Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 13

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Changed to {{

File:ConnecticutMarriageGlenCove 1 original.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copied straight from this site with no evidence the image has been released with the proper license. TNXMan 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I see that this image is scheduled for deletion. I believe it comes under the Fair Use doctrine. What do I have to write in order to prevent its deletion?Eyespy4you (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

• I'm not sure what free license to use if my recent explanation does not suffice. What do you recommend?Eyespy4you (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

• Hello again, does this work? "The purpose and character of the use is for nonprofit educational purposes. It is not possible to to use a free license since it is not an official government photograph of the assemblyman."Eyespy4you (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

• Works for me... Although ideally, if you can find an official photo, that would be better :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you[reply]

It need a non-free rationale, which I took care off.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lastfmalbumcharts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• appears to be a screenshot of last.fm - multiple (c) audio covers included therein Skier Dude (talk 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N-mall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• corporate logo from "old brochure" - unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 04:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N3250 front.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR, appears to be publicity photo for phone - no source Skier Dude (talk 04:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N3250 keypad.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR, appears to be publicity photo for phone - no source Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N37100975 21738.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR; uploader claims to be editor; needs proof via
  WP:OTRS of release Skier Dude (talk 05:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N38260011488 9147.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR logo - source is "bbc website..." - not PD-self Skier Dude (talk 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fear-Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• album cover - no source- unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 05:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weewar logo white.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly website logo - No additional information given to support self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inch1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Toy or Character design - PUI refferal as I'm not sure this can be licensed as self? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki corp cult2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover - So not nessacrily self as claimed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki What Men Know.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki Your Brain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki Water People.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly an organisational logo - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nigel Hawthorne autographed photo 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely that uploader is copyright holder Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008-2009-poli-steaua05.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• When this image was tagged as "no license", uploader first indicated that it was found on a webforum, then tagged as PD-self. It's unlikely that this tag is accurate (and other similar uploads from this user may also need review). (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Default 06.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like web content from elsewhere- so skeptical about self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dcdvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly a brand logo - so Skepitcal about the self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monalisa-rep.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Software Screenshot - No indication given that the software/data is under a 'free' license Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 8154KAMI.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D Artwork statue- US location Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avondale southdown.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like it's artwork from a plan, more information needed to confirm self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Uploader has given credible enough explanation; barring evidence to the contrary, we can assume it's correct. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norma Ackison.JPG (delete | talk | history | Ackison.JPG logs).

• highly unlikely the uploader took this high school photo as claimed Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader has responded on the image talk page File talk:Norma Ackison.JPGActive Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Widgty Splash.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly logo, So not nessacrily uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Closed - Image is now tagged as non-free --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamen rider eurodata.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Confusing image page - it claims to be both free, and non-free, and fair-use, all at the same time! -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not free, but the original uploader thought it was free. I did not think that it was proper to remove the original uploader's claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, now the page appears to be fixed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{
  dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. File licensed under fair use. — ξ^xplicit 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Declined speedy, as secondary work's copyright is unclear. Reasoning: cropped from File:Abdul_Rahim_Wardak_in_Kabul_April_2010.jpg - derivative of non-free content, no longer de minimis Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that this is unclear? Am I allowed to make a photo of a random photo that I found in google imagesearch and upload it as my own work? Of course im not.

