This is one of a number of images uploaded by User:Lordprice and sourced to "The Lordprice collection", an online business that sells prints of vintage images. The copyright owner is claimed to be the Lordprice collection, but the artist is not identified, so this is not verifiable. The image "is reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission", but this isn't compatible with the GFDL. Rlandmann (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been happy with the inclusion of this image. To me it seems a subtle form of linkspam. Man with two legs (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of this image on a cigarette card from 1938 which was given away with cigarettes produced by W.D & H.O. Wills. I believe this is the correct source of the colourized version of the image dispayed here. However I have seen many other published photographs in black and white which this image is clearly based on. Those black and white photographs are from the early 19 squadron propaganda photographs taken in August 1938 and are generally marked Crown Copyright. In those images the Spitfire is as shown here but flying over more solid cloud. Careful examination of the cigarette card (and the other 49 in the series) shows the then common habit of colourizing photographs and adding in details that are "missing" - in this case - the town below that the Spitfire is "protecting". The Lordprice collection is almost certainly NOT in a position to give permission to use the image. Crown Copyright - unless re-asserted - has probably lapsed. If this is the case - the image is in the public domain. Graemesmith 00:40, 10th August 2008. (UTC)

I have found a black and white version of the image (The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price, Page 63) and it is credited to Charles Brown copyright RAF Museum which is not in the Public Domain. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well - I'm not in my library of Spitfire books to check your source but I don't doubt it - Charles Brown was a freelance aviation photographer and before WWII was hired - by amongst others - Supermarine - to create promotional material. So it might be HIS photograph to copyright. Depends what rights he sold with the pictures to Supermarine - if they commissioned it. He also shot much for the RAF, and Fleet Air Arm and I'm pretty sure those commissions would have been rights to the Crown and Crown Copyright. (This based on my experience with my father's photography for the Admiralty.) I doubt if it is the RAF museum's to claim COPYRIGHT - that would rest with Supermarine or the Crown. But I don't doubt the museum was probably Alfred Price's SOURCE of his image. Whatever - and for sure - it is NOT for Lordprice to release. I'll ask the archivist at the RAF Museum on what basis they make their claim. Graemesmith 12:03, 19th August 2008. (UTC)

I dont have a reference but I am sure the Charles Brown collection was donated to the RAF Museum which is why they claim copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of email received today from the photo archivist at the RAF Museum:

-

Dear Sir

Thank you for your e-mail.

The photograph in question is a tinted version of 5784-6 from the Charles Brown Collection. The Charles Brown Collection together with copyright was purchased from the photographer in 1980. Charles Brown retained copyright in almost all his work; only on rare occasions did he transfer copyright. Normally copyright would pass to the person commissioning the work but Charles Brown, by virtue of his reputation, was able insist on retention of copyright. Usually he allowed the manufacturer unlimited reproduction rights to use the images for the publicity of their products. In addition the photograph is not Crown Copyright per se despite its purchase by the Crown. The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 as amended defines Crown Copyright as:

163 Crown copyright

(1) Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties—

(a) the work qualifies for copyright protection notwithstanding section 153(1) (ordinary requirement as to qualification for copyright protection), and

(b) Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work.

As a result of changes to copyright legislation the protection has increased, not decreased, and is now 70 years post mortem; Charles Brown died in 1982 and thus the image is protected until 2052.

I hope that clarifies our position regarding the copyright of the Spitfire photograph.

Yours faithfully Andrew Renwick Curator of Photographs Royal Air Force Museum London

-

I've replied to ask for a low rez release of this iconic image. Otherwise this is a candidate for delete (sad but correct). Graemesmith 00:22, 20th August 2008. (UTC)

uploader is not the owner of the character Jean Grey, or of any derivitive works, Marvel (comics) is. Image is also orphaned. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uploader unlikely to be copyright holder -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Collage of images, not likely that the user owns the images, also low quality on the images. Delete under WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uploader unlikely to be copyright holder as claimed --Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eivind,

It's Kevin Paul, the designer and owner of the Stavanger City Map. Please let me know why you dispute my ownership.

Pleae check the following page: http://www.stavanger-guide.com/stavanger_city_map_png.htm

Thanking you in the meantime.

Best wishes, Kevin Paul

Stavanger Guide --Kevinpaulscarrott (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was familiar with the map, and have seen the same map online with a rather more restrictive license; "No part of this map may be reproduced without the permission of ...." and I thougth it unlikely that the same copyright-holder would release the same map to the public domain. I was thinking more likely some random tourist scanned the map and uploaded it.

