Commons:Deletion requests/File:The blue boy.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.
This painting was painted by Moawad GadElrab, so it's obviously not uploader's "own work". The permission of the copyright holder is needed, but is not provided. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Owning the painting does not give one the right to freely license it. The copyright is almost always owned by the artist's heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep I am the artist's heirs and I own this painting which has been inherited from my late uncle Dr Moawad Gadelrab so I hold the copywrite , I give my permission for a photo of the painting to be released to the public use ,so please don't delete(Raafat (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC))
- Aside from the copyright issue, there is the question of scope. This is a poor copy of Gainsborough's Blue Boy by a person who, himself, does not appear to meet our standards for notability. I fail to see that it has an educational value, as required on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment The image is in use in three wikipedias, and therefore in Commons scope. If the copyright issue can be settled - with an statement by heir - educational value is not a problem.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aside from the copyright issue, there is the question of scope. This is a poor copy of Gainsborough's Blue Boy by a person who, himself, does not appear to meet our standards for notability. I fail to see that it has an educational value, as required on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. A work does not gain scope by being added to articles after the DR is started, particularly when at least one of the articles (WP:EN) is very likely going to be deleted for lack of notability. In any event, there is still the copyright issue. In order to keep the image of the painting, we will need an OTRS confirmation of the identity of the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Commons:Scope is clear. If an image is legitimately in use, it's in scope. Then, you can:
- Wait for the articles in the wikipedias to be deleted. If the painter is not notable, this would be easy. Then, you can delete it as "personal image used only in a deleted article" and such DR are usually fast.
- Propose in the wikipedias to stop using the photo. If its use is not legitimate, this would be easy. Anyway, if the articles were kept, I would say it's a work of a notable person and therefore in scope.
- Anyway, if some articles are to be kept, I think the image is useful and I would continue using it, but that's to decide by local communities. Please note that Commons is not here to editorialise other projects.
- @Raafat: Can you send a mail message with confirmation of your identity as Jim asks to settle the copyright issue?--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Commons:Scope is clear. If an image is legitimately in use, it's in scope. Then, you can:
- I disagree. A work does not gain scope by being added to articles after the DR is started, particularly when at least one of the articles (WP:EN) is very likely going to be deleted for lack of notability. In any event, there is still the copyright issue. In order to keep the image of the painting, we will need an OTRS confirmation of the identity of the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, COM:OTRS required if in scope Krd 21:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
