Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

File:Rewards for Justice Mullah Omar.png

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: change to non-free. TLSuda (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rewards for Justice Mullah Omar.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image is the work of Khalid Hadi, an Afghan American. It was not published before 1923. According to news sources, it was first published by U.S. media after the Sepetember 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. [1] Additionally, there is no evidence that it is of Mullah Omar. Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This user obviously wants to get rid of this image discreetly knowing full well the challenges he faces in accusing it of being a fake visual representation, hence why I was not notified of this discussion on my talk page, and found it on my own means. Anyhow, the PD template states "In most cases", and it is obvious it wasn't published prior to 1923. It was however published outside the United States after 1978 without a copyright notice, and as Afghanistan is not apart of the URAA (or the WTO), is considered in the PD by the U.S upon January 1, 1996 due to no copyright placed upon it when it was an ID photo in 1993. I have since changed the template to clarify this, but a note was present in the original template. This debate is over whether an Afghan national ID photo first published in Afghanistan is considered in the PD by the United States. The source [2] states that it was published in Afghanistan, in 1993 before it was introduced in 2003 into U.S media circles in the form of an Afghan national ID photo, which would mean that no copyright applies according to the U.S. There is no evidence in the source that indicates Khalid Hadi was a citizen of the United States of America when the image was taken. Moreover, despite the article using [3], it is quite clear that the original version of the image with no alterations done is [4],[5], [6], due to the grainy image quality. The version used on Wikipedia [7] and by the U.S government [8] is cropped from the original, digitally enhanced from the original and comes from an official affiliate of the U.S State Department, [9] who cite it and all material listed on its site as being in the public domain, according to the United States [10]. This would make this version a free alternative if in use by the U.S Federal Government (which it is), and I am unable to find a copyright on this particular version of the image. Furthermore, as the image was taken in Afghanistan in the early 1990's which is not a signatory to the Berne Convention on copyrights and the image is considered in the public domain from the source as stated above, it is therefore in the public domain in at least the United States as per Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office. As Afghanistan, the origin of the image, and the photographer are not members of any multilateral copyright conventions or agreements, as well as any bilateral relationships with the United States, the image is considered not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements. The intention of the image was to be used for personal identification means, hence ID photo, not for commercial opportunities. The U.S does not have a copyright agreement with Afghanistan, the location where the image was taken, the nationality of the author and the original place of publication and production. Therefore, Works published in Afghanistan by a resident citizen of Afghanistan are not copyrighted in the United States, irrespective of the local copyright laws in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Due to this image being so drastically different to the one originally taken by the author and used by the U.S Federal Government, it could be argued that it is in fact an entirely different image, see [11]. It is fair to say that if the U.S government were allowed to make a derivative work, then they either did so with the original authors permission, or consider the image PD for the reasons mentioned above, in which case the image is in the public domain in the united states, as the PD template already states. And in regards to the comment that it doesn't portray who the image is intended to portray, the original author claiming to have taken the image and the U.S Federal government using an enhanced version of the image blows that feeble assertion out of the water. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  It is a private photo supposedly made in 1993 by a 10 year old Afghan kid who is either a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. The source itself states "Afghans love to tell tales. I have heard many over the years." [12] This image was first published in late 2001 in the United States. It was never published in Afghanistan. Therefore, it is protected under US copyright law. You tagged it as a pre-1978 photo, which is inapplicable. Just because it appears at Rewards For Justice doesn't mean it is PD. The other issue is, like I said several times, there is not enough evidence that this is Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban. This claim is based on Khaild Hadi, a guy who worked at a fast food restaurant. He says it is the leader of the Taliban but that's not enough proof. It requires at least one credible source to support the claim. If you search you'll find a news report which contradicts Hadi's claim. I'm busy I don't have time to search that but it's there somewhere.