Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steampunk Ocular.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.
Copyright violation. This was in a blog in 2007: https://blogs.otis.edu/otistoydesign/2007/08/28/another-cool-steampunk-design/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.16.21 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7. Jun. 2012 (UTC)
- Unclear who the copyright holder is, it may well be the Flickrstream owner. The day before that blog post, it was put on Wired - http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/08/brass-monocle-m/ - where it states it was for sale on eBay. If it stays unclear then the precautionary principle applies. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete There is no permission. Neither from the artist, nor from the photographer. /95.199.16.21 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC) The nominator.
- As well as !voting here, could you sign your deletion request? Your actions will only confuse a closing admin otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Flickr-Stream is full of questionable photos and graphics such as derivative works or web images (possible source) or TV-screenshots. There are only a few suitable photos taken with Nokia Lumia 800 in the stream. I suggest to put the Flickr user on our blacklist if he isn't there, yet.
- The fact that this photo was added in 2009 to the flickr stream but 2007 to the blog post leads to the conclusion; it is stolen like all the other files. -- RE rillke questions? 16:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The blog post is not the original source, as pointed out above the Wired article pre-dates it. It is more likely that photo was taken for an eBay sale, in which case it is (I think) not normally on a free reuse license unless the seller makes their own declaration, highly unlikely. As before, the precautionary principle applies and so this is Delete unless someone can track down evidence of the original source or a relationship with this Flickrstream owner. BTW, I would be against automatic deletion of everything from this guy's Flickrstream, some evaluation would be needed as some images may be obviously non-controversial if only based on decent supporting EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Blacklisting will just disallow new uploads. -- RE rillke questions? 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The blog post is not the original source, as pointed out above the Wired article pre-dates it. It is more likely that photo was taken for an eBay sale, in which case it is (I think) not normally on a free reuse license unless the seller makes their own declaration, highly unlikely. As before, the precautionary principle applies and so this is
Deleted: Apparently flickr washing FASTILY (TALK) 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
