Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Koran reciter

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.

Files in Category:Koran reciter

These look like scanned images. The copyright doesn't rest with the scanner, but with the photographer. See COM:DW.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, probably the original image is very old, older than 50 years. The pictured man was born in the 80s of the 19th century, he died about 1967. Maybe no copyright infringement? --HeikeMarie (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned in the workshop, it is a problem that the uploader has referred the file as own work. However, I take a deletion request for completely exaggerated. The image is damaged beyond repair and only people who are very strong in faith will be able to recognize it as something. Therefore I didnt made an attempt to retouch the kinks in any way. In my eyes, the image remains a mush of pixels, in which I can not see any particular originality. The copyrighted work is visible indeed, but not identifiable. We therefore have the principle of de minimis. The Note {{De minimis}} should be sufficient. Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what de minimis means. If you have a reason why this image should stay, by all means provide it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we don't understand each other. I defend nothing. The image could be deleted because it doesn't meet the lowest requirements in quality. However the request for deletion is based upon a wrong statement of grounds (imho). Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The copyrighted work is obviously not de minimis, I don't really understand that argument at all. However, if this was taken in the British Mandate of Palestine, as seems probable, then it is very likely to be {{PD-Israel}} if the man depicted died in 1967. Storkk (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the State of Palestine has been a de facto state recognized by the UN for about four years now. It would be great if we could find any copyright laws for them. I would be mildly surprised if they even exist, so we might be in the clear. But I'm not knowledgeable about such things. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PRP. --INeverCry 21:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]