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the article doesn't state that the author had any affiliation to the United States, beyond his father immigrating in 1992. You say the image was published in 2001, when the article is in fact dated February 2003, and the image was in fact published in 1993, when first used as an national ID photo image, an image used for personal use. More importantly, you still have yet to respond to the fact that the version of the Mullah Omar image you are ranting about, which is clearly different from the original one taken by the author, is somehow still under the same supposed copyright. The fact that you are now using petty excuses that it is fake by drawing from ambiguous lines "Afghans love to tell tales. I have heard many over the years." shows this desperation. "Just because it appears at Rewards For Justice doesn't mean it is PD", yeah except when Rewards for Justice use their own version of the image [13], which is altered from the original [14] in terms of hues in pigmentation, the image dimensions, the resolution, and the lighting, which is cited as being in the Public Domain "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without RFJ's permission. We request that RFJ be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or RFJ, as appropriate." [15]. It is clear that [16] was not the image taken by the author which has been digitally enhanced, possibly by the U.S government, as it's featured on their site, and was put there in 2001, when Mullah Omar was deemed a threat to U.S national security. The original taken by Khalid Hadi is [17], and it is likely that this is the version copyrighted. If a U.S Federal Government agency using visual identification for the purpose of identifying people is not enough proof, then that either means you're a conspiracy theorist, or you just don't care if it is, and just repeat the same old mantra over and over, in the hope that some admin on Wikipedia will have enough pity to listen to you. The fact that you repeatably try and dodge the bullet by giving the same weak statements over and over again "If you search you'll find a news report which contradicts Hadi's claim. I'm busy I don't have time to search that but it's there somewhere", which is very similar to these diffs and your responses in them: [18] "There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it" [19] "The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar.", [20] "An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much." and "There is another story that I watched on TV which tracked this man to a house in Kandahar and that man was pissed off saying Khalid Hadi took his photo and told the Americans he was Mullah Omar. This is why you can't trust Afghans" and finally [21] "Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth". You sure seem to have an aversion to sources even though you decry others for citing ones which are somehow 'illegitimate'. The only one here who "loves to tell tales" is you, Krzyhorse22. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument and the story of Khalid Hadi make absolutely no sense. The Vanity Fair magazine that you keep reciting says Hadi (the supposed author) was 20 years old in 2003 and Hadi states that at age 13 he began taking pictures of wounded people fighting Russians in Afghanistan, which would be 1996. The image in question was supposedly made in 1993, when Hadi was only 10 years old. Nobody in their right mind would buy such a story. No wonder why Edward Grazda stated "Afghans love to tell tales. I have heard many over the years." [22] The An Afghan guy living and working in the United States, with his father being a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, means that he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident, unless you present some kind of evidence that he entered the United States illegally, was an illegal alien and was working under the table (without permission from the government). Anyway, this is irrelevant, the photo was first published 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 (emphasis added). You wrongly assume that when someone takes a picture it is published. Publication means to make it public so anyone can see it. For example, in magazines, books, or on public display, etc. You must show record of the actual publication as proof. ID cards are personal and private documents, without permission nobody can copy or use them. I don't know what country you're from but in the United States if you copy or use someone's ID card without permission it is a crime, see Identity theft, and if you use someone's photo without permission it is copyright infringement.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that every version of this image is protected under US copyright law. So the argument about this version or that version is completely irrelevant. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on whether or not Khalid Hadi is telling the truth is irrelevant. You have not found another source that contradicts that he didn't take the photo, or if it was of someone else, whereas the U.S government use a derivative of his original image and state that it's indeed the person Khalid Hadi claims it to be. You also haven't established that if the original image is indeed copyrighted, why there isn't a disclaimer on the RFJ website, stating it's copyrighted, and further, that it states the image is in the public domain, as you seem to be the U.S copyright expert. Is the U.S State Department infringing on a copyrighted work? I've already emailed the State Department and the RFJ program on this matter, so as to confirm this with them. Estimated response time is expected to be between 24-48 hours. If a member of the U.S government has indeed made those alterations to the original image by completely changing the way it looks through digitally altering and cropping, then I can see no other explanation as to why it is listed in the PD, beyond being a U.S Federal government creation or if the author gave the U.S permission for them to alter the original and use said image in a similar capacity to Wikipedia, i.e for non commercial use, in which case your statement is baseless. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to non-free per Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not qualify under which you recommended. All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. It is obvious that this image was never published in Afghanistan, it is obvious that it was first published by Vanity Fair (magazine) in the United States.[23] See also Template:PD-Afghanistan--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was first published outside Afghanistan, or if it has never been published without the consent of the copyright holder, then it is copyrighted for the life of the photographer plus 70 years, or from 95 years from its first publication, or for 120 years from its creation. It is clear that none of those time periods has ended yet. Therefore, if it was first published in the United States, it is clearly copyrighted in the United States. It does not matter by whom it was published. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is Vanity Fair (magazine), which is a U.S.-based publisher, published it in February 2003. [24] Therefore, only U.S. copyright law applies. There is no such evidence that it was published in another country prior to that. The magazine article explains that the author lives and works in the U.S. so his photographs (regardless in which country he shot) are all protected under U.S. copyright law. It's the same as an American tourist going to Asia and making photos there, they're protected under U.S. law, not Asia's laws.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. What this means is that prior to February 2003, the photo was still protected in the United States because it was unpublished.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if that applies if it's the U.S government who first publishes the image for public use as Mullah Omar was listed as wanted by the U.S State Department in October 2001, long before the image was used by Vanity Fair in 2003. That image has been used since 2001, therefore that is the first known published date, and the RFJ state Public-Domain. [25] StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to non-free - The issue is not about a possible copyright in the place where the image was taken. It's about the image being under an apparent copyright under U.S law, while at the same time, the U.S Federal Government using the image on a State Department affiliated website and citing it in the Public Domain. The State Department and RFJ have still not responded to my email, which leads me to believe that they don't care about the authenticity that it's in the PD, but should they respond and provide a reasonable explanation, then I suggest the image be re-uploaded as being in the PD in the U.S .In this event however, without any clarification from the U.S State Department, I think it's best to use this image as non-free content while keeping this exact version on the RFJ site (with the cropping) and possibly putting a disclaimer about the conflict between a copyright on the image and the PD claim used by the RFJ. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2014 (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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It is clearly uploaded without permission from the author and copyright holder. [26] It being posted or showing at other websites is irrelevant and does not make it PD.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further consensus required - It has permission from the original publisher, the U.S State Department, [27] "information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without RFJ's permission". It being posted or shown on a U.S Federal Government affiliated website as being in the PD is completely relevant, especially if it was published in October 2001 a good year and three months before the February 2003 Vanity Fair article. If the U.S state it's in the PD, then, as I stated above, copyright did not apply to them in making a derivative of the original image which is currently in use on Wikipedia, so why would the copyright use of the U.S State/RFJ version apply to Wikipedia? There is no copyright disclaimer on the RFJ site in reference to that image, which leads me to believe that the U.S don't have to put a disclaimer if they created the newly derived digitized version of the original image taken by Khalid Hadi, in which case it could fall under a U.S Federal Government created image. It was also first published in Afghanistan in 1999, before it was used in American media publications, [28]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, it was not published in Afghanistan in 1999 as you falsely claim. That link you provided only shows recent images made in Afghanistan. The image in question here could not have been published in Afghanistan in 1999 because Taliban government ruled the country and photography, TV, internet and magazines were strictly banned.
2. You're not allowed to make more than one vote. Also, please stop repeating the same nonsense, it is clearly established that the author of this image is a private person by the name of Khalid Hadi, and not the U.S State Department as you falsely assert. "Author" is the person who snapped the photo (i.e. photographer) and in this case it was not a U.S. government employee during his/her official duties as you attempt to suggest. All versions of this image, the actual paper photo, digitized and cropped, are protected by U.S. copyright law and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia as a work of U.S. government. It's better that you stop commenting, the admins know what to do with this image when they find the time to come to it.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all images were banned, how did Khalid Hadi manage to work as an official photographer for the Taliban regime, as the source which you are taking as gospel, clearly states? [29], 2nd row, 2nd column, circa 1999. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make no sense, I never said images were banned, I said "photography" was banned. Khalid took the photo in 1993 before Taliban enforced their law. Him being official photographer for Taliban is considered unsourced WP:POV. I'm not taking it as a gospel but it clearly shows the 1993 photo being published in February 2003 in a U.S. based magazine, that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You need to understand that taking or shooting a picture is one thing and publishing it is another. When someone snaps a photo and keeps it at home that is not publication, and as I explained such images are protected under U.S. copyright law. The new link you keep posting shows the same 1993 Mullah Omar's photo next to Hamid Karzai's recent photo. That clearly demonstrates that it is not 1999 as you wrongly assume. BTW, those images in the link were first published in Germany.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.