This page is for listing and discussing images that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed. Images that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here.

Instructions

Before listing, remember that images which are already marked unfree and used under fair use should not be listed here.

To list an image on this page:

Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well. Note: It is under consideration to reduce this period to 7 days; see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.

Holding cell

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

• /2008 November 17
• /2008 November 18
• /2008 November 19
• /2008 November 20

New listings

[] November 21

Image:MV5BMTQxNTU1OTIxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzYyNzQ3MQ@@ V1 SX309 SY400 .jpg

Image appears on imdb [1] with the same filename. There is no evidence to support the uploaders assertation that they created this image. Deadly?ssassin 02:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll replace it ASAP with something that I have explicit permission for although I have implicit permission from the owner of the copyright for the current one. Johngagon (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If you are in contact with the photographer and they are telling you it is ok for use than ask them to email that permission following the Requesting copyright permission "how-to guide". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Animated-Flag-Mexico.gif

This image has been labeled public domain, non-free, PD again, and now GFDL. We still don't know where the image came from, which is the real question. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amalorpavadass1.jpg

This image seems to be a watermarked version of Image:Amalorpavadass.jpg however both images are used in the article D. S. Amalorpavadass, this one is a "gallery" that says it is a book cover, in which case Fair Use should be applied however as the article is not about the book and because there is another images that is exactly the same (sans the "Atma Purna Anubhava by Swami Amaloranda" watermark/text) adding a FUR would not matter. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amazingangels.jpg

This is more of an advertisement/flyer for the subject. Aside from promotion (website, phone numbers, awards, accreditation) It does not really add to the Saint Michael's College of Laguna articles existing text content. The source says "created this work entirely by myself". (Like wise Image:SMCLad.jpg, which is hosted on Commons, does not add anything either and it is a variation of this image.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Danny.simpson.jpg

The user who uploaded this image has also uploaded several images of other Manchester United players. I find it extremely unlikely that the user who uploaded the images took them himself/herself, and hence the public domain license is invalid. Preferably, I would like proof that the user owns the copyright to the images, but if this is not possible then deletion is the only option. — – PeeJay 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Three images uploaded by User:CrackersTeam have now been deleted due to a lack of licensing information. I believe the only remaining ones are Image:Danny.simpson.jpg and Image:Wes.Brown.jpg. – PeeJay 10:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: There are still some more that are most likely copyvios, see his image contributions. Image:BenWilliamsSinger.jpg is one example of a dubious own work claim. --Kjetil r (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anders lundegard.jpg

Summary says "Photo of classical saxophonist Anders Lundegård, to be inserted in Anders Lundegård" which implies it is for WIkipedia Use only. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that implies anything of the kind. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I inter linked it, sorry. The actual text is the direct url - "...to be inserted in http://en.wikipedia.orgE_n_c_p_d_Anders_Lundeg%C3%A5rd.html" which is a link to the Wikipedia article, here on Wikipedia. It defines a specific use for the image, which I was of the impression is not allowable under the specified licenses, or under Wikipedia Policy on image use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:LumetPortrait1.jpg

Can not imagine "Filmmakers Series - Sidney Lumet" did not have a (c) logo. Garion96 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if the book is copyrighted, its copyright would not cover the archival image, which would have most likely been used "by permission" of the holder, if any.

The image was uploaded as public domain since it would have been improbable for this to have a renewed copyright. I am close to a copyright depository and have discovered that only about 2% of copyrighted photos are and were renewed. And those are usually commercial or well-known images, such as Ansel Adams's or C.S. Bull's movie star images. So it seemed more accurate to tag this as PD, since to list it as "fair use" would imply that it has a valid copyright, which is most likely not true. In any case, it's unlikely that there would be any other Wiki use for this image, so either license is fine.

