Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lipsius 013.JPG

File:Lipsius_013.JPG

I have warned the uploader User:Alainauzas on both Wikimedia Commons and fr.wikipedia for a serie of pictures uploaded by him. Together, we fixed a large part of this picture but theses ones. Sorry, but I can't dream up a source if Alain doesn't explain where come from the pictures he uploaded. Bapti ✉ 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He explained -- he scanned old books from his own collection: [1]. Trycatch (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the reason for nomination here. The photograph is probably copyrightable in itself, but has author and license correctly documented. The book itself is plainly PD-old; no source is needed for that. It is dated 1598 in plain sight (MDXCVIII). It would be hard to have better source documentation than the title page itself anyways.  Keep Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustration que je destinais à une page wiki sur Lipsius--Alainauzas 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Le problème est : d'où vient cette image ?--Bapti ✉ 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the uploader is claiming they took the photograph. If true, everything is perfectly fine. Do you think it came from an outside source? (The book itself is also here; so we could get a straight scan rather than the photograph if in fact the photo came from elsewhere.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Keep: I concur with Carl Lindberg: {{Own}} is appropriate if it is a self-made photograph, even if its subject is an old book which itself falls under {{PD-old}} as long as the photo represents more creativity than a mere scan (which is the case here). This does not need to be sourced any further and the use of {{No source since}} is inappropriate in such a case. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Keep The description is clear: it's a self-made photo of the title page of a book published in 1598. --Carnildo (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, if the uploader took the picture, there can't be any copyright issues. I don't see how this would be copyrightable anyway; the page is 2D, and there's little enough of the background that we could consider it de minimis. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"if the uploader took the picture" : if so, yes there isn't any problem. But unfortunatly Alainauzas had never added a such precision.--Bapti ✉ 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct, see here the state when this file was uploaded: it was clearly marked with {{Own}} in the source field. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What does mean {{Own}} in the "Source" field, Alainauzas in "Author" field in your opinion? Of course, it's his own work, the photograph has EXIF, there are multiple photographs by the uploader created with this camera: [2]. There was no reason to challenge authorship at all. Trycatch (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Alainauzas said he is the author of a text of 1598, which doesn't seems very credible...--Bapti ✉ 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Where he stated this? There already was a bibliographic reference of the book on the very first version of the file page: "De Justus Lipsius: de Militia Romana -Antwerpen 1598." (author, title, location, year). Trycatch (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the uploader nowhere claimed to be the author of that book, he just claimed the photograph to be his own work and added a description of the depicted work by giving a bibliographic reference. The whole upload was perfectly fine — I would have just suggested to specify the date when the photo was taken in the date field. That is a simple beginner's error which can be easily fixed (I've just done it right now). --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Juste here, the uploader claimed to be the author of a picture of 1598 (PD-self). If Alainauzas would claim he scanned this book him self (as I asked him already), AGF, we would fix the lisense (not PD-Self as claimed), but he doesn't do it yet.--Bapti ✉ 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the uploader nowhere claimed to be author of a picture of 1598. This is ridiculous. The use of {{PD-self}} is appropriate for his own photographs. And it is a photograph, not a scan. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The user is taking photographs... the EXIF here is different than a couple of his others I think, but is a bit older (and, in looking more, is the same as some of the other uploads). In this case, it is more than a straight copy, so the photograph itself has a copyright almost certainly, which has a different author (the photographer) and must be licensed. (Even for the others where we argue PD-Art, say in the UK, a photograph as opposed to a scan may actually be copyrightable, so claiming "own work" and licensing it may not be all that wrong.) The uploader is just stating who took the photograph; nothing wrong with that (unless of course the images come from elsewhere on the web, but I've seen no evidence for that, and seems unlikely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Que ce soit un Scan ou une photo, c'est moi qui l'ai réalisé. Je ne revendique pas etre le créateur de l'oeuvre originale, mais le propriétaire d'un exemplaire et j'essaye d'en faire profiter la communauté ( je pensais que c'était le but de Wiki ) il semble que les problèmes de licnce soient primordiaux. Pourtant les droits sur des ouvrages du XVI ème ou XVII ème sont dans le domaine public?