Commons:Deletion requests/All files link to Template:Archive-Mujahideen and the template itself.

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 policy 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.
[edit]

This is really unclear for me that those files are PD --- Zil (d) 12:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is link to the discution : Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:GSPC-AQIM_in_Algeria_from_as-Sahab_video.PNG
Being a media that : « its copyright holder is believed to as-Sahab or another militant media wing » is something not really clear, fro example this one : File:Wailalshehri.jpg Looks like an Al-Jazeera file... - Zil (d) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - when were you planning to notify uploaders of this deletion request? -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well As-Sahab might do this but we don't have any information on the source. It could be someone else editing a TV news magazine and uploading it on Internet Archive. For Instance, we've got a lot of stuff caming from Algeria or with Al-Jazeera logo. They are some well known web sites used by As-Sahab but there is no information on the copyright on those web site. - Zil (d) 07:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AJ logo on an image is copyrighted, but if the image itself is one of these by as-Sahab, it is not - only the logo is. That's why we have {{Watermark}}, we don't delete the files, we remove the watermark. Sherurcij (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Someone from as-Sahab send the picture to Al-Jazeera, then wait for the diffusion of the picture, capture during the news show on Al Jazeera and then decide to release it in the public domain and use the Internet Archive for it ? Those people are really too complicated for me. - Zil (d) 08:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does File:Wailalshehri.jpg look like an Al-Jazeera file? What logo is that? It's As-Sahab's logo, and not Al-Jazeera's logo. As-Sahab stopped sending material to Al-Jazeera several years ago, and instead just puts them up on the internet. They use sites like megaupload.com, as well as Internet Archive. [1] [2] -Aude (talk | contribs) 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to answer other people comment and affirmation?
We have no way of knowing the exact source of the image, if they are fake or not. Adding the template won't solve this issue. The images are 'believed to be...', it's not like we have an interlocutor who can confirm or deny the legacy of each image using the template... Either the source is confirmed and trustable enough, either it is not, hence my {{Vd}} Esby (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the images are "fake" (whatever that means...what, they used an animatronic puppet of Zawahiri?), it has no impact no their licensing. The image File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg is "fake", and the source (The KGB) is certainly not "confirmed or trustable enough"; but again, that no impact on this dicussion. Sherurcij (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make me say what I did not. Fake as there is no evidence that the uploader is the one who took the original footage. You might say what ever you want, but the template says 'believed'. I could take a video and make a capture it and upload it anonymously, that would not make me the original author. The point is the same here. We have images uploaded by third parties, allegated to be taken by other parties and we have no proof of it. Normal images would be speedy deleted here and nobody would object, but some people want to keep them, since they are from 'terrorist sources', funny isn't it? Asides from any ideology, I don't care who is wrong or not here (actually both are wrong, but it does not matter), that's not my issue, here I care about copyright and source accuracy, which is why we delete or keep images. Still the copyright status and the source of such medias is not clear at all and I think you perfectly know it, Zil had a point here, why anyone would bother using video footage from a TV while they could use the original source if they are what they claim to be. Esby (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all -- If they were liscensed as {{Pd}} then they should be treated as PD. I have uploaded over a thousand PD images. If our source says it is PD, and we have no good reason to doubt it is PD, we treat it as PD. I don't see anyone here offering a good reason to doubt these are PD. Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we could rename if it would be easier to make things more clear (an employee of Internet Archive, I obviously had no problem knowing "Archive='internet archive'); something like {{As-Sahab-Internet-Archive}} Sherurcij (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all AFAIK we don't have any reason to interpret the copyright status of these images except than by the uploader puting them under PD on Internet Archive. Yann (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I read it there is no one else contending that they are the copyright holder, no evidence that this is someone elses work. I don't really see any real suspicion that it might not be from the sources cited. It would appear to show better provenance than hundreds of thousands of images here with anonymous (pseudonym) license statements. As with all other media here, accept the license in good faith until some evidence shows otherwise. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree with Tony Wills. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Keep the license template. If there is any concern over whether any specific images are actually covered under this template, then there are other forums for that.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless copyrights status validated. We have OTRS for such situations. Or ask organization who creates them to clearly describe copyrights status or use Creative Commons licenses (as Al-Jazeera does). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an eMail address for al-Qaeda? And how do you translate CC-BY-2.0 into Arabic? They released them into the public domain, we don't need OTRS on it. Sherurcij (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have e-mails of al-Qaeda. But general promotion of free licenses is good idea. Again, al-Jazeera use them already.
How CC-BY-2.0 translated on other languages and adapted to specific countries laws? Why do you consider that it's impossible to do with Arabic language?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're created by al-Qaeda, not al-Jazeera - two very different groups. And as difficult as I think it would be to get al-Qaeda to agree to license under the Creative Commons...we don't have to, because these files they have already agreed to license under Public Domain. Sherurcij (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes you so sure that these files are in the public domain? Just because they were posted on the free archive http://www.archive.org/ does not mean that the person that uploaded the image to that archive is the copyright holder of those files. All in all quite dubious. I'd delete them. Foul 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  •  Delete - Per Esby.--Officer (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There's lots of pictures on Wikimedia Commons from people known only by aliases. If we have reason to believe that a certain file is not PD, then we delete it, but that's irrelevant to the template. If we have reason to believe that a bunch of files aren't PD, then we might start questioning people releasing them as PD, but I don't see that we have that evidence yet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I miss a good (valid) evidence for such files being in the public domain. I think just because somebody uploaded some media files to http://www.archive.org/ does not mean automatically that the person who uploaded them is the copyright owner of those media files. In my view the public domain argumentation because of the appearance of files on http://www.archive.org/ is very vague. A.Hakansson (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, since many images are dual-licensed, it's inappropriate (and borderline bad faith) to suggest "Let's delete this category...and all images within it!" I would assume that this vote is really a vote on the template itself, not treating all images as identical cases. Sherurcij (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is even for files that are clearly said to be from As-Sahab because there is some As Sahab logo. We don't know if it is loaded by someone from as Sahab or someone that bought one of their dvds on a Kandahar market. We don't have any proof that the author wants to release the vids in PD. And if we look at what is loaded on commons we know that people tend to release something in the PD even if they don't own it. - Zil (d) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, other than the fact we have footnoted references that as-Sahab is the one releasing them, we have the National Security letter confirming that as-Sahab is the one that released them, we have the word of an employee of Archive.org that it was as-Sahab releasing them...other than that, no way at all to know the author wants to release the copyright on them. Sherurcij (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, it is clearly established that as-Sahab implicitly claims to have the legal authority to release these images into the public domain and to have done so. But do they have that authority in copyright law? Strictly speaking, an organization cannot author a work. Individuals or sets of individuals can author a work. If they happen to be employed by or affiliated with an organization, then they are likely to have assigned the copyright in the work to their employer. So the unstated assumptions in all this are that these various images were created by as-Sahab members rather than collected by as-Sahab from a variety of sources, and that as-Sahab and its members carefully attended to the niceties of Western copyright law in assigning copyright to their employer. Generally on the Commons we credit such claims and assumptions unless we have a reasonable suspicion that the person making the claim is not credible. In this case, we have an organization (as-Sahab) and its parent (al-Qaeda) whose credibility has been widely questioned across society.—Werewombat (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, "believed" to be is not sufficient. Kept those that were clearly labelled as in Afghanistan under PD-Afghanistan. Kameraad Pjotr 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_link_to_Template:Archive-Mujahideen_and_the_template_itself.&oldid=418500339"