Your call: I can leave it as PD; change it to "fair use"; or find another image (there are many around.)Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-Pre1978}} requires the work to have been published before 1978, not just created. The Filmmakers Series book appears to be from 1993; without evidence of a pre-1978 publication without notice, the 1993 publication would make it automatically copyrighted until 70 years after the photographer's death. (Also note that non-renewal is only relevant for works published before 1964.) --dave pape (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lapu-Lapu.JPG

http://www.ngkhai.net/cebupics gives no suggestion of GFDl Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 22

[] Image:AngelinaLove.jpg

Confusing summary. Says the source is "Own work by uploader" but than says that the author is "Tabercil" and permission is "(Reusing this image)". The uploader here is "CandiceWalsh", not "Tabercil" who is listed as the author. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an edit of Image:Angelina Love in London Sep 2008.jpg, which is on Commons. A quick message to User:Tabercil (an administrator and prolific commons contributor), or a couple of minutes of investigation would have cleared this issue up quite quickly. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is appearing of late you have some issue with me as you seem to have an awful lot of sudden interest in my noms and making bitey remarks. I am glad you are an admin and know about other admins that are a "prolific commons contributor" however I look at an image. I go off what the image is and what the info pages say. In this case I clearly stated above that there is a "Confusing summary". I sated exactly what the summary said. Did/Does the page have a link to "Tabercil"? No. Does the uploader say "Tabercil is an administrator and prolific commons contributor"? No. Did the uploader respond here? No. Did they respond on my user talk page? No. Did the uploader responded on their user talk page? No, they deleted the message. was there a direct link to the image on Commons? No. Your reply could have simply said "It's an edit of Image:Angelina Love in London Sep 2008.jpg, which is on Commons" Period. End of story. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Liverpool Waterfront Sunrise.jpg

There is no licence information. ⁺_Joshii⁺₊^chat₊ 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gemma Arterton with Dainel.jpg

Appears on http://bondgirlsfan.com/gemma-arterton-and-olga-kurylenko-dreams-come-true/. Site is copyrighted, the image itself is hosted on a CBS News server. Probably not user-created. Huon (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fire chrome explorer.png

Both the Firefox and Google Chrome logos, of which this is a derivative, are copyrighted. — neuro^(talk) 15:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fire explore.png

Both the Firefox and Internet Explorer logos, of which this is a derivative, are non-free. — neuro^(talk) 15:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fire chrome.png

Both the Firefox and Google Chrome logos, of which this is a derivative, are copyrighted. — neuro^(talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:July_26_-_Ninoy_Aquino's_most_famous_portrait.jpg

derivative a still copyrighted photograph Bluemask (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:2006-07-04 KL logo.jpg

This image is claimed to be for non-profitable use only; there is an image Image:EKV-D66.jpg (a smaller version of this) which is claimed to be public domain however that version does not cite a source. —Snigbrook 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Antiguan UK.jpg

This is a self made collage of "of notable British people of Antiguan descent" however the image sources are "off Wikipedia and Flickr". Would need direct links to each individual image to verify if they are all free use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Two of the four images are definitely free images from Wikipedia (follow the links to the articles on the individual subjects). Given that, I see no reason to assume bad faith on the rest. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further digging does turn up this: Image:V.Johnson.jpg, Deleted because "CSD I4 - No source information" So we can not assume it was a free use image as there was no source. The creator of this collage would not have known that either so we can assume good faith as far as that goes. In trying to track down the Emile Heskey image I see several have been used but have been removed for copyvios. Image:Player-image-1741.jpg or Image:Emile Heskey.jpg may have been the one used in this collage. This one is not, but was one of the ones removed from WP as well for copyvio. The image that is being used does appear at Goalpost but is not currently on WP so it may be one of the ones deleted. When it comes to possible copyvios and asking for the sources or permission from the original photographer, if it is not given, is not assuming bad faith, it is being safe. There is a difference. All it takes in one copyvio to bring a lawsuit. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking in the deletion log, and at the deleted image itself, that is a completely different picture than the one included in the collage. Your argument does not hold up. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As you have the power to look "at the deleted image itself" you should have done that first and reported your findings here instead of reporting that "Two of the four images are definitely free images from Wikipedia". Taking the bitey tone of "Your argument does not hold up" does not help to find the other two sources. I have no way of knowing what the deleted image looked like, nor do other non-admins, so the comment was unnecessary. But if you do notice I did provide one link to Goalpost that contains one of the images that any one, even a non-admin, can see. There is no free use license associated with it that I could find and please also note that images name, player-image-1741.jpg, and compare it again to the Wikipedia image that was deleted for "I9: Blatant copyright violation" : Image:Player-image-1741.jpg. If it is, as you say, not the same image, surely it is a weird coincidence. But there is no denying that the Goalpost image is the same one used in this collage. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

