Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 3



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)

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)

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

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 said copyrighted and another did not . 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. &#45; Athrash | T a l k 04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This could take a while, Commons discussion hung up on technicalities. &#45; Athrash | T a l k 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Image:Pjbmp2avi.jpg
Copyrighted software screenshot. Videmus Omnia Talk  12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Cars.gif
copyright infringement Martial BACQUET 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:E_H_Roth_at_work_1924.jpg
1924 publication date. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:FPWA_Building_2.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tahiti8.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Image:Dan Keating.jpg
From who claims "Copyright © 2007. Irish Life and Lore. All Rights Reserved." — Thuresson 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)