While the original File:Abdul Rahim Wardak in Kabul April 2010.jpg is a free photographic work and all unfree content in this photo is so small that it is de minimis and there is no infringement of third party copyright. In this cropped version the nonfree part fill the whole image, so there is an infringement of third party copyrights. It clearly does not matter that the person who made an photographic reproduction of an random photograph is not me but an employee of the governement.... --Martin H. (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but db-f9 on en.wikipedia only applies if there is unquestionably a copyright violation, i.e., the onus is not on the uploader. That's why we have PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about tagging it with {{PD-Afghanistan}}? As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works published in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 05:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the image would be cropped less. Like in the following example: see here. Also, that image had been there for months, before I re-uploaded it.—JCAla (talk) 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Question - What sort of copyright laws does Afghanistan have within its own country? I can remember reading somewhere that the foundation wishes to honor Afghani copyrights. In any case, it would be great if we could find out more information about that painting (e.g., was it by someone in the Afghan government? Was it by someone working for the US military? etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and copyright issues is the only thing I have been able to find on this subject, and it say "regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries".--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ok upon further review, I changed the PD-Afghanistan template to point to a project page. Afghanistan currently does not have copyright laws. I believe this is PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree- I agree. I think that the proplem that Martin H. had with this image is now fixed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not copyrighted in the USA because there are no copyright relations between the USA and the source country, and not copyrighted in the source country because the source country has no copyright laws. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This image is the work of French photojournalist, Reza Deghati, [1] [2] [3] [4] and that doesn't qualify it for {{PD-Afghanistan}} because the copyright holder is Reza Deghati. His photos wwere first published in National Geographic, Newsweek, Time, and GEO, etc. You can watch a special National Geographic documentary about him in Afghanistan which explains and shows that he has been visiting Afghanistan for the past 30 years and taking photos of Massoud since 1985 then selling them to be published in Western media.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of your links show him to be the copyright holder of this image. I don't see a copy of this image anyway on any of these pages.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is the uploader's responsibility to provide proof that permission has been obtained from the maker or owner of the images. Second, I think I have provided more than enough evidence to convince any ordinary person that Reza Deghati (French citizen) is the copyright owner of all of Ahmad Shah Massoud's images used in Afghanistan [5]. Reza's work appears to be protected internationally with the same copyright protection that applies to National Geographic. [6] [7] Also, Someone needs to read the writing on the photo to understand what is stated.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. There are quite some people who were able to take a picture of Massoud: i. e. Hiromi Nagakura see here, foundations and news agencies see here or here. There was no intention to violate anybody's copyright. I assumed that cropping files from WikiCommons was generally okay. Also the cropped image is of bad quality (see area around the beard) and has this golden frame, so it is of no other use really then to provide an image of Massoud without it being further used like the original of good quality could be used. —JCAla (talk) 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear my self. I was refering to Massoud's photos that are displayed all over Afghanistan today, like the one we nominated here, they're all Reza's work. I was aware that few other westerners took his photos but not sure of their names. Your first link to Roddy Scott Foundation was founded in 2002 after Massoud was already dead. Hiromi Nagakura's Omaid Weekly's photos of Massood are copyrighted. Uploading photos of copyrighted photos that have copyright protection is usually deleted in Wikipedia. Many of your images of Massoud's have been deleted at WikiCommons because of copyright violation.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is the up loader’s responsibility to provide proof that permission has been obtained. In this case it has been. The US government says it is a PD image. The issue here is not "permission" from the owner of the images, but if {{PD-Afghanistan}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} apply. So if you make the claim the owner is someone other then that described by US government it becomes your responsibility to provide proof that the claim is untrue. I can say “Joe Smith’ made this image, and it’s my responsibility to provide proof of that claim if it is different then that described in the image license given. None of your links show Reza Deghati to be the copyright holder of this image, or that {{PD-Afghanistan}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} don't apply.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US government says what is a PD image? {{

Briteny Spears or Lady Gaga's poster was hanging on the wall there instead of Massoud's, it wouldn't be allowed here because it would be copyright violation. All of Massoud's photos lined up here are in fact National Geographic's and this is a close up which clearly states under each poster Photo: Reza Deghati - National Geographic. Looking at that it means Reza Deghati created the photos and released them to National Geographic at some time, that's how most photojournalists make income. The other photos of Massoud that User:JCALa posted links to [8], [9], [10] are created by non-Afghanistan entities and they all have copyright protections. Therefore, after learning these facts, the burden would be on the uploader to provide evidence that it is not the work of these people who own copyrights.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Lagoo sab, before you changed your post with your last edit you explicitly stated: "I have provided more than enough evidence to convince any ordinary person that Reza Deghati (French citizen) is the copyright owner of all of Ahmad Shah Massoud's images, and yet there is no such evidence that others besides Reza captured Massoud's photos." So you were clearly not only referring to images used in Afghanistan as you now suggest with your last edits. In the past images uploaded by me were deleted because I was not aware of the exact Wiki policy (my fault). That has changed. Since then, no image uploaded by me has been deleted. I do not see your point with the Roddy Scott Foundation image ... although the Roddy Scott Foundation was established in 2002, the copyright of the Massoud photo still belongs to it, and the photo was taken before Sept. 2001 probably by the late journalist to whom the foundation is dedicated.—JCAla (talk) 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In my first edit [11] I stated" "Delete - All images of Ahmad Shah Massoud were captured by American and French journalists when they went to visit him in Afghanistan or in few occasions when Massoud went to visit the West...". My point is to say that Afghans within Afghanistan didn't take any of his photos that are displayed in Afghanistan because there is no such evidence.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Artist4Echo and JCAla, please read the commons article on de minimis; if picture (a) is inserted in picture (b) but not the primary focus on picture (b), then it is not considered a derivative work, and (b) can be PD. However, if (b) is cropped or used to primarily illustrate (a), then the copyright falls back to (a), and thus it may no longer be PD.

