This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
village pump.
The purpose of this featured articles image survey is to better organize the images on our
Wikipedia:Featured articles. This is important to ensure Wikipedia's status as a free content resource (including images) and to comply with criterion #3 of
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
Survey goals
Although our featured articles are generally of quite high quality, image issues have often been neglected in the past. The main goal of this project is to ensure that every featured article has at least one free content image and that none abuse fair use restrictions.
Instructions
Your aim is to make a report on a featured article (any you choose), that you should sign with the date. The report should include the number of images and their free/non-free statuses. Fair use images employed in critical comment should be distinguished from eye candy images, as the latter may be restricted in future. Any potential abuses of copyright or fair use should be reported. Recommendations for possible free images would also be helpful.
It would be a good idea to also leave a brief report at the article's talk page, especially if there are any problems.
All images are verified as public domain. Also, the practice of linking to some external images rather than including them is a good idea, and provides a model for how this might be done in articles with copyright problems.
Chick Bowen 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
All of the photographs are taken by
Giano and properly released (though ideally they should be on Commons rather than here), who also created the floor plan. The two paintings are public domain. The only fair use image is
Image:NT Belton book.gif. These book covers are a problem we have to address project-wide--as usual, the commentary here (and the only commentary is in the caption) is on the book, not the cover.
Chick Bowen 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Only three images. The painting is public domain, the other two claim PD release by
Louisa Brown; there's no indication of copyright one way or the other on her web site, but perhaps
Giano has an e-mail from her?
Chick Bowen 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
All images are public domain or GFDL except
Image:British VE Day.jpg, which is claimed as fair use as a historically important image and illustrates the sentence, "the Palace was the centre of British celebrations, with the King, Queen and the Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, and Princess Margaret appearing on the balcony, with the palace's blacked-out windows behind them, to the cheers from a vast crowd in the Mall." This seems acceptable educational use to me.
Chick Bowen 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
All images are free and on commons except
Image:Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal.jpg. This is a GFDL photograph of a copyrighted statue; see
Image talk:Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal.jpg. The photograph illustrates this sentence: "The eradication of religion could not be accomplished, however, and weekly peace prayers were held in the cathedral beginning in 1983 in front of the Magdeburger Ehrenmal, a sculpture by Ernst Barlach." There is no commentary on the statue itself, and this would probably not be considered fair use according to
WP:FUC. It also contains no fair use rationale. We should consider removing this image.
Chick Bowen 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Article used one fair use image,
Image:Picasso Painter El Greco.jpg, which is used in a side-by-side comparison with a PD painting and the relationship between them is discussed. One other painting,
Image:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg, is tagged as PD-US but not on commons since its painter died in 1973. Was Les Demoiselles d'Avignon really published before 1909 (or in the US before 1923)? All other images are PD.
Andrew Levine 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Quite possibly not. The tagger may have confused publication with creation. I believe the only Picasso works that are public domain are his pre-1923 prints, not paintings.
Chick Bowen 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Thirteen images. Seven are public domain from the U.S. government and its various projects, one PD from Gutenberg, three self-released PDs. Two dual-licensed self-created images.
ShadowHalo 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
8 images. 3 PD (one user created, one US Govt created, one Australia Govt created), 3 GFDL, 1 CC-BY-2.5, 1 CC-BY-SA-2.5. All correctly licensed. --
Ali'i 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)reply
7 images - 3 fair use, 4 public domain. A couple images may be issues - one is largely decorative and another is a screenshot showing an image that would otherwise have to be fair use.
74.13.60.113 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
All film images are PD due to failure to legally assert copyright during original release. Poster is claimed as PD since it has images from the film (would that necessarily be so? I see a derivative work there). Spanish poster is properly claimed as fair use with a sufficient rationale; screenshot from colorized version is fair use since it's copyrighted.
Daniel Case 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Three images and two audio files. A self-released public domain image, two attribution images, two uncopyrightable audio files.
