Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 25 April 27 >

Contents

[edit] April 26

[edit] Image:OslSculp.JPG

Derivative work. The sculpture was created by Kåre Groven in 1989. Kjetil r (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be allowed under freedom of panorama. --Itub (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ggl-gutika.jpg

Wikidās ॐ 12:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Utkalikavallari.jpg

Wikidās ॐ 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SSN Logo.gif

Since it appears to be a logo of the institution,the free documentation license seems inappropriate. — Amog |Talk 13:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoffman_voltameter.jpg

The oxygen molecule needs to be completely expelled from the reaction. Doing such you would use 429 volts and your anode would not be in the water. This does not seem correct to me. However, I could be wrong. My reference is the 2004 Rand/McNally Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, under oxygen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sediwuzexi (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to April 26 to allow for more discussion. Caption in articles not tagged with PUIC -Nv8200p talk 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not enough information to be under the public domain. "There aren't signs of copyright" is not a valid reason. It still copyrighted. "Free downloading" doesn't mean free license for sure. OsamaK 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

- There is no way that this picture is copyrighted. It is a diagram of an electrolysis chamber...and rather a common drawing for those who are explaining how it works. The fact is that somebody drew it in Flash or similar, and put it on wikipedia, for the benefit of the public - and even on the tiny off-change that it 'is' copyrighted, I severely doubt that the people who made it are really going to care that much. If they did, they would contact Wikipedia and get it removed. It doesn't break copyright laws and is beneficial, don't get rid of it. Greenport (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the copyright claim on this is preposterous. my 2 year old could draw something like that. it's just a simple schematic, with no detailed technical information. however it's useful to give the layman a simple sense of what electrolysis roughly consists of. Tomukun (talk 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a generic diagram and cannot be copyrighted by anyone. It should be tagged as public domain Peterlewis (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This type of diagram can certainly be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. The threshold of creativity required for that is extremely low. Tomkun, if your 2 year old can draw something better, please ask him to do it and then upload it with a clear free license! --Itub (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)