Commons:Deletion requests/File:DR 99 151.png

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.

File:DR 99 151.png

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 book published in 1995. 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. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Deutsches Lok-Archiv. Dampflokomotiven", Transpress, Berlin, 1995, ISBN 3-344-70903-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Die Lokomotive ist 1935 ausgemustert worden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The date the photo was taken in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Dann hat der Veröffentlicher ein gemeinfreies Foto verwendet. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete There is no evidence that the image is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep If you presented evidence that these images were never made public prior to their republication in a book, and were stored as negatives in an archive, unseen by anyone but the creator, I would agree with you. This should have been handled as a test case with a single image, before nominating all individually. --RAN (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Complete lack of understanding of the rules. It has been clearly indicated that in all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Therefore, there is no evidence to claim that the image is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Please check a seperate discussion with an administrator's comment about this photo. NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Reaching out to an unknown author of an image requires proof of first publication as the beginning of the term of protection. Assumptions are not enough. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

wir sollen nicht mehrfach  Keep bzw.  Delete hintereinander verwenden. Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um die 1930er Jahre entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 KeepI think that this photo is part of a set of some 10-25 repros (i.e. not prints) of a formal photo that were sold to interested parties such as the manufacturer and owner of the locomotive and which was then stored in an archive to reproduce it again, if further repros were needed. Thus, the date of publication is not the time, when it was first printed, but it is the date, when the first repros were circulated. In this time, the photographer earned his money by selling prints and not by exploiting his copyrights, unless he explicitely mentioned "Reproduktion verboten" on the back of the print. Please keep.

No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. --Uoijm77 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date 1995. --Wdwd (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)