Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 21

This image is from falundafa.org with no indication of a GFDL compatible license. The claimed fair use rational is insufficient by Wikipedia guidelines since the photo merely illustrates Mr. Li, who is still living. I have met the guy in person and believe it is quite possible, if difficult, to get a free picture of him.Bdentremont (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No camera metadata. No party images in the background of the photo. No geographic location of the private party to allow confirming that Ifeanyi Chijindu was in that geographic location at that time. Unlikely that Ifeanyi Chijindu was positioned at a party with a sign below her as shown in the image. Absent editor. There may be more information at Image:Ifeanyi Casual Headshot 77 Mini.jpg that an admin can review to shed more light on the issue. Also, this shows a photo of Ifeanyi Chijindu next to Wikipedia's photo and they look different. -- Suntag ☼ 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suntag: CORRECTION--the picture on Wikipedia is correct; the other picture you're talking about is NOT a photo of Ifeanyi Chijindu, it is a photo of Ijeoma Onuoha, a person Chijindu interviewed for the Poly Post in November 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.243.16 (talk • contribs)

Image of newspaper or magazine that uploader claims is "self made". Ford MF (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a French newspaper that cannot have been created by the uploader, and therefore cannot be released as GFDL. Ford MF (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another nonfree newspaper article uploaded as "own work" by user. Ford MF (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another scan of a nonfree newspaper that user uploaded as his own work released to GFDL. Ford MF (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page from an ostensibly copyrighted newspaper. As with all of his uploads, user claims to have "created" it. Ford MF (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a scan of two pages from Time Out Beirut, which the uploader fraudulently claims to have created. He does not hold the copyright to release this as GFDL. Ford MF (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although this image is licensed under the GFDL and under Creative Commons, the image contains watermarking including the word "Copyright" (visible in the grassy area in the middle of the picture, to the left of the motorway), and there's no proof that this copyrighted image has become copyleft. — Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it, i accidentally mistook this image for another in my collection and did not see the copyright logo, i have another image that i took in the air balloon, sorry for the mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lav90 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image and the text on the page makes me think this is a copyrighted screenshot from somewhere else. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images (the 5 above so far) were all uploaded by one user, and since the licence was challenged they have had the tags changed to self created and released to public domain. But some are book covers, and even if he were the artist (which i don't think he is), the covers would belong to the publisher, yes? And they look to be downloaded, not personally scanned (eg. cos they have stickers attached for marketing). Also, these images are by different artists, so is very unlikely that one user has the right to release any of them to public domain.

hence i think all are unfree and misliscenced, and should be deleted. Thanks.Yobmod (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative work; Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) claims GFDL for licensing, but sources to his or her own photograph of a purchased postcard. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped from "LWThomas2.jpg" news article. No fair use has been given, "source" says "I created this work entirely by myself." Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is a wedding photo supposedly of Lady Davina Lewis however there are no indications of who the photographer was or if they gave permission. Currently licensed via 'GNU Free Documentation License' and CCL Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of a logo. Summary says "effin' classic!" Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is but it is an orphan and there is no Description of the image however it clearly uses a collage of images and there is no way to know if they are all "legal". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Not sure what this is" image but it is also an orphan and there is no Description of the image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The license added by the uploader states anyone can use provided "that the image is used for the presentation of the Turkish Naval Forces and/or the Republic of Turkey...This image can't be used for commercial purposes without the approval of the Turkish Naval Forces"; these conditions make the image non-free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] That link should suffice. Project FMF (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]