Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hendrick Lucifer.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
no source - cannot verify copyright status Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is scanned from an old book by a friend of mine, the book was published in the 18th century. The image therefore falls under the public domain, since there is nobody alive who can put a claim on it. Images of which the author died 80+ years ago may be used in the US, that much I know. Now I cannot say for certain when exactly the author died, but since he made the image over 200 years ago, it is impossible he is still alive, or was still alive 80 years ago. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since you lied about the source of the other two images you uploaded, I have zero faith in any assertions you make here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was an illustration in the book "den Frieschen Zeeheld" by M. van der Duin (d. 1931). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- The title and author get zero Google hits. Considering you claimed that you took images originally published in Italian Vogue and on an image wire site, count me unconvinced until I'm able to see the original publication with my own eyes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does in fact excist, and a simple google search would have given you at least this result right here: [1] Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- You misspelled the title, which is why I couldn't find it in Google. Anyways, a source I cannot see is as good as no source, when it is uploaded by someone who lies about images. And that book is from 1932, so it wouldn't even probably be public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is when you consider the image was not made specifically for the book but rather they used historical images from contemporary sources to illustrate it. And a source is a source. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Except this does not look like something that is two centuries old, and you have not cited the author or date of this image in any event. Anyways, I think you are just trolling me, so this is my last comment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trolling you? Now you're just being silly. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Except this does not look like something that is two centuries old, and you have not cited the author or date of this image in any event. Anyways, I think you are just trolling me, so this is my last comment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is when you consider the image was not made specifically for the book but rather they used historical images from contemporary sources to illustrate it. And a source is a source. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- You misspelled the title, which is why I couldn't find it in Google. Anyways, a source I cannot see is as good as no source, when it is uploaded by someone who lies about images. And that book is from 1932, so it wouldn't even probably be public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does in fact excist, and a simple google search would have given you at least this result right here: [1] Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The title and author get zero Google hits. Considering you claimed that you took images originally published in Italian Vogue and on an image wire site, count me unconvinced until I'm able to see the original publication with my own eyes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was an illustration in the book "den Frieschen Zeeheld" by M. van der Duin (d. 1931). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since you lied about the source of the other two images you uploaded, I have zero faith in any assertions you make here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Given the questionable source of this image and the fact that the uploader has lied about the source of at least two other uploads, I am applying the Precautionary Principle here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
