Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lukrezia LaxenburgPark.jpg

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:Lukrezia_LaxenburgPark.jpg

it should just show the artist. the one who made that photo especially for me und just for such purposes is one of my close family. but if it bothers you in this way, please feel free to delete it. maybe i can put another one, i made myself, on the page or just leave it without one - it is not that important. many thanks und best wishes - Lukrezia

Interesting. The photographer and copyrightholder do not need to be the person who push the button. If you have staged this photography, as statet; you are maybe\probably the artist. Maybe not. Who did the thinking? (verbally or nonverbally) Andrez1 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

there was no possibility to choose among the upload-possibilities provided. i thought, because it belongs to me, this option would be closest. obviously i erred.. but now i saw, that i just can write it in there afterwards. so now there's the name of the "photographer", hope it's alright like that. if still not satisfied, a delete would be alright. yes, i am the artist, and this is my photography, but it should just be an informative add for the biography. sorry for the inconvenience, but it needs a lot of time, until someone new has found and read everything on wikipedia to avoid making big mistakes .....

"yes, i am the artist, and this is my photography". In my part of the world, if that is so, you are free to delgate to others to handle the camera. And still be the artist and copyrigtholder. But now it is deleted. pity. Andrez1 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete very unlikely "own work", as person depiced is the "owner". -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Keep It's an user image. Self portrait of the artist. here she is (self..) -portraited as a person with a diploma in portrait-painting. I assume she is higly capable of portaiting herself. Andrez1 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

However, this is a photo, not a painting. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

She is clearly abel to photograph herself in a manner known as selfportrait, it is a common practise among painters and photographers to do so. Then the owner of the photograph, having the copyright to the work, is the person depicted.

And the image is in use.Andrez1 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it would be helpful to state this in the description. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. She does, do the math: (Deutsch: Künstlerporträtfoto Lukrezia*, Schlosspark Laxenburg , source: Own work, Autor: Lukrezia.)

The user depicted in the image is active on wikipedia since today. There migth be other reasons to not have the page where the picture is in use. But i belive the picture itself is fundamentally OK. Andrez1 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted by Zscout370: Uploader request: It was uploaded and sent to DR the same day by the uploader/author; maybe she made a mistake and it is understandable.