Commons talk:Bad sources

discussion from village pump

Up to now there are already some websites known that contain apparently "licence free" images which are actually not in conformity with neither GNU-FDL nor public domain. Examples are www.fotodatenbank.com (doesn´t allow downloading etc.), pixelquelle.de (fairish discussion on de.) or stock.xchng (in some cases). I think many users don´t know much about licensing and often misinterpret declarations like "without any licence", "free of licence" or so on. So should be provide an extra list according to Commons:Public domain image resources to prevent further misunderstandings? --:Bdk: 01:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have added a new page at commons:bad sources for theese. Plugwash 02:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this page :-) --:Bdk: 04:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

where should this page be linked from?

We really need to put this somewhere it will be seen BEFORE people upload images from theese sites. Any idea where? Plugwash 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

stock.xchng

I have removed the remarks about Stock.xchng because they were written before the recent vote on this topic, and are now contradicting the official policy. I am leaving the site on the list, however, because apparently a minority of users still would prefer no images from this source to be uploaded. regards, High on a tree 09:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Freesound Project

It isn't - en:The_Freesound_Project is under a creative commons sampling license which is non free by our standards. Can we add or is it too obscure? Secretlondon 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vector-Images.com

Even though their about pages states

"Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. Please read also our Terms of use."

Their term of use states:

"1.1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, "Licensed Material" shall mean any illustration, visual representation or other product protected by copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights, which is delivered in any format to Licensee by Licensor under the terms of this Agreement."

I believe that clause overrules what they state on their about page, as it would imply the raster images as well are subject to the term of use. _→AzaToth 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

www.publico.es

www.publico.es actually uses cc-by-NC-sa license, wich is not equal to cc-by-sa, and it is not admitted on commons. Lobo (howl?) 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting National Portrait Gallery images from Commons

Please join the discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

radswiki.net

On Commons talk:Patient images the question has come up re whether any image from radswiki.net is usable. Please take a look here and tell us what you think. --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Radswiki. The conclusion is: images uploaded to Radswiki before June 25, 2009 are okay; those uploaded after are not. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see proposal at When to use the PD-Art tag

Please see the proposal at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#My Modest Compromise Proposal as it would affect the contents of this page. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

World Stadiums

The World Stadiums site (http://www.worldstadiums.com/) claims to host free photos of football (soccer) stadiums around the world.[1] However, investigations will show that it is a indiscriminate host of copyright violations. They have taken André Zahn's CC by 2.0 Image:Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg here on Commons, and used it Slapping their watermark on it, they did not bother to mention anywhere that Zahn was the original author. Furthermore, they should have released their modified image under a similar CC license but nowhere do their policies or actions come to that effect. This goes against the CC by 2.0 license Zahn has made the image available for use. Further examples of blatant copyright violation can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arlington Stadium WS.jpg.

Submission suggestion

It would appear that livius.org should go on here. See [2] and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Feb#Licenses_for_pictures_from_livius.org Stifle (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Facebook

Hello!

There are some images on Commons whose source is "Facebook". Can "Facebook" be categorized as a bad source as well? Opinions? --High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Images sourced to "Facebook" and nothing else should be tagged {{subst:nsd}}. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable image + Question

I have reservations about the image w:File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg. Is there any way to tell if it is simply a colour-removed version of a file that has obvious copyright problems? I suspect the source is w:File:Malik Amb.jpg.

Is there anyone skilled enough [a "regular image cleanupper" maybe?] to make such an evaluation ?

I would also like to ask the overall Question, What are the rules about using images that appear in w:Broadsheets & newspapers? Exit2DOS2000 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands Ministry of Defence

Due deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uruzgan FM - Hanneke Eilander.jpg I have contacted the public information officer of the website. They first let me know the photo's can be used (with attribution). To be extra sure I recontacted the information officer if this also apply's for commercial uses. The person has contacted the Ministry of Defence and stated that also commercial use is allowed.

The text in dutch;

Hieronder volgt een reactie op uw e-mail, waarin u vraagt of de foto's op de website van Defensie zijn
vrijgegeven voor commercieel gebruik mits met vermelding van de bron. 
 
Naar aanleiding van uw e-mail hebben wij contact opgenomen met het ministerie van Defensie. Zoals in ons
eerdere antwoord aangegeven wordt het auteursrecht op de website door het ministerie van Defensie 
voorbehouden. Onder voorwaarde dat de bron vermeld wordt, mogen onderdelen van de inhoud van de website 
(inclusief foto's) worden overgenomen. Dit geldt, voor wat betreft de website, voor commerciële en 
niet-commerciële instellingen.  
Wij vertrouwen erop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd.

The (translated) text in english;

Below is a response to your e-mail, which you asked whether the pictures on the website of Defense
released for commercial use provided that the source is mentioned.
 
Following your email, we have contacted the Ministry of Defence. As in our previous answer stated,
the copyright on the website by the Ministry of Defence reserved. Provided that the source is,
of parts of the contents of the website (Including photographs) may be taken. 
This applies, in relation to the website, for commercial and non-commercial institutions.
We trust you enough to have informed.

