June 7
The following images have e-mail permission claimed but lack ticket #'s from OTRS. (Note - there are a few that refer to an OTRS ticket from the Animal Liberation Front. However, that OTRS ticket only referred to a few specific images, with a claim that photos taken on behalf of the organization were PD. Details on the ticket here. The images I've listed here have no indication they were taken by the ALF.)
- Image:JeremiahDuggan2.jpg
- Uploader indicates OTRS has documentation of rights release. Has that status been checked? DurovaCharge! 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:PAMegrahihostage.jpg
- Image:PABombeat3.jpg
- Image:NightWiesel2.jpg
- Uploader states site has been contacted. Is there an OTRS for this? DurovaCharge! 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:DavidMertz1.jpg
- Questionable: simultaneously claims PD release and fair use. Asserts subject has released PD, but no indication of OTRS confirmation. DurovaCharge! 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably worth noting that the image subject has edited the image page, uploading a superior version, and changing the license to ((PD-self)). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:KeithMann.jpg
- Invalid PD assertion for ALF site images.[1] OTRS probably exists; suggest double check.
- Image:HLSmonkey02.jpg
- I couldn't find any image rights statement on that site. Uploader claims it's PETA and that all PETA images are released into public domain. Did not find direct connection between that site and PETA (although one may exist) and did not find an image rights statement on PETA's site either. Did find this,[2] which strongly suggests that PETA does not release images into the public domain automatically, as claimed. DurovaCharge! 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Draizerabbit.jpg
- No copyright statement on the website. Has OTRS been filed? DurovaCharge! 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:LD50mouse.jpg
- No copyright statement on the website. Has OTRS been filed? DurovaCharge! 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Monkeyinbilebearcage.jpg
- No evidence of claimed CCa 1.0 license on linked page. Could not find a license statement on website. DurovaCharge! 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:AlexPacheco(PETA).jpg
- Image:Draizetest2.png
- Image:Hornefuneral.jpg (no evidence this is an ALF image)
- Agreed: no evidence this is an ALF image. No copyright statement on the site, so by default we must treat this as full copyright. DurovaCharge! 06:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GushKatif1.jpg
- False license claim. Site clearly marks itself full copyright.[3] DurovaCharge! 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission logged at OTRS - see ticket #2008060910008825. WjBscribe 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GushKatif2.jpg
- False license claim. Site clearly marks itself full copyright.[4] DurovaCharge! 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission logged at OTRS - see ticket #2008060910008825. WjBscribe 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:JerryVlasak.jpg (no evidence this is an ALF image)
- License claim looks highly suspect. Site clearly marked as copyright, all rights reserved.[5] Upload note says OTRS has been filed. Would check before deleting. DurovaCharge! 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:ZigongPeople'sParkZoo2.jpg
- Image:Monkey-in-restraint-tube-Covance3.jpg
- Image:Monkey-and-man-hands-Covance.jpg
- Image:Monkey-behind-bars-Covance-cropped.jpg
- Image:Monkey-and-man-hands-Covance-cropped.jpg
- Image:Animalrightsmilitia.gif (no evidence this is an ALF image)
- Image:RonnieLeeALF.jpg
- Image:Factory-farm-dairy-barn.jpg
- Image:Factory-farm-exterior.jpg
- Image:Gestcrate02.jpg
- Image:BarryHorne-as-child.jpg - not taken by the ALF
Image:BarryHorne-with-Rocky1.jpg likely ALF image - Kelly hi! 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BarryHorne-with-Rocky2.jpg likely ALF image - Kelly hi! 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BarryHorne-in-hospital.jpg - not taken by the ALF
- Image:Britchesbaby.jpg - not taken by the ALF
- Image:ShamrockFarmMay2000.jpg
- Image:KeithMann1969.jpg - not taken by the ALF
- 1969 photo, obviously pre-ALF. Check with OTRS. DurovaCharge! 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:KeithMann1.JPG - not taken by the ALF
- Image:KeithMann2.jpg - not taken by the ALF
- Image:KeithMann-circus.jpg
- Image:Beagle-inside-HLS.jpg
- Image:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg (no OTRS ticket, also a derivative work}
- Image:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg
- Image:Jerry-Vlasak-inspects-seal-carcass.jpg
- Image:TwoSilverSpringmonkeys.jpg
- As noted above, assertions that PETA images are automatically public domain has not been proven. Uploader summary also requires a second leap of faith that the image originates from PETA; hosted on another website. DurovaCharge! 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:QinetiQ-ALF.jpg
- Image:Dalian zoo bear cages, 1997.jpg
- Has OTRS been filed? Per above, no confirmation available on the website of the image's copyright status. DurovaCharge! 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Roger Yates.jpg
The following image has a PD claim, including a source that supports that claim, but I think the source is incorrect. The source states this is a "courtesy photo" from Israel, and, according to Israeli copyright law, this photo should enter the public domain 50 years after publication. (20112012) (See Commons:Copyright tags#Israel.)
