Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carrière Kaolin Les Echassières 02.jpg
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. In many cases, the uploader adds a fictitious date of creation of the photo, which is not confirmed in the linked source pages. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 5.173.116.176 12:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- What is all this verbiage? An old photo like this is not subject to speedy deletion! The point is, this is an old photo that might or might not be public domain. The context at https://www.domainedeskaolins.com/le-domaine-des-kaolins suggests that this is a late 19th-century photo: <<Jusqu’à la fin du 19ème siècle, notre Domaine était le site d’une ancienne carrière servant à extraire le kaolin.>> That might not be sufficient proof, and if it is indeed a 19th-century photo, it's really well-preserved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per the others. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