November 23

[] Image:Archdeaconwilliamslamakhyimsar.jpg

Cropped version of Image:Archdeaconlamakhyimsar.jpg to remove the source watermark, which is taken from peacemala.org.uk Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arrows1974.jpg

Unsure about this. Uploader says they took the photo but it looks like a cropped and uprezed version of this promo photo. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am about as sure I possibly can be that this is not a free image. There is almost no way the author could have taken a picture like that even today, let alone during the mid-1970s (with no digital cameras/image editing software). I saved a copy to my computer just in case there's an issue raised about it, but can't imagine there ever will be. Thingg^?? 02:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is very likely {{PD-Pre1978}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue(s) are:

1. Is it the original photographer who uploaded the image? Currently it says "My photo of Arrows" which does not tell us a lot. The photographer is Gered Mankowitz. As he is a professioanl photographer it would seem he would use his real name an dnot just say "My photo of Arrows"
2. If the uploader is not the author than can they provide proof that Gered Mankowitz or RAK records released it into PD?
3. RE the {{PD-Pre1978}} suggestion, there is not any evidence that the image was "first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978". The image was used as a promo image by the label and, as the band was based in in London, England, there is no evidence to suggest that the image was not "first published" in that country. Not all promo/publicity images carry a © notice.

I have actually sent an email to the original photographer to see if they have released their images into PD. When I receive a response I will post it here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this and I still think it is non-free. I restored it on IronGargoyle's request, but I do not think there is any way this is free, even with pd-pre1978. Thingg^?? 20:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This can be speedied now as it a confirmed, blatant copyvio. The photographer has said, in part,

I do not contribute to Wikipedia and didn't upload any image of Arrows.

There is no doubt that this image is my copyright as the original author and this is something I am quite clear about having taken legal advice from leading music business lawyers in the past.

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Treaty-pg2.JPG

It's a treaty to something from 1947. I'm not sure if an image of it would be releaseable to the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the government of Pakistan or its governor general at the time (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) would be the copyright holder. Pakistan's licensing information on Commons doesn't specify for governmental works, but non-photographic works expire 50 years after the death of the author (I would assume that it would be 50 years post-publication, or simply stay with the author him or herself). Muhammad Ali Jinnah died in 1948, so this should be in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ciocchini-b.jpg

Artist died in 1974 so not old enough enough to put in the public domain. Usage at Mar del Plata does not justify fair use. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, the image should go. I uploaded the painting's pic in 2006, barely two months after my first edits on Wikipedia. At the time I believed that the public domain deadline was 30 years. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:SPDi.jpg

Even if the uploader removes his copyright, I think the poster itself would have a copyright and its usage at West_Germany#Politics would not seem to qualify under fair use. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Germany has a fairly non-restrictive freedom of panorama though. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Goodwill Ambassador 081119.PNG

No indication why this comic panel would be in the public domain and current usage isn't justified by fair use. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Veritas 012.jpg

Comic book cover. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user has also uploaded Image:Infopic.jpg, which is a duplicate of this image. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can be speedied via {{db-redundantimage}} and have added that tag. The core issue remains however as the same user also uploaded Image:Infopic.jpg. "Source" on Image:Infopic.jpg reads "I created this work entirely by myself" while Image:Veritas 012.jpg reads "I edited this work entirely by myself." The image was taken from Veritas 1, but the core website is not solely for this manga. The website carries this notice: "Copyrights © 2008 manga-news.com | Tous droits réservés. Toutes les illustrations sont sous © Copyright donc propriétés de leurs auteurs et éditeurs respectifs." which translates to "Copyright © 2008 manga-news.com | All rights reserved All illustrations are © Copyright therefore property of their respective authors and publishers." Currently the Image:Infopic.jpg image is used, but untagged. I would suggest a {{di-no permission}} to allow the user to submit an OTRS on the off chance they are the copyright holder or just go straight for the copyvio and tag with {{Db-i9}}. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ashuk.JPG

Uploader claims to be copyright holder but there is no evidence for this. Image appears to be a professional publicity still and is similar to others such as [2], and [3] where the subject is wearing the same clothes as in the uploaded image. Whpq (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, seems likely that it is not within the uploader's gift to release this. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Artwork life's problems 2.jpg

Self made CD cover for deleted articles "Rival" (the recording artist) and Rival (Rapper). Currently being used in the recreated article placed at User:Emceerival, which has been nominated CSD G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rival (Rapper). As this image was not uploaded as fair use I am bringing it here as it is a PUI of a CD Cover which may soon be is orphaned and which would fall under {{di-orphaned fair use}} if a FUR had been used. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asinthottumkal copy.jpg

