Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prinzibild NAG Getriebe.jpg
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Heinz Ed Federmeyer, "Schmalspurbahnen in Luxemburg - Band 2", 1991, ISBN 978-3-921980-46-0. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep per bundled response at Commons:Deletion requests/File:KkStB 1.401 Repro Horn.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete Inaccurate argument. It is not known when it was published. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making a claim without evidence. There is no proof that there is a factory photo. It can be assumed that the photo was published many years later. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it was published immediately after it was created. No evidence that this is a promotional picture. In addition, it is impossible to tell which photo was immediately published. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. --Uoijm77 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
