Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aleksandr D Michajlov.jpg
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.
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD under russian law (regardless of how old photo is) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- You can also delete all the files in this category and this one, because nobody's date of publication is indicated, regardless of the year in which the photographs were taken. This is especially true when considering revolutionaries before 1917.--Carmela Angela (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Carmela Angela, что участница и делает. Уже тысячи файлов на удалении. Lesless (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Lesless я знаю. Это было насмешкою. Это были мои десятки файлов.--Carmela Angela (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The volume of files I nominate for deletion is proportional to the volume of files that do not meet Commons standards.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 you can update the commons license instead of proposing the cancellation. We need to help, because commons licenses are changed.--Carmela Angela (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no way to "update" the Commons licence when there is no evidence that a photo is under ANY licence compatible with Commons. Sadly lots of photos uploaded here are not permitted under Commons licencing rules. We cannot expect Commons to change their licencing policy and allow for fair-use of certain kinds of images just because we can't find publication information. If a photo does not meet the requirements for being on Commons, I will nominate it for deletion. Changing from one incorrect licence to another does absolutely nothing about the underlying problem.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 you can update the commons license instead of proposing the cancellation. We need to help, because commons licenses are changed.--Carmela Angela (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The volume of files I nominate for deletion is proportional to the volume of files that do not meet Commons standards.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. In my opinion the image is free from copyright due to age. Point 1 of the license PD-Russia applies. 70 years from publication is required only for the images, where the author was repressed. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Nope. Like I have tried to tell you many times before, the 70-years-after-the-death-of-author rule only applies to works with KNOWN authors (and published during the lifetime of the author). Works with unknown authors, such as this, are under a completely different set of rules under Russian law, and must be 70 years after publication - no matter how old they are or how likely it is the author is already dead for 70 years. Rules for works by known authors cannot be applied to works by unknown authors, and in turn, works by known authors can't invoke clauses related to copyright about anonomous works to falsely claim a PD status.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 of the license applies, other rules (including publication date) are not needed. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is a work with an unknown author. Point 1 CANNOT be applied to works with unknown authors, which fall under separate rules entirely (based on publication date). The template should specify more clearly that point 1 is for works by known authors only, but unfortunatly it doesn't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. If any of the points in license applies, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 is for known authors whose works were published during their lifetime, which unfortunatly is not specified as clearly as it should be in the licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. If any of the points in license applies, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is a work with an unknown author. Point 1 CANNOT be applied to works with unknown authors, which fall under separate rules entirely (based on publication date). The template should specify more clearly that point 1 is for works by known authors only, but unfortunatly it doesn't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 of the license applies, other rules (including publication date) are not needed. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Nope. Like I have tried to tell you many times before, the 70-years-after-the-death-of-author rule only applies to works with KNOWN authors (and published during the lifetime of the author). Works with unknown authors, such as this, are under a completely different set of rules under Russian law, and must be 70 years after publication - no matter how old they are or how likely it is the author is already dead for 70 years. Rules for works by known authors cannot be applied to works by unknown authors, and in turn, works by known authors can't invoke clauses related to copyright about anonomous works to falsely claim a PD status.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unfortunately, Planespotter used correct arguments regarding PD in Russia. --rubin16 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