To Lagoo sab, I apologize for the confusion, but you believe the image was the work of one of a few different authors, correct? If so, I'm going to mark it fair use, as long as this specific work been published abroad, which you say it has. PD-Afghanistan only refers to Afghan nationals. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the cropped image, the guy with the hat, is a copyright violation. My reason is that all such photos of this guy were taken by foreign photographers and I provided evidence so it is they who own the copyrights. All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. Works that are first published in the United States or in a country with which we have a copyright treaty or that are created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which we have a copyright treaty are also protected. These portraits are locally made in Afghanistan and it is they who violate copyright rules by printing posters of celebrities and then selling them to the public. The full version, with the Afghan defense minister, is ok.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Lagoo sab, yes, that is what you stated first but then, for whatever reason, you drew it down to just Reza having taken photos of Massoud stating "... there is no such evidence that others besides Reza captured Massoud's photos." That is what I was then responding to. Anyways, let's move on. Of course there are Afghan nationals who took a picture of Massoud. Omaid Weekly i. e. is an Afghan newspaper empolying also Afghan nationals. It is just that Reza Deghati's and Hiromi Nagakura's images have become the most popular ones because of their unique quality. To Magog the Ogre, thanks for the link. As I said before the image, initially uploaded by someone else, was on commons months before I re-uploaded it, so I figured it would be okay for use.—JCAla (talk) 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Once someone changes their post you're not suppose to bring into discussion their deleted words. I re-worded my post because I didn't feel like tracking citizenships of photographers. The point is that the photographers who took Massoud's pictures are not Afghanistan's citizens. The photos of Massoud that Omaid Weekly used states:"(Copyrighted) Photographs courtesy of the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, and other international news agencies" [12] and we can't use {{PD-Afghanistan}} for any of that. Only these ones using a personal camera were taken by them and since Omaid Weekly is a U.S. entity [13] we also can't use {{PD-Afghanistan}}.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photos I was referring to were the ones copyrighted by the Afghan Omaid Weekly. see here Do not distort things. I never said I wanted to use the pictures by Omaid under {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Since you were stating otherwise I pointed out that Afghan citizens (who also work for Omaid Weekly even if the English section is based in the U.S.) generally of course were also able to take pictures of Massoud.—JCAla (talk) 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't say anything about what you wanted to do, I simply was talking to everyone involved here and I used the term "we". I don't know why you're getting so emotional. You cannot upload files here based on your assumptions. Have a great day.--Lagoo sab (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, your argument is immaterial to the question I've asked. I've already marked it fair use, I'm only trying to see exactly who the author is. Please tell me without all the other fluff about who it isn't or who said what deleted when. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great solution, couldn't be better.--Lagoo sab (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:XM8 - Final Version.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't see anything on the source site indicating this work is licensed as federal government work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heckler&Koch is surely not a part of the U.S. federal government and so their advertising publications are not public domain. Blatant copyright violation. Here is the file btw: http://web.archive.org/web/20060107000259/http://hkdefense.us/corporate/media/pdf/xm8inside.pdf. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• also redundant to commons image.
  Qwertyus 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.