Can somebody help me with the next steps ? OTRS ?

See also;

Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works)

Commons:Bad_sources#Netherlands_Ministry_of_Defence

Huhbakker (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See OTRS #2010081110012531 for more information Huhbakker (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Files are allowed, see Template:Mindef. BR Huhbakker (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Freesound 2.0

Should we remove Freesound from the list of bad sources? They have completely redone their website, and along with that, their copyright policy. They are making a large move to more permissive licenses. Should we remove the website, or change the entry, warning people to check the license before uploading?

20minutos.es

I moved this section from Bas sources to Problematic sources.

They've content under 3 rules:

1. external content -> regular copyright, don't upload here
2. their content -> CC-BY-SA 3.0, you can upload
3. their caricatures -> -NC, don't upload here.

This is not rocket science to check if it's external content or not. "AFP" external, "20 minutos redacion" their.

Are you aware we routinely handle far more complicated situations in freedom for panorama or for the US older content's public domain dates calculation (see this grid for example)? We also already handle complicated sources, like Flickr, and have well tested and functional review processes. --Dereckson (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that they have a lot of content from EFE and other agency without credit or with credit "Archivo". Or that they claim "Foto: 20minutos.es" on screenshots, or that they claim credit for promo photos distributed by television broadcaster which 20minutos obviously not created. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, we need some review template to allow experienced contributors to distinguish 20minutos own content from external content? --Dereckson (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not so simple to distinguish. The source claims authorship and it requires much searching - or access to the EFE database for example - to find out that this is untrue. Another example is that the take two photos of tv celebrities, cobine them to a montage and claim authorship on the whole thing. Thats wrong, but it is very difficult to prove. Also the negative list at In sum: They claim to be a free content publication but they not do their job right and lable things incorrect. This source is simply not trustworthy. The only improvement I saw in the past is the adding of "..." to the negative listing at http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/, this makes clear that the unfree content is all content provided by agencies and all content created by external photographers. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

World Stadiums contradiction

At Commons:Bad_sources#World_Stadiums, the second sentence reads:

It also does explicitly allow free modifications of the image, which supposedly means no one can remove their watermark.

This seems to be self-contradictory. If modifications are allowed, then one may remove their watermark. If modifications are not allowed, one may not remove their watermark. AlanM1 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit: What is the correct formatting?

A very minor issue, but some of the entries' text are indented once, while others are not. This could confuse newcomers, as indention is intended to convey a system of hierarchy. "The exception proves the rule", therefore a user could mistakenly deduce that there are two tiers of hierarchy for the descriptions. Should all of the text in the list appear indented after the heading, or none?
The indenting offers a small ease to reading as it further divides the headings from the descriptions, and I see no clear harm with it, so I'm going to indent all of the descriptions once. You may roll back this edit in case it was a bad idea. ~ Nelg (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

more

IMO, ImageShack (though rarely provided as a direct source) and Facebook should be added to the list. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

coveralia.com

On the first look http://www.coveralia.com/ seems to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (which is on a 2nd look most unlikely, seeing all the album covers & related stuff). Their disclaimer http://www.coveralia.com/aviso-legal.php is quite hidden on the page and clarifies that only text contribuitions are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ("Todos los contenidos textuales incluidos en Coveralia (noticias, lanzamientos, listados y otras secciones) están sujetos a la licencia "Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 3.0 Genérica" salvo que se indique lo contrario."). As Commons already had some related DRs and discussions (see link search), it might be reasonable to mention this here (or do we have a better place for this info?). Gunnex (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Morguefile

The entry about Morguefile, added in 2014, was based on an incorrect understanding of their license. During discussions of the correct version on Village pump and on Copiright forum, no objections arised, so, I corrected the entry on the basis of license of this resource and communication with its administrator. Stas (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Flags of the World

However, Jaume Ollé gave permission to use flag images he uploaded to that site here (User:ALE!/Flags). - AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated, maybe it sticks. Be..anyone (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rolando a Bola

I don't know if the websites can be added straight on the list or a discussion is needeed here. Anyway, this website is clear case of COM:LL. They are, literally, "stealing" texts and images from other websites and publishing under a, so-called, "CC BY-SA 4.0" license. Here a case: This article and image were published at the en:Lance! (a respected media outlet covering sports in Brazil) on May 15, 2019. On May 16, 2019, "Rolando a Bola" published it under a "CC BY-SA 4.0" license. Another example is found here. The original article (published by respected media outled "en:Globo Esporte") and then their version of the article published under a "CC BY-SA 4.0" license. It seems that all their published texts and images are stollen from other sources.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

More bad sources

Can these sources be added to the list? Or is there a procedure so that I can do it myself?

• Freepik,
• Flaticon
• Storyset

At first sight uploading on Commons seems to be OK: the sites mention "Free license", "Attribution is required", "allowed for use on commercial and personal projects, for an unlimited number of times and without any time limits, anywhere of the world". But that is misleading. It turns out that in the Terms of use "commercial" and "use" are very severely restricted, not OK for Commons. See also Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/09#Is_pngrepo.com_credible and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/02#Freepik_images. JopkeB (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)