I see now that I was mistaken. My apologies. I've removed the pui-tag and have no further objections to the use of the image, indeed I am -deligthed- that we're lucky enough to have clueful and skilled cartographers among us. --Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eivind, totally agree with you on the integrity and quality part of Wikipedia. I will be designing a series of mapping material for release on Wikipedia Commons. --Kevinpaulscarrott (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a stamp and identifies a web source, but that web source seems no longer live. Was listed at WP:CP, but as I am unable to verify infringement, I'm bringing it here instead. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's faily obvious that this image is in fact not public domain, listing here mostly because I'm unsure wether or not it could be used under a non-free user rationale instead. It would depend on wether or not this car toy can be consideted a copyrighted work or not. If it is we can't create a free photo of it since they would be considered derivatives, though Commons:Derivative works seems to say that "industrial design" (such as a car) are generaly not copyrightable, so not sure how that would apply to car toys... If the toy design itself is not copyrightable then anyone with one of these could take a photo of it and thus this image would be "replacable" per WP:NONFREE. Sherool (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 30#Image:SFP1-1.JPG. OsamaK 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page given as source only say "All Rights Reserved © 2004-2006 Cleveland FES Center", doesn't seem to suppor the public domain tag unless the uploader holder have other information not provided here. Sherool (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No clear source. Looks copied from somewhere. OsamaK 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the uploader creation. OsamaK 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyright violation, which goes under WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the uploader creation. OsamaK 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyright violation, which goes under WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the uploader creation. OsamaK 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyright violation, which goes under WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the summary: "licensed for promotional purposes". OsamaK 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email distributed by a "Moving Virginia Forward" PAC mailing list. PACs are not federal government agencies, so it is not clear that this is PD. The office of Governor Kaine also objected to having this image on Wikipedia for security reasons. Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you even copyright a signature? It seems like it would be ((PD-ineligible)) unless I'm mistaken. I don't know if there is a sufficient level of creative intent. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted design, no other items in the photo. OsamaK 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SR-FTG-Cherry.jpg. OsamaK 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the uploader creation. Looks taken from somewhere. OsamaK 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyright violation, which goes under WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As written in the summary, It is a screenshot of a film. Orphaned. OsamaK 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SVHS2005.jpg. OsamaK 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same of #Image:SVHS2005.jpg. OsamaK 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot on Mac includes Safari window and Google logo OsamaK 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be self-licensed; Copyrighted logo; Orphaned. OsamaK 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Available in many other web sites. See this as an exmple. OsamaK 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyright violation, see WP:CSD#I9. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the uploader creation; Looks taken from somewhere else. OsamaK 22:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another version of #Image:Sairam iyer1.jpg. OsamaK 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as public domain, but the uploader states that it was taken from the front cover of her book, so unless there are some release agreement we are not aware of here it seems unlikely that the photo is in fact PD. Sherool (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the photograph is correctly licensed, the intent of the photograph is to show a copyrighted work. Freedom of panorama would not apply, since the banner is a temporary work and the primary focus of the photograph Mosmof (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn, fair use rationale given. --Mosmof (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with the ridiculous copyright paranoia that follows this image around? Northern Rock currently has debts of billions of pounds, I am amazed they haven't picked up on the goldmine that suing the people who photographed it and hosted all over the web that this image must be, if the sheer terror it induces on wikipedia everytime another person who has found it uploads it (and it's come from a free content site this time too!) is anything to go by. Although, I think you could defend yourself under entrapment, considering they printed it on a fifty foot high banner in the middle of a city, devious fiends that they are. It is almost as absurd as SCO v Linux. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entertaining as always. Thanks for the chuckles again. --Mosmof (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what happens if an explicit release from the copyright holder is obtained? Would you then drop the pretense that this continual exercise is anything but pure paranoia? MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't a case of copyright paranoia, which you keep repeating again and again and again (which doesn't make it true, by the way), but rather, textbook case of derivative work. I'm not paranoid if there's a clear cut policy. But sure, if the copyright holder sends an email to the Wikipedia Foundation and releases the image to the public domain, I would withdraw the PUI nomination. But here's where it gets complicated - the banner is itself a derivative work of the photograph of Shearer, and since the copyright for the photo most likely still belongs to the photographer or the news agency that originally published it, I doubt Northern Rock or NUFC has the right to release the image to public domain. --Mosmof (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would wager it came from a pic by the official club photographer. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mick here, it smacks of copyright paranoia, it would never be in the interest of NUFC to sue for this, if it even is an infringement. This isn't an attack on you Mosmof, I realise you are trying to abide by the rules, but it's very irritating. - Toon⁰⁵ 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the image is perfectly fine tagged as fair use, since the banner is notable enough to be mentioned in several news articles: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060423/ai_n16212474. Would anyone object if I did that? --Mosmof (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fantastic Mosmof, nice work with your in-depth copyright policy knowledge and all that. - Toon⁰⁵ 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale might read a bit awkward, but it's done. --Mosmof (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]