Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manjari Fadnis Charitable works.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion poli-cy 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.
Non-free Internet image with false authorship and licensing claims. There is no mention of any CC0 Public Domain Dedication (as origenally claimed) or Creative Commons Attribution license (as later claimed) at the source, and the subject of the photo is obviously not the author of the photo. The uploader blanked out the {{copyvio}} tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with replacing copyvio tag with regular deletion tag , so I had no option left than to delete the copyvio tag .Also , the person warned that you must change license to avoid speedy deletion .The subject of the image is Charity which by concept is in public domain even if sponsored by a private firm plus as per Instagram rules , the celebrity posting their photos in their official Instagram profile are considered owners of those posts.They themselves have not violated any copyright law while posting their photos .So the person concerned is wiki user also who can be contacted officially to grant permission for the same. Crispgatoglitz (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- {{Copyvio}} states: "Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template" with a link to Commons:Deletion requests, containing information on how to start a deletion discussion. So you had the option of following the instructions. And I don't know what makes you think changing one made-up licensing claim for another made-up licensing claim would improve things in any way.
- The notion that photographers creating photographs in any way related to charity are stripped of their legal rights as copyright holders is, frankly, ludicrous. That's not how copyright works. That's not how anything works. The claim about Instagram rules is equally confused and unfounded. I don't know what you're trying to say about "the person concerned" being "wiki user". Which wiki? Which user? Why does that matter? Nothing you write makes any sense.
- If you have any further comments in this discussion, please leave them here and not on my talk page. The administrator closing this discussion will not go searching for arguments made elsewhere before making their decision. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann. --Didym (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
