Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carloslatuff.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Copyvio tag reverted by User:Liftarn with "A blog entry is not a reason. Please explain.". Ok. I tried to explain it. Getting reverted by User:Pieter Kuiper via "reuse does not make this a copyvio; make a regular DR if you disagree". Somebody checked the indicated source "http://latuff2.deviantart.com/" ("©2011 deviantART. All rights reserved")? No related image. So, what I am supposed to do? {{subst:npd}} for a source which is apparently not the source? If so, please tag the image like that. Or do I have to browse the 100.000 files under this link to eventually find exactly the image reference for a copyvio tag? Come on. Last mark was: "copyvio (example) http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/a-surprising-source/?nggpage=9 (2009) or http://www.haksozhaber.net/devrimci-cizer-carlos-latuff-ile-konustuk-18819h.htm (01.2011, "Copyright ©2001 Haksöz Haber") or http://cpds.ps/eng/news-det-383.html (02.08.2011) or http://affendina.blogspot.com/2009/04/carlos-latuff.html (2009) or...", involving multiple, unknown copyright issues. Gunnex (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment the reference to copyright claims on http://www.haksozhaber.net/ etcetera does not explain anything, it certainly does not apply to this photo; that is why I removed the copyvio template, which is for obvious cases only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Latuff generally releases much of his work under Creative Commons, and the images so licensed generally have their own pages with the license clearly stated. I did not see this particular photo in a minute looking around the site; it would help if the uploader would link to the particular page where the photo originated rather than the front page of Latuff's site. I note that this photo is in use in multiple Wikimedia projects. I also note that the site has multiple other photos of Latuff with clearly stated Creative Commons licenses. I therefore suggest that if this image is to be deleted, one of the different free licensed photos of Latuff be substituted in Wikipedia pages first. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment "I also note that the site has multiple other photos of Latuff with clearly stated Creative Commons licenses" (User:Infrogmation) --> I noticed this too. But these images are related to his own created art which were liberated via User:555/Latuff and/or several OTRS-tickets. "it would help if the uploader would link to the particular page" (User:Infrogmation) --> I informed the user about that issue. Gunnex (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The provided source is not reliable enough to determine copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. Uploader is not trustworthy, eg. File:Vfudge.jpg, which is a 1970 photo by Michael Ochs. Thuresson (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]