Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 2	October 4 >

1 October 3

[edit] October 3

[edit] Image:Herzberg.gif

Image from copyrighted site http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1971/ PD license is not correct Margoz 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Max_G_and_Floyd_W.jpg

not clear what exactly the release is doing - it says "used with permission," "under wikipedia's license agreement," and "public domain" - very confusing Calliopejen1 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sanquhar_Locator.png

According to description, work is derivative of copyrighted clip art. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Verso250.gif

Image has copyright watermark. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright watermark, I added the text to the animation because one reference [1] said copyrighted and another did not [2]. This occurred when I first came to Wikipedia and didn't even know the rules and since it was for my own discussion, I just forgot it, although I did make three versions, but it really had no purpose. My original text mark was to acknowledge source, but thinking how could an 1800 year old document be copyrighted if the photographer is not identified. Many would view it as a gift from God. Since you raised the question, now it does fit into the article Aletheia added months after I arrived. Resurrecting the truth (the exact wording in the body of the article) according to Heidegger's analysis is illustrated by completing the word's etymological source from pieces of the same fragment. The new version uploaded illustrates this perfectly. I feel the verso should get the same consideration as the recto side which is also up for deletion on Commons. The question of copyright stands and I will follow your example and try to ask Rylands Library's permission for such unique derivative works of art. - Athrash | ^Talk 04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This could take a while, Commons discussion hung up on technicalities. - Athrash | ^Talk 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HelenWillsMemorial.jpg

Photo of 2D art. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Barone_Hoboken07.jpg

Image is credited to a photographer, not the uploader, and there is no evidence of the purported license. But|seriously|folks 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pjbmp2avi.jpg

Copyrighted software screenshot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tree planting.gif

This image appears to be a copyrighted one. Martial BACQUET 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cars.gif

[edit] Image:Cotigao.jpg

Appears to be scan of copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:E_H_Roth_at_work_1924.jpg

1924 publication date. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FPWA_Building_2.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tahiti8.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Natpressphoto.jpg

No indication that uploader took this photo. Uploader claims to be working with the subject's estate. But|seriously|folks 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dan Keating.jpg

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)