Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Apple-iPhone-001.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.

Possible violation of moral rights to image. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep rebuilt image of the image on http://www.flickr.com/photos/lecates/354510858/. Licence should be changed to the right licence from flickr. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the license is correct. I'm seeing cc-by-sa-2.0 for this image, and on flickr. I don't understand why this deletion request is here; could ViperSnake151 please explain the rationale?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral rights is a subset of copyright law that gives the right for attribution and integrity for the work. AFAIK, the Creative Commons licenses do not affect these. This means, if the original author objects to this modification of the image, he can make us take it down, notwithstanding any other argument. The same argument was brought up on Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Chicago_Millenium_Park.jpg. This is why Commons went crazy wanting to consider CC-BY 3.0 to be non-free way back when, cause it was attempting to force moral rights in areas where there aren't "much" moral rights. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this applies here. The way I read the Wikipedia article on moral rights, there must be a severe distortion of the image, so that the honor or reputation of the author is damaged. I don't see how this could possibly damage the reputation of the author. BTW, what author are you concerned about? The author of the photo or the author of the iPhone GUI? If you are concerned about the first, there is nothing to do about it. Otherwise all free licenses allowing modification of images would be useless. If you are concerned about the second, feel free to completely remove the work from the screen by placing a coloured box over it or whatever. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Image on screen has been blurred. Other points are not relevant here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]