Commons:Deletion requests/File:Domenico da Cese.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:Domenico da Cese.png

Ich bezweifle, dass die Person, die das Bild hochgeladen hat, über entsprechende Publikationsrechte verfügt. Sie hat nach eigenen Angaben (!) eine offizielle Fotografie abfotografiert. I repeat in English: I doubt that the person who uploaded the image has the appropriate publication rights. She has photographed by herself (!) an official photograph. And I take out the personal attack of the uploading person against me.Mr. bobby (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

According to my own words, I photographed a prayer card.----Cockamouse (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cockamouse, o.k. Who created the prayer card and who shot the original photography of Domenico da Cese on that prayer card? --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The words are those of Sr. Petra-Maria Steiner of Vita Communis and neither the card nor Sr. Petra-Maria indicated who shot the (old) photography. The uploaded detail of that card is of much poorer quality.--Cockamouse (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by "words" as your upload only shows the portrait. Anyway, then we have a problem. As Domenico da Cese died only in 1978, the original portrait (is it a photography or a painting?) is likely not so old. As copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the artist, we have to assume it is still in copyright. The only thinkable exception could be, if it was painted (if a painting) or shot (if a photography) by another member of the Cappuchins, who might have waived his copyright or given it to the order. But that needs to be proven, which isn't that easy. The same image is used on the cover of a book[1], which should include information about its provenience and rights. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The upload showed "Detail eines Andachtsblättchens mit dem Gebet für die Seligsprechung". "The words" was related to the prayer for the beatification.--Cockamouse (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. May be you could get the required or at least some more information about that image from said Sr. Petra-Maria. --Túrelio (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I shall do that. Moreover, I'll write to an Italian Cappucchin who published about da Cese in order to get some permission from the order of Cappucchins to deal with the aforesaid (or another) picture. Thank you for your efforts --Cockamouse (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: At least Sr. Petra Maria Steiner yesterday wrote to me and permitted the usage both of her prayer card and the detail. Now, how do I prove that? --Cockamouse (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cockamouse, simply copy the text from Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen#Einverständniserklärung_(Rechte-Inhaber) into an email, add the full link to the Domenico image and send it to her, asking to sign/date it and to send it back to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org (OTRS).

However, it's important that, 1) she can issue such a permission/release under a free license only, if she holds the copyright; 2) the permission, which she needs to give, is not a "permission just for Wikipedia" (we can't accept that, per our policy), but a permission for everybody. You need to explain that to her, so that she really knows to what she agrees. If she is not the rights-holder, she can't give such a permission, but may still provide you the information who is the rights-holder. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that.--Cockamouse (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Um das klarzustellen: Die Einverständniserklärung muss von der Fotografin, nicht von Nutzern der Fotografie, sprich den Devotionalienproduzenten, stammen. Nur der Fotograf selber kann diese erteilen. Ist Petra Marias Steiner tatsächlich selber die Fotografin? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 05:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wie bemerkt, es geht um das Detail eines Andachtsblättchens, das von ihr stammt. Dort ist das Bild übrigens in dieser Ausrichtung wiedergeben. Der Fotograf ist womöglich lange verblichen.--Cockamouse (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The photography (if it is one) has likely been shot between 1964 (when Domenico first came to Maopello) and 1978 (death). As copyright lasts for 70 years after death of the photographer, it can't be in the public domain just by age. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nur zur Sicherheit noch mal auf Deutsch: Du musst entweder nachweisen, dass der Fotograf über 70 Jahre tot ist, also vor 1949 gestorben ist, oder dass er es unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht hat (er selber, nicht wer anders dies lediglich behauptet), oder, so er noch lebt, kann er sich auch selber an das OTRS-Team wenden. Die Devotionalienherstellerin hat wahrscheinlich keinerlei Befugnisse diesbezüglich. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the logic has to be turned around. Obviously, the uploader has not the publishing rights. So consequently, the image has to become deleted immidiately. If anyone has a picture and also the publishing rights, then it can be uploaded again. It is simply not allowed and also not true to take a photograph of a photograph and then call it "Eigene Arbeit" (= own work). Mr. bobby (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the wrong attributions about author and license from the file page. I fail to see, why such an obvious an blatant copyvio is not already deleted. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

See above.--Cockamouse (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Deleted: sd, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)