ShadowHalo 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
All free content images, including a couple of nice user-generated maps. Includes one image whose source website (the French foreign ministry, actually) had a copyright tag, but that is clearly PD due to age (from 1866).--
Pharos 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The "e meter" image in the template is GFDL. The "Xenu space plane" is problematic not for its copyright status (clearly free), but for its speculative nature and that its creator apparently made it
"cheesy" on purpose (or perhaps that's a joke). The volcano pic is free and illustrative. The fair use BBC Panorama image (which is not apparently based on any "authentic" image of Xenu) is not used educationally; indeed the program is not discussed at all. The South Park screenshot, by contrast, is justified well by fair use. The two Dianetics book covers have very good fair use justification, as the specific images on their covers are related directly to the Xenu story. The fair use Sea Org logo is also used with its symbolism being commented on. The Hubbard handwriting sample is marked fair use, but is no more educational than would be a simple statement that Xenu writings written in his hand are known.--
Pharos 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The lead image,
Image:Bhumibol AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg clearly violates fair use as a portrait; this is not even an official photo, it's from the Associated Press. Interestingly,
Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg, taken in 1938, has been donated as a GFDL family photo. There is one apparently user-created image of the royal emblem (but the only credit is "from the Thai Wikipedia"), and a fair use government poster commemorating his 60th anniversary of rule. There are three free content-licensed photos of public structures bearing his image (this would fall under
Commons:Freedom of panorama if that applies in Thailand). And there's one supposedly GFDL image of his 60th anniversary celebration taken from a third-party Thai language site that I cannot confirm.--
Pharos 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Three SVG diagrams dual-licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-2.5. Two free use images of individuals, taken from Flickr, uploaded on Commons, and verified. One FU image (
Image:Senna accident.jpg), a screenshot of a television program. Is of a crash during a race, so I don't believe any free image. Has rationale. Everything in this article looks good.↔
NMajdan•
talk 14:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Lot of images in this article and they are all free use (either CC-BY-SA-2.5 or PD). No FU images and no issues.↔
NMajdan•
talk 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Image:3DMonsterMaze.JKGS.tape-cover.jpg is a FU image but has some email and I do not know what they are trying to validate. The image
Image:Malcolm-Evans-NGS98.jpeg states that the copyright holder has released all rights to it, but I wonder if this concept was fully explained to the owner of the image. Overall, 1 GFDL image, 3 game screenshots (no FU rationale), and 1 NoRightsReserved.↔
NMajdan•
talk•
EditorReview 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Two problematic images.
Image:Blankers koen.JPG is up for deletion from Commons since it's just a derivative photo of a copyrighted statue.
Image:Cover FBK bio.jpg is a book cover with no fair-use rationale, and indeed, no possible fair-use rationale since the article's not about the book. Images removed, note left at talk page and article watchlisted. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Contains several fair use images including the team's helmet, jersey, and logo. All the FU images should have rationale for every individual article it is in; none of these images do.
Image:Bears 1924.jpg is listed as PD but is dated 1924 and doesn't indicate the source so whether this is PD is questionable.
Image:Chicago92.gif,
Image:NFLClock-Bears-Large.jpg: no FU rationale at all. Total tally: 8 FU images, 1 questional PD image, 1 GFDL image.↔
NMajdan•
talk 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Had a discussion with the uploader of
Image:Bears 1924.jpg on my
talk page. Apparently, while he is not the originally photographer, he is the owner of the only known copy.↔
NMajdan•
talk 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Image:Koufax2.jpg: FU image of the player during a game. Has rationale but needs to specify which article. As the player is retired and 70+ years old, I believe an FU image of the athlete is permissible.
Image:SandyKoufax1955Card.jpg: An image of the player's 1955
Topps rookie card. No rationale. Also not mention of the card anywhere else in the article so I don't know if this image supports "critical commentary." I believe if this image is to stay, some discussion of it should be necessary.
Image:Dodger 32.png a user-created PD image of the player's number. Summary: No free use image of the player.↔
NMajdan•
talk 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)reply
3 FU logos, 1 FU helmet, 1 GFDL image (of the outside of City Hall during a parade). All FU images need rationale.↔
NMajdan•
talk 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Image:Jim Thorpe olympic.png: Image says copyright has expired due to author's life + 70 years but no verifiable proof. Very possible the author (photographer) is still alive or has not been dead for 70 years (meaning the author died in 1937, 22 years after this photo was taken). Image was published before 1923 so possibly PD in the US.
Image:Jim Thorpe football.png: Possibly same issue.
Image:Jim Thorpe.jpg: Looks good.
Image:Jim Thorpe stamp.png: FU stamp, needs rationale.
Image:WFI.jpg licensed using {{PD-retouched-user}} but no indication of original source to verify PD status.↔
NMajdan•
talk 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The lead (bus bombing) image has been marked PD; implied but not clear that permission may have been granted by email. There are two fair use images of political/militant organizations (the symbolism of one of which is explained in a caption). There are two free content maps which exemplify how to illustrate things without on-scene photos, one very well-done map of incidents of violence, and one electoral map which could be improved graphically.--
Pharos 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply