Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 September 2



Image:Kk5.JPG
From (at which this image has existed since 2002). No evidence that the uploader is the creator of this image or the source website. --- RockMFR 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kk6.JPG
From (at which this image has existed since 2002). No evidence that the uploader is the creator of this image or the source website. --- RockMFR 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kk10.JPG
From (at which this image has existed since 2002). No evidence that the uploader is the creator of this image or the source website. --- RockMFR 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshDean.jpg
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replaced with © license. CApitol3 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * fair use disputed. Calliopejen1 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshPaine.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replaced with © license. CApitol3 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the picture was painted in the 19th century so there is no copyright issue Mickmaguire 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * looks like a keeper to me - this would have been painted between 1841 and 1843. Calliopejen1 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshDeanDavis.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replaced with © license. CApitol3 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshAiken.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replaced with © license. CApitol3 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VersaillesTreatyDetail.jpg
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The information page includes a link to the U.S. National Gallery website. Both the painting (commissioned by the U.S. Department of State) and the photograph of the painting (I do not claim to have photographed the painting) which was taken by an employee of the National Portrait Gallery, are works of the U.S. government, as the license I chose indictes.CApitol3 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshCharlesBell.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the picture was painted around 1906 so there is no copyright issue Mickmaguire 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and agreed with Mickmaguire. -kotra 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Second opinion needed: we have no proof of publication. Is it ok to assume it was published before 1923 because it was his official portrait? Calliopejen1 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VshJosiahGrout.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the picture was painted in the 19th century so there is no copyright issue Mickmaguire 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and agreed with Mickmaguire. -kotra 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Second opinion needed: Painting was made between 1906 and 1908, but we have no proof of publication. Is it ok to assume it was published before 1923 because it was his official portrait? Calliopejen1 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:VSHClement2.JPG
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the picture was painted in 1921 for the state government so there is likely no copyright issue Mickmaguire 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Second opinion needed: Painting was made between 1919 and 1921, but we have no proof of publication. Is it ok to assume it was published before 1923 because it was his official portrait? Calliopejen1 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ArmandoDiazCapo.jpg
Appears to be a copyvio After Midnight 0001 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is scanned from an undated carte de visiste (CDV) in a personal collection. CDVs were popular from the 1860s until early twentieth century. The CDV has the title "Capo di Stato Majiore dell 'Esercito," an office he held until 1924. Subject died in 1928. The car is likely pre-1925. Please share why. Thanks. CApitol3 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it has to be before 1923, which we have no proof of. Calliopejen1 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ABYvhs.jpg
The fact that this user took a picture of a picture does not allow him to release his picture as PD. After Midnight 0001 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the picture was painted in the 19th century so there is no copyright issue Mickmaguire 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No proof of publication, but I owuld keep it because the subject died in 1874, and you would think the picture would have been published within 50 years of being painted. Second thoughts? Calliopejen1 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dw13.jpg
Obvious publicity photo, no evidence that the uploader holds copyright. — PC78 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)