Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Konskowola ghetto
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no evidence that the author of any of these photos died over 70 years ago- there isn't even any author information. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The photographs might qualify for {{Anonymous-EU}}. The source is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum where more information might be found, but links given did not work for me. MKFI (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Possible, but that does assume that they were published straight away. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep given as "courtesy Instytut Pamieci Narodowej". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- And why does the copyright belong to them? And where's your evidence that they were? J Milburn (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- These photos should be {{PD-Polish}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you have any evidence of early publication which lacks a copyright notice. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- These photos should be {{PD-Polish}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- And why does the copyright belong to them? And where's your evidence that they were? J Milburn (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{Anonymous-EU}}. I hardly think we would see a DMCA takedown notice for these anytime soon. Wknight94 talk 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence of when these were first published? And we don't assume content is public domain just because we think we're unlikely to get into legal trouble... J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us do. Deleting apparently anonymous photographs from the 1930s seems awfully paranoid. Wknight94 talk 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- And just assuming content is public domain until someone threatens legal action seems awfully lazy. Would a featured article contain images licensed so sloppily? It wouldn't have a chance of passing. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us do. Deleting apparently anonymous photographs from the 1930s seems awfully paranoid. Wknight94 talk 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence of when these were first published? And we don't assume content is public domain just because we think we're unlikely to get into legal trouble... J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm taking this off my watchlist, as this nonsense really blows my mind. Anyway, I hope, whichever way this is closed, the closing administrator reviews this on whether these images have been demonstrated to be in the public domain (in both Poland and the US...), not on whether it would be nice to keep them or whether they think we're going to get sued. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Featured page argument is weak at best. Quick scan for sloppy images on featured pages: w:File:Austrianbattleship Radetzky.jpg (not even clear enough to be transferred here), File:Tiger O'Reilly.jpg (no author, no information on publish date), File:Witold Pilecki 1.JPG (I can't tell if this was from a Polish photographer or if there was a copyright mark on it). I even nominated File:Norodom palace.jpg for deletion. Wknight94 talk 20:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, without author and/or date and country of first publication, it is impossible to confirm that these images are in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)