Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front cover Organic Chemistry.jpg
I guess this is a copyright violation. Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably ok, but uploader should indicate sources for the component images in his collage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What makes you think it's a copyvio? As far as I understand it it's the cover of this wikibook. --NEURO ⇌ 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I confirm this image is the front cover of this wikibook, created by rearranging images coming from wikipedia. Please let me know if I have to edit some parts of its description to make it clear there is no copiright violation whatsoever. Laghi.l (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which images did you take from commons? (add source on image page) --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Not indicationg the sources is a clear copyright violation. But who cares? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is a copyright violation only when the license (or the law) requires attribution. The source of the flamingo image is File:Flamingo02 960.jpg, which has a CC-by-sa license. Uploader does not seem to be interested in correcting deficiences, so
Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)- Question What about re-creating the file page using derivativeFX? --Leyo 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- But there may be very well be a similar problem with the flower. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- This means to make a DR for File:Calendula Officinalis fax01.JPG? --Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I had not noticed that Cwbm had traced the sources and added the to the description; thanks to his work this can be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- This means to make a DR for File:Calendula Officinalis fax01.JPG? --Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- But there may be very well be a similar problem with the flower. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Question What about re-creating the file page using derivativeFX? --Leyo 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I was asked what I think now. I originally requested deletion because I thought the image was copied from somewhere. If you take licensing seriously this piece of artwork is still a copyright violation because the licenses of the images used in it require the authors to be named. This can be easily done but that's the responsibility of the uploader. I'm also not sure if you can license a picture under FAL for example if the original images were not licensed that way.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, but remove the FAL and GFDL licenses as they are not valid. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I fixed the attribution and license, everything should be correct, now. (Check the page, let me know if you have any comments.) Mormegil (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)