Unused image. Summary says "I created this using an existing photo." No link to the original photo provided. Source image is from Nowrunning according to Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG. However there is no indication on the website that any material is licensed under a CCL. The image seems to be The image is cropped from Wallpaper. (I have i9'd it as no permission came in for the unmodified version) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

November 24

[] Image:Empress of Japan.jpg

While this image likely passes Canadian public domain, it does not likely pass public domain in the US, making it unfree where it counts, since Wikimedia servers are US-based. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this passes {{PD-US-1996}}, so it remains free. Anything public domain in its country of origin before 1996 is also in the public domain in the U.S. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the photo, as the name implies, and as the source website imply, shows the Ship when named Empress of Japan, then the photo was taken in 1942 or before and therefore would be public domain.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Craig WIlliams at McCain Rally.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. (Additionally, all images at "source" URL are copyrighted by the AP.)) It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license. --HoboJones (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'd speedy it, but it doesn't hurt to let this process go. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirmed copyvio, I have speedied. Taken from Williams' campaign site: [4]. --HoboJones (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rendell of Pa.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license.--HoboJones (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The images you find in USA.gov’s Image Search results may be protected by copyright. If you would like to use any images you find through USA.gov’s Image Search, we advise you to contact the site owner for permission."--HoboJones (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Free alternate image exists at Image:Governor Edward G. Rendell.jpg.

He's a public figure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.69.204 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the photographer, not the subject, who matters here. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maya Soetoro-Ng.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license. — HoboJones (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It appears here credited to a Getty Images photog. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Protonk (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yin Chengzong.jpg

No reason why this image would be in the public domain. Image is a living personal so no real fair use argument. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Piano Accompanied Red Lantern.jpg

No reason why this would be in the public domain. It would be a very weak fairuse argument. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yousef Beidas.jpg

I'm not sure if a "public shareholder document" would be determinative of copyright status. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Khalil Beidas.jpg

No reason why this would be in the public domain. Beidas died in 1949. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what laws now control copyrights from British-controlled (or possibly U.N.-controled) Palestine. If it is a British Copyright, then you are correct and the copyright is likely still valid. If it is an Israeli copyright, then this would be in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buddha book jacket.jpg

Uploader claims work as own, however the copyright is likely to belong to the publisher or the artist of the work. JD554 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oystercard.JPG

Incorporates non-free images beyond incidental use Stifle (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The uses do seem incidental and the logos would likely fall under {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the Ikea logo which is a registered trade mark is covered by pd-textlogo. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IKEA is text within a simple oval within a rectangle. Simple geometric shapes aren't copyrightable either, and the fact that it is a registered trademark is not relevant. There are plenty of registered trademarks which are also PD-textlogos... IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mitt Romney.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. Very unlikely that this image was ever released under a free license. Author is tagged as "US Embassy"--unlikely that the photo was taken by a US Embassy official in his official capacity. — HoboJones (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed copyvio. Image data says "U.S. Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney pauses while delivering an address titled, "Faith in America" at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas December 6, 2007. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi (UNITED STATES)" and "© Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters"--HoboJones (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't speedy this because it is linked in too many high profile pages. I would prefer that someone from WP:WikiProject Mitt Romney swing by and replace the image with a free one. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleared from all pages and templates.I have tagged for speedy.--HoboJones (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kenneth street.jpg

The author could not have been dead 100 years if this was taken in the 1930s. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tag certainly, but I think this falls under {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems it could be {{PD-Australia}} http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemDetailPaged.aspx?itemID=413945. Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Troyking3.jpg

