Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Anton Julius Winblad II and others

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images of Anton Julius Winblad II and others

[edit]

outside the project scope, specifically "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted" --Polarlys 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and all subpages. --Polarlys 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So private collections are not of interest, and commercial collections are not legally available. Whats left? All the images are properly labeled and categorized, what difference does it make if it from a private collection? Please provide a link to the specific rule you are citing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Project scope. --Polarlys 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again your just saying "its in the bible somewhere, go look it up". The only thing I find is "Commons:Project scope: Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. "I don't believe any of the photos are "private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such."
  • Delete These images are unusable for Commons because these individuals are non-notable. If I uploaded 50 pictures of my neighbor Bob nobody would want to start an article on him on another project. -Nard 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented lifes of non notable ancient people may be useful as a good example, i.e.: articles about aging, death certificate, clothes circa 1900, family life in the USA and so. All images should be properly categorized (they aren't categorized), and maybe user subpages are not the best place to keep biografies (this biografies are useful for giving context to photos).--Pere prlpz 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That’s Wikimedia Commons, uploading whole family biographies is pure abuse. We are no free web storage. Of course there is always the possibility to add a dubious context: upload some of your family photos, the pyramids of Giza in the background, your family in the foreground and proclaim a use to illustrate an article on holiday culture of American families. --Polarlys 14:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to you if these photos were easy repoductible present day family photos, or if we had other similar biographies.--Pere prlpz 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this family were already deleted some weeks ago: Mom on sofa; mom and dad; mom, dad and dog, … this is a whole family album and there are millions of similar biographies. --Polarlys 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the photos were: "private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." They all represent a slice of life in the 1960s that can be used to illustrate clothing, and other time dependent lifestyle articles.
Note: This is no voting. --Polarlys 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment who took these photos? Who is the copyright owner? If you assert it is you, why do you assert this? Did you inherit the photos in a will? Do you have the negatives? -Nard 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the copyright inheritor, yes. As you well know, a negative is not required to claim a copyright, although I do have the original slides or negatives. How does any uploader prove ownership of any photo? How does Corbis claim copyright on its historical collection, and the Library of Congress and New York Public Library also claim the same image? Who is the copyright holder of my high school photo? Me, who paid for it? The company that was hired by the school, or the man who composed the image? Whenever you want something deleted, just bring up the smoke and mirrors of this argument and demand proof of copyright, and since no legal document exists like a patent, you delete. How does the owner of any of the featured photos prove they are the copyright owner? If they are professional photographers their employer may also make a claim if they were on company time, or using company equipment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes people admit they are not the actual heir. I wasn't trying to get smoke and mirrors, merely asking for a reasonable assertion of copyright. Your assertion seems reasonable. -Nard 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should allow hosting media content we have not yet thought of a purpose for. This is valid and well documented content. We need much more it that type :) Cheers! Siebrand 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others. However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page). More details on personality rights can be found at Commons:Licensing.” There are enough wikis and websites for private genealogy! --Polarlys 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Anton_Julius_Winblad_II_and_others&oldid=71024689"