Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2007-07-29

edit

Articles

  • Six of Cups (history · last edit) from [5]. And actually, there's a whole host of similar copyright violations contributed from User:Fairebianca on many Tarot card pages. See here. This user may, in fact, be the copyright holder of the original material, but no assertion of this fact has been made. This user has been warned once already on a different page, yet has subsequently re-inserted this copyrighted material on all pages from which I have removed it. Craw-daddy 06:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I added this here despite the fact that the user in question provided a reference to a book as I felt that quoting the entire sections violated fair use criteria (i.e. quoting small parts is fine, but not an entire section). Craw-daddy 11:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neurosurgeon Shahzad Shams (history · last edit) from [6]. Permission asserted. Notifying creator of permission confirmation process. Page blanked pending confirmation. -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Images

  • Keep Ullstein Bild is a stock photography agency and they sell copies of public domain and old images just like Getty images and Corbis, it doesn't always mean they own the copyright - they don't even name who the photographer was for this photo, so how can they claim rights to the image? And anyway the German government agreed to invalidate copyright claims to certain works seized by the US government [15] and [16] and [17] The original uploader was a NARA employee, and I believe him that this is PD in the US Bleh999 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on verifibility. An NARA employee gets the date wrong, fails to provide an ARC identifier etc and you dredge up some guff about the Hoffmann case? Right. Something concrete from NARA saying that the image is PD works. Dont see it listed here for example but I have written to the NARA to get some confirmation of the lie thats been told. For those interested, when I identified tens of other ullstein images stolen and uploaded to wikipedia/commons there was a rush to have them removed. Ullstein have previously threated legal action on the matter of their copyrighted works being stolen and used on wikipedia. Dee Mac Con Uladh 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a start only a small selection of the National archives and Records Administrations holdings are available online, they even point this out. Anyone can contact NARA to verify and someone else pointed that out on the talk page of the image in question that they did in confirm its copyright status (who you made personal attacks against) anyway the other Ullstein Bild images (mostly color) were by Walter Frentz and he sold his rights to Ullstein Bild, but they don't own the rights to all the images in their collection, and under German law only a photographer can own the copyright for 70 years after he dies, so who took this photo? They don't say... Not Frentz, most likely it was Heinrich Hoffman see [18] NARA told wikipedia that the captured German collections are indeed PD In the US, Hoffman never sold any licensing rights to Ullstein Bild, they sell his images without permission. Making
legal threats will get you banned indefinitely be aware.Bleh999 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
On the legal threats: direct it at ullstein, they're the ones making legal threats. Re-read my post and tell me something, can you be banned indefinitely for poor reading & comprehension skills? And on to your claims about this image; its likely a Hoffmann image (you're 100% certain its not Frentz), and the image is possibly in the Hoffmann NARA collection. So the evidence backing your claims is where exactly? As for the verification done by 195.229.236.215 in UAE and Husnock, does it consist entirely of "I verified it/It is now verified/Of course its NARA!!!11"? Hmmm. Unfortunately since Husnock is gone following all kinds of nonsense he was involved in and 195.229.236.215 appears to be constantly mistaken for a vandal it seems much more sensible to discount the say so of these two class acts. Happily, since they didn't actually leave any evidence of verification to discount, no harm is done. On the Frentz problem; you failed to mention the tagging on most of those images, it was "taken by H.Hoffmann". The deliberate masking of the real photographers identity to avoid all those nasty copyright issues. Fancy that happening on wikipedia. Dee Mac Con Uladh 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well it's you who is constantly alluding to legal threats on the talk page of the image and here, that is counter productive. So who took the photograph in question? You don't know, neither does Ullstein Bild, so how can they claim copyright to it? Come back when you can prove you or they own the licensing rights to this image, look they have the Iwo Jima flag raising picture in their archive, now you're going to tell us they own that image as well, even though it was taken by Joe Rosenthal. Bleh999 15:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Bridge2.1.jpg Tagged as "screencap", but is in fact copyrighted artwork. No permission granted for this image to be used by third parties. 80.127.84.66 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_July_29&oldid=147752271"