Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MHV Adler Diplomat 3GS Wood-Gazifier 1938 01.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because of unclear juristical status and on demand of the owner (Deutsches Museum München) I ask to remove this photo from Wikipedia --MartinHansV 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --Digon3 talk 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You took a picture of a car in a museum. The car doesn't have any special artwork on it (that I can see) that would make it copyrighted. It doesn't appear to have any modifications that aren't functional in nature. Functional modifications are not copyrightable, whereas non-functional ones may be if they show creative intent. I see no copyright violation. -Nard 00:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep there is nothing in that image that can be copyrighted, not even a logo or badge Madmax32 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- The museum prohibits photography for the purpose of publication. Thus, publishing images taken in the museum could be a breach of contract if this is a condition of entry, and the photographer could therefore be seen as having trespassed. So it's not a copyright issue, and I don't see that anyone has claimed that it is. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this photo does not obstruct any copyrights, but Deutsches Museum München only allows photos for private use without the right of publishing them. Publishing will only be allowed against extra charge (to be fixed per single case) and publishing under GNU licence is not allowed at all. So, the GNU licence linked with this photo is unlawful and, therefore, obsolete. Without this GNU licence but this photo cannot be published in WIKIPEDIA COMMONS. Therefore, I ask to remove it. Later on, it will be replaced by something else, which, for sure, does not obstruct any owner rights. --MartinHansV 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is still a "private" image and not used commercially within the wikipedia project. As with everything this image is in public domain but may probably not be used commercially due to other laws or contracts. The contributor therefor did not allow a commercial use but simply did not forbid it. Probably i should to talk to Mr Weidemann directly. Or even better to Prof. Dr. Heckl... -- Stahlkocher 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The presence of the image on Commons does constitute publication, and the photographer did attempt to "grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose" (including commercial purposes). If it were true that the photographer "simply did not forbid" commercial use, then we would definitely have to delete the image, because Commons only accepts works which can be used for commercial purposes, and if the copyright holder has not explicitly allowed it, such use is prohibited by copyright legislation. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This case is not a copyright problem. The image is undoubtfull in the public domain. But even if a copyright owner allows everyone everything with a image, it still may have restrictions. Like this one Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg. -- Stahlkocher 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. If this image distributed with a PD "license" the author may get into trouble. The author does not want to take that risk. As a responsible corporate citizen, Commons must take reasonable measures to protect its contributors. Samulili 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)