Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Shuai Weibo (2 Nov 2021).png
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.
I don't see how this could be PD-ineligible as claimed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because it's PD. GeorgiaDC (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @GeorgiaDC: But why is it PD? Can you provide any evidence from Chinese law that her post is not eligible for copyright? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, for example do you mean the graphics or the text? Is non-inclusion from copyright good enough, or does it need to be specifically excluded or specified as public-domain? GeorgiaDC (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "non-inclusion from copyright". All text longer than a short sentence is copyrighted by default, and it is the responsibility of the uploader to prove that it is public domain or freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm asking you what other information still needs to meet the requirement for PD. Along in the file licensing section I already indicated the most pertinent reasons for it. GeorgiaDC (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "non-inclusion from copyright". All text longer than a short sentence is copyrighted by default, and it is the responsibility of the uploader to prove that it is public domain or freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, for example do you mean the graphics or the text? Is non-inclusion from copyright good enough, or does it need to be specifically excluded or specified as public-domain? GeorgiaDC (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @GeorgiaDC: But why is it PD? Can you provide any evidence from Chinese law that her post is not eligible for copyright? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: this is extensive writing, which is intrinsically copyrighted and no evidence was provided that the author has made a free license release. --DMacks (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)