.state.md.us" at the linked photo credits page. The photo credits page says that the images may or may not be copyrighted and does not note if they are on an author by author basis. Any ideas? Pdbailey 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an additional copyright question. Is there anywhere I can go for answers? Obviously this wasn't the right forum. Pdbailey 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright question 

message: I would like to add some more text the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images page as I've noticed an increasing number of comments that start with "keep" or "oppose". 
As far as I understand it this page is not a debate in quite the same way that IFD and AFD are. The focus is not the deletion of an image, but investigating the copyright status of images. Yes, if the copyright status cannot be established the image is likely to be deleted. But that is up to the admin who processes this page. 
Our job as editors of this page is to use any knowledge we have - of images, of copyright law etc. - to make a conclusion about the copyright status of the image that has been tagged. By thinking in terms of "keep" or "oppose" I think we are distracting ourselves, and any newcomers to the page (including uploaders) as to what the primary purpose is. What do you think? Madmedea 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should make it clear that it's not a !vote or a matter of consensus but an administrative decision.  That being said, there are plenty of knowledgeable users who are not admins, and it can't hurt to have the benefit of their observations, in a nonbinding fashion.  They might raise a critical point that cuts either way. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. A copyvio is still a copyvio, despite the number of people who vote to "keep" the image. MER-C 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. howcheng  {chat} 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup.  --Iamunknown 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will get around to this, honestly ;-) Madmedea 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for an addition to the page introduction

message: Looking at Special:Contributions/Iwanafish, I see that there are a lot of pictures uploaded that claim "fair use", but are also released under . A large number of them look professionally produced.
However, looking at the Metadata indicates that they were all taken with the same type of camera, so it's entirely possible that PD-Self is the correct tag, and the summary is incorrect. Any thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan 14:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird license tagging 

message: Since this page is getting heavy traffic, which is 15+ listings per day, not to mention the other edits for discussions, I'd like to change the format so that each day is it's own page as a subpage off of PUI, something like: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/July 1 2007. It would make it easier to archive each day whereas it seems there isn't an archive for items, the text is just removed from this page and when admins finish a date, it could be marked as an archive. Further, it would make listing easier especially using the quickimgdelete tool since it has to load and send the entire page each time an image is brought here. Also, monitoring discussions will be easier so that someone could watchlist the individual date an image they are interested in instead of PUI as a whole. The subpages would just be listed off the PUI page, such as  and the dates just added on as needed and removed as needed. There were a question above about archiving the page that went unanswered, so an archive could help. Can anyone see any disadvantages or reasons not to do this? Or perhaps a better system? Any interest or other suggestions? MECU≈talk 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change format of page listings 

message: Hello folks, I do not really know much about your copyrights. But I'm afraid :Image:Nuremberg stadtplan.jpg is no free image and can't be licensed by using GFDL. Please have a look. Best regards -- Achates 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, I believe.  I have listed it on the main page. -SCEhardT 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question. 

message: You hit edit, you go look for the entry you want to comment on, and it's not there. Sweeet! So what's the trick? Maury 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try scrolling down to the entry you want to comment on and clicking the [edit] link for that section. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, you think I didn't try that? There's no edit button on my page. The text does not appear in the edit window either. It's templated in, and there's no obvious way to edit it. (and who thought this was trolling?!) Maury 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to your preferences, look under the "Editing" tab, and make sure there's a checkmark beside "Enable section editing via [edit] links". —Bkell (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, of course, but that should not be required. We need a simpler way to get to the templated pages. Maury 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One possibility is to follow the link in the instructions. →AzaToth 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I edit this stupid page?! 

message: I've seen that after links to PDF-files there is a symbol: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Test.pdf
I think it's from this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/icons/fileicon-pdf.png
It looks very much like Adobes PDF-icon, which is definitely copyrighted: :Image:PDF.png
Is there a way to read copyright notices for that kind of "Wikipedia-internal" images that are part of CSS and such stuff...?  
(BTW, is there a way to show externaly linked images in wikipedia?  I guess not, since that would make it difficult for readers to know what's part of WikiPedia and what's not...)
--  Algotr 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those things we just don't worry about because we know Adobe's not going to sue anyone for displaying a tiny Adobe icon next to a link to a document that requires Adobe software to read. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Wikipedias internal images, such as fileicon-pdf.png?