Wikipedia:Image sleuthing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Active Wiki Fixup Projects +/-
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
What is image sleuthing?
There are many thousands of images on Wikipedia. Most are tagged so that we know where they come from and how they are licensed, but some are mysteries, tagged {{unverified}}, {{no source}} or {{unknown}} or not tagged at all, with no obvious way to tell whether we can legally use them or not. Eventually, if we can't find out the source and copyright status of an image, we'll have to delete it. But some of these images are useful or attractive, and are begging to be rescued. That's where the image sleuths come in. The sleuths use any methods they have—from Google Image Search to uploader e-mails to secret informants met at midnight—to discover the source and copyright status of an image.
So how does this work?
Below, you will see up to 15 images with comments to the left of each. Sleuths set to work tracking down the origin, copyright and licence terms associated with each image. If there's general agreement that an image is acceptable – available under free licences, in the public domain, or legitimately a fair use – then you can move all discussion to the image's description page and remove the image from the list below. If the image can't be certified acceptable even after a week of searching, then image should be moved into the deletion process. (Sleuths often try to find suitable free or public domain replacements.)
If an image has been listed for over a week, or if the status of the image has been determined beyond reasonable doubt, then anyone can remove the image from the list and either tag it or list it on ifd. If there are fewer than 15 images below, anyone can add a new one. Some good place to look are Wikipedia:Untagged images and Category:Images with unknown source.
If you do move an image to the deletion process, please always contact the uploader of each image, on their talk page: do not make the assumption that they are not contactable. More generally, contacting users does sometimes elicit the information and so is considered a good thing.
Contributors
| The following Wikipedians have signed up to be image sleuths. | ||
|---|---|---|
The assignments
Image:Ac.khmerrouge.jpg
- Used on Khmer Rouge.
- According to this CNN/AP story from April 21, 2000, these photos were printed from negatives discovered in 1993 by two photojournalists in a (Khmer, I suppose) prison archive. That makes the copyright of the individual photos very unclear. I do not know if anybody might hold a copyright on the collage per se—maybe the Tuol Sleng Museum (cf. also this travel report, indicating that this museum exhibits such a collage). Lupo 07:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Image on the orginials with Khmer Rouge government. Probably fair use is possible.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 07:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Surely, the Khmer Rouge was not party to any international copyright agreements. Therefore, these defninitely seem to be in the public domain in every country by Cambodia, and are probably public domain there too. IANAL, but doesn't that make sense? Superm401 | Talk 06:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Acording to http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Cambodian_Genocide/Prisoners_at_S-21_Prison/prisoners_at_s-21_prison.html I believe that the photos can be used with the following credit line: Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide/Photo Archive Group. --NetGuru 17:49, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- That's a great find. Have you tried emailling the webmaster there for their opinion? Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- These pictures are testament to how POV the Khmer Rouge page is. Can you imagine if I made a slideshow of prisoners, put them on the page of the US Republican Party or Democratic Party, and said they were the "victims" of these parties? It would be wiped as POV in seconds, I'd probably be blocked or something. Then again this is OK because the Khmer Rouge were pure evil, right? That is they were until the US began supporting them in 1979... Ruy Lopez 15:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Chinamumy2.jpg
- Used on Tarim mummies
- Didn't find these exact mummy images on-line, but smaller versions are e.g. at [1]. My guess would be that whereever they've been copied from (and the last four are probably on-line somewhere, witness that fancy green border), they are ultimately from either this book, or that one, or from the April 1994 issue of Discover Magazine (c.f. [2]). Lupo 07:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Image:Aamir.jpg - Image:Kajol.jpg... etc
The above two images and possible other images for articles in Category:Indian actors use images from http://www.bollywood4u.com/ and their disclaimer is here which the uploaders have interpreted as public domain. But I have my suspicion about to what extent is this public domain. Because in the same disclaimer it says The copyright (if any) of these pictures belongs to their orginal publisher / photographer / copyright holder as the case may be. So before I upload these images to commons, I wanted to be verify this with the experts over here, on whether this passes the PD litmus test. --Spundun 06:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the images then fall under
| © | This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. |
? --Gaurav Arora Talk 11:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Mulroney.jpg
Kind of interesting that Canada's least popular prime minister doesn't have a picture with a source :). - Lucky13pjn 23:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Found here over his letter for Forbes Global. I assume {{Promophoto}} would be fine. — Asbestos | Talk 13:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg
Fauna of Australia is a featured article candidate and since Australia has more venomous snakes than any other continent in the world, a sourced image about a highly venomous snake would be highly useful. The image was tagged as PD from the German Wikipedia, but the German Wikipedia has no source or copyright info and is about to be deleted. Can anyone help? - Mgm|(talk) 20:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- [3] Howabout a hard one next time. :) Photo by Peter Robertson © Museum Victoria [4] says photo use is: for personal use only and may not otherwise be copied, re-sold, re-distributed or framed, or otherwise used whether for compensation of any kind or not, without prior written permission. Enjoy. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've tagged it imagevio, because of the overwhelming evidence. Superm401 | Talk 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- And I've speedied it as a blatent copyvio. ➥the Epopt 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've tagged it imagevio, because of the overwhelming evidence. Superm401 | Talk 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Image:Faye small.jpg
I've been able to nail down a possible source here. It appears it is a cropped version of the original, but as for the copyright status of the original...anyone care to find out? --Bash 04:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
A different version of this image, found here, contains a border with the words 'Smash Hits'. Based on that border and a note in the news archive of gensteps.co.uk. I'm guessing it's from June 1999 Smash Hits Magazine. I'd say it's not on the cover, so I'm not sure it would qualify as fair use.
- [5] Faye spoke of her dreadlocks ... She only had the dreads for 3 months though. ... H is on the front cover of the Smash Hits magazine and there is a two page interview about him. You also get a full page pic of Faye, which is great. It is easily worth the £1.25 asking price, don't miss the next issue when there will be a huge H poster!
There are also two similar and higher quality images, which are not cropped, located in the Faye Tozer gallery. It doesn't say the source, but the webmaster of the site might be able to answer this question. I'm not interested enough to contact them, so good luck. -- No account name yet, 23:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Image:Gbvelluti.jpg
Found this on Category:Disputed fair use images. The person portraied died in 1861 so I'm fairly sure it would qualify as {{PD-old}}, however without knowing who the author is or just when it was first published I can't be sure, so I retagged it as {{fairold}} for the time beeing. I removed the disputed tag in the process too (feel free to re-add it if I think that was wrong). Hopefully you guys have better luck than me finding the origins of the picture. --Sherool 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I found that image here. There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page too. EDIT: All that trouble and the source is right on the image page... - Lucky13pjn 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