Needs OTRS permission. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

• This nom also includes Image:Ron Sparks.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• • And this subtle "inclusion" of another picture I uploaded comes after the image page was edited to show clear examples of where the image has been freely distributed for publicity purposes, without reservation of rights, and thus released into the public domain by operation of law. Res ipsa loquitor. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That however is totally irrelevant since recirculated and republished is not enough. Basically public usage is NOT public domain. Garion96 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, it is relevant. If any copyrighted material is placed into public circulation with the intent that it be freely republished, the copyright to it is extinguished, and released into the public domain. Stuff v. E. C. Publ'ns, Inc., 342 F.2d 143 (2nd Cir. 1965); Jackson v. MPI Home Video, 694 F. Supp. 483, 490 (N.D. Ill. 1988). see generally, D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.06 (2008). To say that "public usage is NOT public domain," without considering other material facts I provided, is faulty legal analysis. This image, and the other images you tagged, are publicity photos the original copyright holders - politicians who love to see their pictures everywhere - want to be reproduced. Their acts release their copyrights into the public domain, just as effectively as Wiki uploaders loading their own snapshots, who click the release on the upload page, do. Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they might "love to see their pictures everywhere - want to be reproduced" But they usually don't want their pictures to be altered (derivative work) or that it can be used for commercial purpuses. With images in the PD you can do that, with images for public usage, you generally can't. See also this failed guideline/essay, especially the talk page of that page. None of the cases you mentioned supports that the images are in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Confession: I didn't pick all the way through the talk page, though it sounds like I might have been able to make some contribution when it was current. The topic certainly generated its share of heat. And the image of (to use the phrase from the Talk) "Wikirazzi" stalking these politicians for photos did occur to me before I read it. Not to extend this thread to the length of that Talk, it's black-letter copyright law that a rightholder can abandon her copyright. All courts have agreed that this is effected when manifest by overt acts of the rightholder:

"Conversely, the wide and general circulation of copies of a work by the copyright owner, or with his acquiescence, without a copyright notice affixed thereto may constitute an overt act indicating an intent to abandon copyright even if such lack of notice does not result in a forfeiture of copyright by operation of law. This was held to have occurred where over a long period of time the copyright owner did not attempt to prevent others from infringing his copyright." D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.06 (2008).

The E.C Publications case I cited supra illustrates this. The case involved use of the sketch today universally known as Alfred E. Neuman. (The case is mentioned without cite in the article; I should edit it, no?) According to the opinion:

"The court, however, found it established that a great volume of nearly identical prints had appeared over a long period and that plaintiff's husband had been most derelict in preventing others from infringing his copyright. These findings, borne out by the evidence, support the inference suggested by the trial court that the copyright owner authorized or acquiesced in the wide circulation of the copies without notice. On this record we must hold that defendants have met their burden of showing circulation of copies without notice, acquiesced in by the copyright holder. See Nimmer, supra, § 146. The caricature was thereby dedicated to the public, barring any suit for infringement by plaintiff." 342 F.2d at 144-145 (emphasis added).

Of course, where the rightholder is distributing publicity photos with the specific intent they be freely circulated, the requisite intent is even clearer. And when a copyright is abandoned, the image reverts to the public domain, same as it does at the expiration of the copyright term. (So, yes, the cases do support a finding of public domain.) I know that where, for an example, J Lo's or Nicole Kidman's publicists send out photos, they are careful to reserve rights, so as not to have their clients appearing in unauthorized, uncompensated ads. But it's a different milieu, and a different legal result, when (as here) the Attorney General of Alabama sends this pic to every rural paper in the state with his latest press release telling how tough he is on crime. (And I have seen this very pic in small town weeklies.) These images are clearly in the public domain, so the whole whirling-dervish fair use debate is unnecessary. Perhaps what is needed here is common sense, not some puritanical dedication to an ideal like "all free use" or "no risk of infringement." Any image we put in under fair use, however clearly so to the copyright bar, bears some remote risk of a claim. Wikipedia will be a far less valuable resource if it allows paranoia and linear zealotry to "free use" to restrict its content. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Information clearly indicates that this is a publicity photo, but that information was supplied by the uploader and the statement Released to public domain for publicity and press use, all rights released by owner is unsourced which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. Freely available for publicity is not the same as public domain release for example use of altered images for negative publicity or for commercial use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Think about this for a minute. "for example use of altered images for negative publicity ..." Many, if not most, "negative" political ads that show the attacked candidate use a publicity photo supplied by the candidate in a press kit, website, etc. If there was any copyright lawyer, anywhere, who thought these photos hadn't been released into the public domain, every attack ad would be hit with an infringement action, which wouldn't be subject to the actual malice standard of a defamation action. Not only do I not find any such case in Nimmer, nor have I ever heard or read of one, a member of my former firm advised an angry candidate that he had no action for infringement of his press kit photo for that very reason. I keep seeing demands for a "release." I don't know many more ways to rephrase this: the conduct of distributing publicity photos, which has not been disupted in this thread, is as effective a "release" as a document, executed by the subject, photographer, camera maker, and attested by forty bishops before personal delivery to Jimbo Wales. While I have yet to see a single legal authority to the contrary cited, I will provide one more example, involving an infringement action over - guess what? - pubilicity photos of Marilyn Monroe distribtued widely to, and published in, newspapers to publicize one of her movies. Not only did the party claiming copyright lose, the alleged infringer was granted summary judgment holding the photos to be in the public domain. In the court's words:

