Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tehran - Iran.jpg: Difference between revisions

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free with different sourcing.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My File is from a free source, that's why I use this correct license. Do you read this license? What the en-wiki does, is not our problem. Kept -- How (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source stated as unknown - so how do we know that the file was first published in the US between the necessary dates and without a copyright notice?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Article about Mason Remey! He was an american Bahá'í and died 1974. So what? -- How (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: Lack of source in the file description means there is no evidence this work was first published anywhere but the United States, and no evidence this work was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977. Copyrighted until the end of 2044 (Mason Remey's death + 70 years) unless proven otherwise. (In reality, How uploaded an identical copy of the file en:File:Bahai how tehran.jpg, where it is tagged as fair-use, with a big red copyright symbol and the words "This work is copyrighted". ("Do you read this license?") That file description also says the picture was published in a copyrighted 1974 book, with no evidence of prior non-copyright publication. In any case, whether you check en-wiki or not, there is no evidence the work is out of copyright.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep What happend, if there is a correct free file at de:wp and a nonfree at en:wp? You'll delete the correct file? Really? Do you read the article about Mason Remey and the book?! Sfan00 IMG has own problems with files, so he's not allowed to mark other files! Do you know en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? -- How (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, one deletes the incorrect upload, which (in this case) is File:Tehran - Iran.jpg on Commons, because it is nonfree and Commons does not have fair use exceptions. (en.wiki may still use it there, but only uploaded directly on en.wiki while it is used for en.wiki articles, because the file is restricted to fair use. Recently someone said "What the en-wiki does, is not our problem.") I don't know Sfan00 or his images; regardless of who or what he is, this nomination is not "disrupting Wikipedia", especially since he appears to be right because File:Tehran - Iran.jpg appears to be copyright. Why do you keep saying to read the article? There is no evidence in Mason Remey about it being published without a copyright message. There is also no evidence in the file description of it being published without a copyright message. It's a U.S. work by a person who has been dead less than 70 years. --Closeapple (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  KeepRead the book and show us the copyright-tag, before you talking about! -- How (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem: Which book? In order to show first publication was without a copyright notice, one needs to know the first publication and its year. That is why the uploader must provide the source, and why "unknown" source leads to deletion. --Closeapple (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete License states it was published between "1923 and 1977" but there is no publication date given neither a source is. de.wiki dup is deleted. --Saibo (Δ) 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  KeepWhats going on? Mason Remey dies 1974 in the USA, so he can't paint this file 1980! de:wp has no license-tag like this, so thats no reason. -- How (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between create and publish. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here that's the same, he can't publish the file after 1974! -- How (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement that an artist be his own publisher. He may have donated these drawings to the church, who authorized their publication later or allowed a newspaper to print them for the first time. Or his direct heirs may have had them. It is not uncommon at all that someone's work reaches publication after the author's death. (Mark Twain's final works are being released this year, and he died 100 years ago. But more commonly, heirs or an employer will wait a few years after the author's death and then publish that person's "rare" works.) Remey died in 1974, but his heirs or the church could have first published this drawing (for the public) in books or magazines later. --Closeapple (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "church" do you mean? There is no church at the Bahá'í Faith! Mark Twain is a wrong example, because the pictures of Mason Remey is published long time ago, you see... Theres no copyright anymore, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker (like en:Excommunication) in his later years. Do you have any facts ("is)" and no more fiction ("may", "if")? I see, you know nothing about the Bahá'í-history to wrote about. -- How (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts:

1. U.S. copyright, on published worked by known authors, lasts at least 70 years from the author's death. (See Commons:Licensing#United States.)
2. Mason Remey died in 1974.
3. Therefore, copyright for his work lasts until at least 2044.
4. Public domain claims require a specific reason why public domain applies.
5. All the reasons for public domain of U.S. private works require knowing the year of first authorized publication; and if the year of publication is between 1923 and 1977, it also requires knowing which authorized publication, because public domain isn't the normal status unless it is shown that the publication was released without a copyright message.

Public domain is not the default for U.S. works after 1922. It is the duty of the uploader to prove that the work has some special exception that causes that work to be public domain. U.S. copyright doesn't make a distinction between "covenant breakers" and anyone else. Your upload doesn't even have a source, let alone a date. --Closeapple (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tell us the copyrightholder! There is no one, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker!
2. I know, that Mason Remey died 1974 in the United States...
3. No, because there is no copyright-tag! Do you see any in the www? Show us or let it be!
4. There is a special reason, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker.
5. We know the possible latest year of publishing, it was before 1940 and that's between 1923 and 1977. There are more fiction by you: "and if the year of publication is between 1923 and 1977, it also requires knowing which authorized publication, because public domain isn't the normal status unless it is shown that the publication was released without a copyright message. Public domain is not the default for U.S. works after 1922. It is the duty of the uploader to prove that the work has some special exception that causes that work to be public domain. U.S. copyright doesn't make a distinction between "covenant breakers" and anyone else." Do you know all U.S. works after 1922 to say that? Covenant breaker is one reason, why this file is public domain, because there is no copyright holder anymore, also no "church" you're talking about. Which "church" do you mean? -- How (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep by User:How. Only true and useable facts are reasons to delete files and not false fiction. -- Geo-His (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock of User:How; only edits are vks in RfD which affect User:How--DieBuche (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hast du langeweile? "Possible sock" is no reason to strike my comments! Entweder du beantragst einen CU oder ich melde dich wegen PA auf der VM. Ich bin von der de:wp, im Gegensatz zu How! Was soll der Quatsch? -- Geo-His (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dann ist es wohl Zufall, dass du das gleiche Bild auf de.wiki hochgeladen hast, mit quelle http://www.9-b-19.de/bahai/impressum.php --DieBuche (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]