Listed by Kelly hi! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what is going on here, but most of these are free images, released by the people who took them, and most have OTRS tickets, or were cropped from images on the Commons, or are old images. The claim that an image taken during an ALF raid was not taken by the ALF is particularly strange — unless you were there when the image was taken, Kelly, and know something the rest of us don't. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify which of the images have OTRS tickets (aside from the ALF ticket I mentioned above) or are cropped from Commons images? I thought I read the image description pages carefully - I even had an OTRS volunteer look up the ALF OTRS ticket, as mentioned above. Kelly hi! 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ones I've looked at are self-explanatory e.g. the Keith Mann images. I've e-mailed permissions to ask if there's a problem with the OTRS tickets. If there isn't — and I'm pretty sure there isn't — the images are fine. If any pages are missing their tickets, I'll add them once I've heard back from permissions. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the Keith Mann images is that there's no evidence they were taken by the ALF, and they weren't mentioned in the OTRS ticket that was placed (by the uploader, not an OTRS worker) on the image description pages. Kelly hi! 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Israeli image would seem to not be due to enter the public domain until 2012, according to the citation of Israeli copyright law in Commons. It seems to have been uploaded under the misconception that all government pictures are public domain, but that's only true of U.S. federal government pictures (taken by employees, not outside contractors), and maybe some other countries, but not all countries or their subdivisions. Israel apparently has a 50-year copyright on government photos. The picture may be a legitimate candidate for a fair use rationale, but is mistagged as public domain. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Eichmanntrial image looks PD and okay to me. I don't have time to look through the other images to see if they're alright. Wizardman 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the links to Israeli copyright law? Kelly hi! 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I guess the question is whether or not the Isreali government put it in the public domain outright, waiting the 50 years. Proof or disproof of that would make for an easy decision. Wizardman 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption has to be that its not public domain until someone can show otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Proof by assertion isn't. Each image should carry a clear link to something demonstrating its license (a statement on the page it was copied from, along with a link to the page, or an OTRS ticket reference that covers the image explicitly, or a statement that it was self authored, or similar...) The ((information)) template is very useful for organizing this. The onus is on the uploader to correct issues, not on the person notifying the uploader, of the issue to fix things. That is practice here and has been for a long time. Accusing a volunteer doing their job of various things (harassment, creating extra work, and the like) isn't really appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page linked to as the source ([6]) describes the photo as public domain, and it's part of the United States Holocaust Museum website. That seems credible to me.-Polotet 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also looked at some of the others, and it seems that at least some of them are from sites which grant permission to use the photos, including [7], which states "Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source." and [8], which states "Anyone wishing to use the original AAPN photographs on this site is welcome to do so." It seems like some of these images are fine and the ones that do have problems don't all have the same problem; it would probably be much more useful to group them based on source or alleged problem and discuss each group separately.-Polotet 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images from factoryfarm.org are noncommercial use only.[9] I'll take another look at the AAPN photo(s) and strike them through if necessary. Kelly hi! 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Factoryfarm.orgs terms are a bit unclear; that page does say "You may use this site for noncommercial or personal use only. No content of this site, including the text, images, audio and video may be copied, distributed, modified, reused, reposted or transmitted for any commercial purpose without our prior express written permission.", but it prefaces that with "Except as may be otherwise indicated within this site," and all of the image pages state ""Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source," with no commercial restrictions. While it would be best to get official emailed confirmation of the license, my interpretation would be that the terms on the image pages are the controlling ones.-Polotet 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some ambiguity in the language there. Is "permission to reprint" the same thing as "permission to redistribute the photos on other websites"? The use of "reprint" would suggest that they're thinking of hard copies, not electronic copies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For our purposes at Wikipedia, that statement is perfectly clear. They are discussing republication permissions, which is a different matter from copyright release. Wikipedia cannot restrict downstream uses of its material to noncommercial entities, so it rejects such terms. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be noted that Israeli copyright law was rewritten recently and entered into force may 2008 although I don't know how that impacts past crown copyright images.Geni 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel changed their copyright term to life+70, but that did not affect stuff that was already in the public domain, unlike the Russian copyright law changes from earlier this year. Kelly hi! 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is for general photos yes but are the changes with respect to goverment produced images retrospective or not?Geni 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - yes, government works are still released into the public domain ~50 years after publication, this did not change. So the Eichman image should enter the public domain on January 1, 2012. Kelly hi! 17:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a variation of pre 1948 crown copyright so date photo was taken +50 years.Geni 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we take the museum's word for it? The museum is a credible source. If the museum is wrong, the worst that will happen is someone will at some point ask us to take it down. We shouldn't get so bogged down by becoming unreasonably strict about verifying copyright -- the marginal cost increases way past the marginal benefits. The museum is a more credible source than most users, who often upload pictures and release them. If we trust them, then we can trust the museum. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Commons:Problematic_sources#United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum.Geni 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these images are from Animal Liberation Front. ALF shows no interest in respecting copyright and has on many occasions republished photos "into the public domain" that they had no rights to publish in the first place. IMHO, all ALF provided images should be deleted as suspect copyright. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- This is the OTRS ticket from the ALF...I guess WP:AN would be the place to challenge it. (There are also many images on Commons with permission justified by this OTRS ticket - the Village Pump or Admin Noticeboard at Commons would be the place to bring it up. I can't do it myself or I will probably be accused of harassment by SlimVirgin again. Kelly hi! 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted about half a dozen at Commons several months ago (from many users). I brought it up at the Commons village pump conversation, which went nowhere. Some folks just don't seem to get it that organizations who don't flinch at committing arson aren't quite concerned with intellectual property. In any case, I don't have the time to study and come up with deletion rationale for each one individually. I'll look here at the ones Durova identified a little later. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Image:Jennifer Lavoie March 31 2007.jpg
Appears to be a crop from a professionally shot image - publicity pic, Playboy, other magazine? - no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SMALL WIKI POSTER.jpg
I doubt that a DVD cover is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SR-Good-Night.jpg
Where is the proof of "permission"? -Nard 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CatherineDaza.jpg
Claimed as own work by User:Essence5, which seems unlikely based on the user page. Appears to be a professional shot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]