Defendant argues the publicists and studios not only had the right to distribute copies of the photographs, but distribution was the very reason Milton Greene provided the photographs to them. (See, e.g., Thomas Decl. Ex. H at 80, 82, 84-88.) Defendant contends that, because distribution of the photographs was not prohibited -- but actually encouraged -- Plaintiff cannot show limited publication. Defendant also contends Plaintiff, in opposition, "ignores entirely the final, critical prong" of the limited publication test. (Def.'s Reply at 16.)

Defendant has demonstrated Plaintiff cannot meet the third element of the limited publication test. Because all three of the elements must the shown to exist, here "the distribution may not be deemed limited and the copyright will not be valid." Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d at 556.

In sum, Plaintiff has not met the validity element of its copyright infringement claim. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement is GRANTED. Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. BPI Commc'ns, Inc., 378 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1199-1200 (C.D. Cal. 2005)(emphasis added)(translation for laypersons: "validity element" means the copyright was extinguished and the photos were in the public domain).

Some of the phraseology on this page is indicative of laypersons. While I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor am I a copyright specialist, I have represented clients in both transactional and litigation matters in copyright. And if I thought Wikipedia (or I) had any legal issue with these photos, I wouldn't have uploaded them. In the meantime, it might be a good idea if my watchlist didn't indicate systematic, targeted editing of my contributions, both photographic and textual. Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(I hate having to keep counting indents.) As a further thought, I am going to offer some changes to the explanation entry on this photo. If they make anyone feel better, I will replicate them on the other image pages linked on this project page. Maybe what we need is for an upload relying on release by conduct to set out some basis for that, as I did on the image page. Audemus Defendere (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nancy_Worley3.jpg

No evidence of PD Garion96 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. The statement Released to public domain for publicity and press use, all rights released by owner is unsourced which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gadsden_Times_Front1.jpg

Needs OTRS permission Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The authorization for this usage is clearly indicated on the image page. The desk and cell numbers of the individual, the news editor of the newspaper portrayed in the image, are even provided. I note further that the image upload page has been modified since the upload of this image, to provide the option of tagging a newspaper front page as fair use under similar circumstances. This change reflects a correct understanding of copyright law, and is much needed for articles about newspapers and magazines. The fair use option not being available on the menu at the time of upload, public domain was used as the nearest analog. I have no problem with the image being changed to a fair use tag, but in either case its deletion is not called for.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Permission email needs to be sent to OTRS or the image should be changed to fair use with an appropriate rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed to fair use per suggestion. Please advise here if anything else needs fixing. Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it has a fair use rationale it should be kept but I would suggest that 2400 x 4399 (which does not agree with the low resolution = yes in the rationale) is far to big for fair use and recommend it be uploaded at a smaller size. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. There's something weird about this image, perhaps arising from its origin as a .pdf. The pre-replacement version wouldn't show as big (or hi res) in my image software as it would on the Wiki page. But I think the shrinking fixed that. Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Or not. I have shrunk this image to the point that everything except the banner and headlines are totally illeglible, then re-uploaded it. But when I click on the full enlargement on here, BOOM! it's supersized. And legible. Any ideas? Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tommy_Battle3.jpg

needs OTRS permission Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. Which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This image is proving a little more problematic than some of the others discussed on this project page. The campaign website where I got it is now down, and redirects to his official city webpage, where the image apparently doesn't exist. Likewise, the local news blog where I saw it has recycled its server space. I am trying to find another pic for the article, but he's not been mayor long enough to have a lot of public domain pics out there, like this one. Audemus Defendere (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beth_Chapman2.jpg

No evidence of PD on source. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. Which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the same changes to the image page, as indicated on my comment above regarding the Troy King image, showing at least one example of public domain release. And for the record, a Google Image search of "Beth Chapman" forced me to look at about a zillion pics of