Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilsudski1921-2.jpeg
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 statement/explanation why the original photo is public domain. Saibo (Δ) 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the Bibliothèque nationale de France states so in the link provided. It clearly states it is in the public domain. If someone considers this information to be incorrect, please provide the evidence that proves the Bibliothèque nationale de France to be mistaken.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading the policy incorrectly, it is not them, but me (the uploader) who has to: [...]]uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain[...]. And I did. I pointed to the institution that says so. No less than Bibliothèque nationale de France! Besides: Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. All the Bibliothèque can say is that it belonged to a press agency, author unknown (when it is known, they state it, you can see the Sennecke pictures, for instance), and is now in the public domain. If you want to dig deeper and start investigating how the Bibliothèque does its evaluations, I see no problem, but the necessary conditions are met: the image is in PD by the authority of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, that has not been called in question by any evidence, the author is unknown and only the agency that owned the picture can be stated. Unless someone can come up with some hard facts disproving the above (and I still see none), I'd say the picture stays as it meets the required policies.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to push in a third party - well, that is a kind of license laundering. If "All the Bibliothèque can say" is what we know here it is just not enough. --Saibo (Δ) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying anything, stating what the source of the picture says. No laundering whatsoever, sir. What is not enough is to be claiming is not good enough. Says who? You? Stop twisting definitions. Indeed, there is no blinder man that the one who does not want to see. I am shortly requesting administrators to look into this as it is becoming ludicrous. Kindly go get something useful to do and stop bothering people.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- "stating what the source of the picture says" - yep, and exactly that is also LL. I am not bothering you - you can stay away from this DR. It is just about the image. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it is you can start nominating all third party pictures (you can start by the thousands of Bundesarchiv ones and the NARA ones if you have some spare time) in Commons. Then you can start doubting the ones claimed to be owned by the uploader (they could be lying, you see? Trust no one...). Do not trust those supposedly confirmed, they could be wrong or lying as well... I wonder why we have a PD template for the BNF... I would stay away if you had not added a note in my discussion page and nominated PD images that take a while to download, catalogue and upload for deletion. If you spent some time doing some positive work instead of negative one (hey, do you know you can upload pictures instead deleting them? big news!), I could spend some more time enlarging wikipedia instead of defending pictures from deletomaniacs... But do not take any notice of any one, keep asking questions instead, why bother to substantiate doubts, I undertand it is funnier when you have nothing better to do.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between Bundesarchiv and your two uploads here: Bundesarchiv claimed that they have the copyrights (which may be doubted too) and they can be bashed if that is not true but here we know nothing. We do not know if the library of France claims copyright but released the images into the PD or if they think they think the images are PD due to age. Btw: the template {{PD-GallicaScan}} which you have put on the file page is a enhanced {{PD-scan}} and source tag it just refers to the act of doing the reproduction and tells that this attracts no new copyright - but doesn't tell why the depicted work is PD. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the public domain because the BNF says it is in the public domain. A question of trust. So it is a question of finding someone to bash... Go get a life. The BNF says the picture is in PD, end of the story as far as I am concerned. I am quitting this. If you happen to go ahead and delete this image against everbody's opinion to the contrary and no prove of misuse I intend to put it back in place and report it as vandalism. Good bye for good.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- EOD also here after your PA over there and here. And if you would be more aware of what DRs are you would know that I will not delete this image by myself. --Saibo (Δ) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the public domain because the BNF says it is in the public domain. A question of trust. So it is a question of finding someone to bash... Go get a life. The BNF says the picture is in PD, end of the story as far as I am concerned. I am quitting this. If you happen to go ahead and delete this image against everbody's opinion to the contrary and no prove of misuse I intend to put it back in place and report it as vandalism. Good bye for good.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between Bundesarchiv and your two uploads here: Bundesarchiv claimed that they have the copyrights (which may be doubted too) and they can be bashed if that is not true but here we know nothing. We do not know if the library of France claims copyright but released the images into the PD or if they think they think the images are PD due to age. Btw: the template {{PD-GallicaScan}} which you have put on the file page is a enhanced {{PD-scan}} and source tag it just refers to the act of doing the reproduction and tells that this attracts no new copyright - but doesn't tell why the depicted work is PD. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it is you can start nominating all third party pictures (you can start by the thousands of Bundesarchiv ones and the NARA ones if you have some spare time) in Commons. Then you can start doubting the ones claimed to be owned by the uploader (they could be lying, you see? Trust no one...). Do not trust those supposedly confirmed, they could be wrong or lying as well... I wonder why we have a PD template for the BNF... I would stay away if you had not added a note in my discussion page and nominated PD images that take a while to download, catalogue and upload for deletion. If you spent some time doing some positive work instead of negative one (hey, do you know you can upload pictures instead deleting them? big news!), I could spend some more time enlarging wikipedia instead of defending pictures from deletomaniacs... But do not take any notice of any one, keep asking questions instead, why bother to substantiate doubts, I undertand it is funnier when you have nothing better to do.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- "stating what the source of the picture says" - yep, and exactly that is also LL. I am not bothering you - you can stay away from this DR. It is just about the image. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not trying anything, stating what the source of the picture says. No laundering whatsoever, sir. What is not enough is to be claiming is not good enough. Says who? You? Stop twisting definitions. Indeed, there is no blinder man that the one who does not want to see. I am shortly requesting administrators to look into this as it is becoming ludicrous. Kindly go get something useful to do and stop bothering people.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to push in a third party - well, that is a kind of license laundering. If "All the Bibliothèque can say" is what we know here it is just not enough. --Saibo (Δ) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading the policy incorrectly, it is not them, but me (the uploader) who has to: [...]]uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain[...]. And I did. I pointed to the institution that says so. No less than Bibliothèque nationale de France! Besides: Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. All the Bibliothèque can say is that it belonged to a press agency, author unknown (when it is known, they state it, you can see the Sennecke pictures, for instance), and is now in the public domain. If you want to dig deeper and start investigating how the Bibliothèque does its evaluations, I see no problem, but the necessary conditions are met: the image is in PD by the authority of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, that has not been called in question by any evidence, the author is unknown and only the agency that owned the picture can be stated. Unless someone can come up with some hard facts disproving the above (and I still see none), I'd say the picture stays as it meets the required policies.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from the press agency Meurisse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the physical ownership of an photo does not establish both, copyright ownership and clairvoyance abilities. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- BNF has the original glass negative and presumably the all the existing records of the press agency, and they are professional archivists, documentation is their job. Yet you prefer to request deletion of this file, and to leave Mattbuck's uploads alone, where there is just some Toser who had a print in a shoebox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did the professional archivists find out? Why is it PD? What is the source of their findings? --Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- BNF has the original glass negative and presumably the all the existing records of the press agency, and they are professional archivists, documentation is their job. Yet you prefer to request deletion of this file, and to leave Mattbuck's uploads alone, where there is just some Toser who had a print in a shoebox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the physical ownership of an photo does not establish both, copyright ownership and clairvoyance abilities. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from the press agency Meurisse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Evidence of the fact that it's PD was provided. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Saibo having a brain fart is not a reason to delete. Evidence of PD provided, there is even a template to suggest that the Bibliothèque's word is acceptable here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Argument of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} by a national library is convincing. MBisanz talk 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
