I would assume it was created by User:Peeb and implicitly licensed under the GFDL, by default. --MarkSweep 07:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ahhh I was having a discussion on IRC about the image tagging project last night and some people just about screamed when they found out that we had been tagging user created and uploaded images as GFDL. It turns out that the bit say "I agree to release under GFDL" has only been there for a couple of months so before that people haven't actually agreed to release they're images under GFDL. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 08:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The image upload page didn't use to explicitly say that you agreed to release it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright (although it has for about a year now), but Wikipedia has, since the beginning, been a GFDL project. I believe every page has always said at the bottom: "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License." The image upload page now makes it more explicit, which is nice, but every contribution has always been licensed under GFDL, whether image or text. People may scream, but they should have read the fine print. – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 14:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
So the question remains: Did Peeb take the photo himself, or did he swipe it from a restaurant's web site? – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 14:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Looks more like a home-cooked image to me, compared with the Dim Sum photo below. Judging from the reflections and shadows, it was lit by a single flash from above, possibly on camera. By contrast, the dim sum pic is a poorly cropped version of something created in a studio, lit obliquely from behind by a large softbox, plus some secondary filler from the front. That doesn't prove anything, but I think it's possible and even likely that User:Peeb uploaded self-made pictures to go along with his or her other edits. --MarkSweep 22:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It may be instructive to veiw the only two other images the user uploaded: Image:1085181759 lg.jpg and Image:Thai eggplant.jpg. They're all Thai-food-related. If one is a copyvio, then all three probably are, and if one is homemade, then all three are. – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 22:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
A cropped version of the eggplant picture is at [[1]] Of course it is possible that the amazon merchant is using (under fair use) the wikipedia shot and this can't be the orginal source, but there is prima facie case for the eggplant pic being listed for deletion. The other two I think are gfdl, (note also the digicam generated file names) but we shall not know for sure. If we are being careful, they too should be deleted/recreated. Question: Does the wikipedia software preserve exif data? — Zeimusu | Talk 00:16, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
That's actually not a crop. It's very, very similar, but it's a different picture entirely. Look close. (It fooled me for a minute as well.) – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 00:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
You are right! But though the images differ, it is the same fruit in both pictures, taken at the same shoot. Anyway, the eggplant picture is probably unfree. That and the curry pictures could be retaken by anyone with access to a Thai market. — Zeimusu | Talk
I still maintain that Image:1085112297 lg.jpg and Image:1085181759 lg.jpg were most likely created by the uploader: both feature a similar background and style, both were uploaded on 2004-06-22, and if you interpret 1085181759 as the number of seconds since the beginning of the Unix epoch, you can convert it to 2004-05-21 (function localtime() from <time.h> in C99) plus or minus a few hours. These two filenames seem to point to a digital camera as the source. --MarkSweep 07:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
