Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Turolla.jpg
This file was initially tagged by Regasterios as no source (No source since) Fæ (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep Terrible tagging. --Fæ (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep: Taken and published (visit card) by Giulio Rossi (Milan, 1824–1884) was an Italian painter and photographer. Free. 1999. évi LXXVI. törvény a szerzői jogról - https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=99900076.TV A védelmi idő 31. § (1) A szerzői jogok a szerző életében és halálától számított hetven éven át részesülnek védelemben. (3) Ha a szerző személye nem állapítható meg, a védelmi idő a mű első nyilvánosságra hozatalát követő év első napjától számított hetven év. Ha azonban ez alatt az idő alatt a szerző jelentkezik, a védelmi időt a (2) bekezdés szerint kell számítani. 32. § A szerző vagyoni jogaihoz igazodó terjedelmű jogi védelem illeti meg azt, aki a védelmi idő vagy a 31. § (7) bekezdésében meghatározott időtartam lejártát követően jogszerűen nyilvánosságra hoz valamely korábban még nyilvánosságra nem hozott művet. E védelem időtartama az első nyilvánosságra hozatalt követő év első napjától számított huszonöt év. --Elekes Andor (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Terrible tagging? I think your DR is terrible. It would be more simple to filling the fields than screwing around on DR. --Regasterios (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- The standard process is to go to DR, unless a source is added. I'm surprised you were unaware of that. Please avoid adding no source templates to images that are this likely to be PD, most end up getting deleted without anyone having a proper look. Yes, terrible tagging is accurate. --Fæ (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Adding source. This is the standard process, I think. Thank you for your sapient words. --Regasterios (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- The date written on the card is December 1883. One need only apply ones eyes to realize that gives an irrefutable terminus ante quem for publication. It does not need a source to be kept, it is the source. The no source template is pointless and puts this obviously public domain image at unnecessary risk of deletion due to unthinking Commons bureaucracy. If you absolutely believe we must have a source, and want to go beyond what is needed for COM:L, then write "look at the image" in the source field. Yes, terrible tagging, and the defense of pointless tagging is unhelpful. --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Adding source. This is the standard process, I think. Thank you for your sapient words. --Regasterios (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep, {{PD-old-70}} beyond a doubt significant enough to waste our time. Admonish Regasterios for a disruptive quibble – there are thousands items of obvious copyvio, and a million where sources are a way more dubious. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Info License updated to {{PD-old-100-1923}} --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep --Texaner (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - most taggings in this series were justified, but 1883 is indeed old enough. Jcb (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
F i g y e l m e z t e t é s: Ez a hozzászólás kizárólag azt a célt szolgálja, hogy a szerzői jogi kérdésről folyó szavazás ügyében tájékoztatást adjon. A szavazatok kizárólag a lenti tájékoztatás szerinti címen adhatók le ! INFOː SZAVAZÁS szerzői jogi kérdésről: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elekes_Andor#%C3%81ll%C3%A1sfoglal%C3%A1s_szerz%C5%91i_jogi_k%C3%A9rd%C3%A9sr%C5%91l --Elekes Andor (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Lots of unsupported assumptions, no thanks. --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: this one is old enough. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
