Commons:Deletion requests/File:DR 99 4614.png
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1995. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Deutsches Lok-Archiv. Dampflokomotiven", Transpress, Berlin, 1995, ISBN 3-344-70903-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep Die Lokomotive ist um 1950 fotografiert worden ansonsten hätte sie nicht das Schild von der KJI am Wasserkasten. Kein Fotograf im Archiv vorhanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete The date the photo was taken in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Dann hat der Veröffentlicher ein gemeinfreies Foto verwendet, weil gerade nichts anderes da ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrfach Keep bzw. Delete hintereinander verwenden. Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um die 1930er Jahre entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrfach
Keep ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date 1995. --Wdwd (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
