Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warsaw zoo elephant 1938.jpg
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.
On plwiki it was stated (and now is inte file description), that it comes from "own archive; image released by Dixi (c)". However ther was/is no clue whether Dixi is/was autorship rights owner or anything like that. And the image is far too old to be made by her personally. Masur (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. She's too young to be author of it and we can't verify real authorship, so it will be better to delete it. Herr Kriss (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If it's from home archive, I would assume Dixi is the legal heir, otherwise the image is {{PD-PRL}}, {{Anonymous-EU}} or whatever. Come on - this image is over 70 years old and it wasn't copied from a newspaper, a book or anything like that. --Botev (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment sure. But you know - I have plenty images in my archive, but I'm not legal heir of their authors though. Moreover, Dixi hadn't written that the one was made by her relatives. She just stated that it comes from her archive. And unfortunately its not first time for this user to upload images with insufficient copyright information. Masur (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Like I said - if you want to be that strict, change it to {{PD-PRL}} (no copyright information on the image itself, so public domain under Art. 3 of the Copyright Act of 1935). --Botev (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You cannot do it cos you dont know the source of this picture, therefore you cannot tell whether it wasnt cropped or manipulated. Black frame surrounding the picture is kind of strange for self-made scan, isnt it? So once again, we are back to the situation, where uploader simply didnt provide enough informations. Masur (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The source is Dixi's home archive - IMHO the black frame is not a reason enough to doubt it. And what in Dixi's statement makes you think it was manipulated? --Botev (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing particulary, however my opinion is, that each time when we aren't 100% sure about the legal status of a work, we simply shouldnt risk sharing it under any free license. However it is my personal view only. And accordingly with it, here I see information about the author missing. Only known facts are date and source. Masur (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The source is Dixi's home archive - IMHO the black frame is not a reason enough to doubt it. And what in Dixi's statement makes you think it was manipulated? --Botev (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You cannot do it cos you dont know the source of this picture, therefore you cannot tell whether it wasnt cropped or manipulated. Black frame surrounding the picture is kind of strange for self-made scan, isnt it? So once again, we are back to the situation, where uploader simply didnt provide enough informations. Masur (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Like I said - if you want to be that strict, change it to {{PD-PRL}} (no copyright information on the image itself, so public domain under Art. 3 of the Copyright Act of 1935). --Botev (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment sure. But you know - I have plenty images in my archive, but I'm not legal heir of their authors though. Moreover, Dixi hadn't written that the one was made by her relatives. She just stated that it comes from her archive. And unfortunately its not first time for this user to upload images with insufficient copyright information. Masur (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Botev. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is rather Dixi's parents or grandparents work, not anyone's else. Ask her for details if you are not sure, but I am afraid she abandoned the project half year ago (this is her last edition); the best solution to act legal way not losing this old picture would be to change license to {{Anonymous-EU}} (70 years passed) and Keep. Julo (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, Anonymous-EU & AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)