Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg

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.

File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_diving_suit_with_gun_(self_portrait).jpg

[edit]

The image comments is used to direct to a hate publication / promoting original research wp:nor Hemshaw (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author unknown, no evidence for permission by the photographer --Hemshaw (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image violates Wikimedia guidelines on licensed content; free-use alternatives are also available. Snow (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Those are not grounds for deletion. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image (as with the others taken from social media, at least one of which is being used on Wikipedia, also on Breivik's page) has a questionable licensing status. Since we now have free-equivalent replacements from his arrival at his arraignment hearing, the three original images should all be removed and replaced with these newer alternatives, which not only have the advantage of complying with Wikipedia's content-use policies, but are also less inflammatory, do not allow Breivik to promote himself and his ideology through us, and are pictures which have more contextual relevance to the article, rather than just being the douche posing in the manner he thinks he should be seen. Four solid reasons to delete, though the first one alone is sufficient, imo. Snow (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a new movement to obfuscate a part of our history. I think Wikipedia should have no part in this. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored Gabiteodoru (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be inappropriate and something akin to censorship to remove the picture if the only criteria we were using to make that decision was the one on the header of the deletion request. However, it is not censorship to replace one photo of the man with another. If anything, in this case it would be less obfuscating since Breivik staged these photos specifically to promote a certain image in the wake of his attacks, whereas the alternatives we now have available are candid. If we allow ourselves to get sucked into his 'marketing' (his word) campaign we can hardly be said to be serving the cause of realism and accuracy in our articles by doing so. If we were creating a page on any other person of note, it would be considered inappropriate to take his or her suggestions on what was the best light to display them in, and that's exactly what is happening here, albeit in a very roundabout way. His page would be better served with more conventional photos. Regardless, Wikipedia's licensing guidelines take precedence here and they are very clear that we cannot keep a proprietory image through a fair-use claim if there is a free-liscence image we can use. so the argument isn't whether we should censor by removing his likeness altogether, the question is which photos will serve best in the roles we require for them, and which are allowed by Wikipedia guidelines to begin with. Approaching the issue from both these angles, it's clear one set of photos is more appropriate than the others, which are outright disallowed by higher priority rules anyway. Snow (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What image to use is up to the Wikipedias, not Commons. Wikipedia's guidelines are irrelevant here; go discuss which picture to use at Wikipedia, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the second point, but as to the licensing, can you forward your reasoning? My understanding was that images taken from social media were assumed to be property of their respective subjects, photographers, or the hosting site itself if stipulated in its terms and conditions, until proven otherwise. Snow (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not from social media; it's from his manifesto, as per the image page (that had source information deleted for a while).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: As per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people the picture is not free-license unless Breivik makes explicit note of its release in the manifesto or elsewhere:

"The consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named."

I therefore reiterate my stance that the image is not acceptable under Wikimedia content guidelines and must be removed unless proof can be shown that consent has been given for its use. I should further note that all other objections that have been raised on this page (as of the time of this post) are irrelevant as they only address the issue of the suitability for Wikipedia purposes, which, as has been noted here already, is not a commons issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored is subordinate to content licensing guidelines. If further objections to deletion cannot meet the burden of proving the free status of the image (and I believe they can't short of a proven statement of consent from Breivik) then questions of censorship and all other matters of appropriateness to the use on Wikipedia are irrelevant. Snow (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the license on the page?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the manifesto, that information should be provided here, if it exists. If someone wishes to prove that consent has been granted, then it is their obligation to provide the relevant evidence to contest the deletion. Snow (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've actually read it now, Breivik does in fact give full rights to use and reproduce. The image cannot be barred on grounds of licensing. I guess it's in Wikipedia's court now. Snow (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Unfortunately, this is a "goofy" image of Breivik in a diving suite rather than a professional image that he would have paid for. So, sadly, I would have to say that he likely took it himself with a self-timer on his camera and then used some Photoshop. He mentions taking his own images himself in his intolerable manifesto. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, what you think is likely does not matter. He does not say he owns the rights to this photograph. He mentions taking photographs, in a broad sense, in this online document, but that isn't a commons compatible declaration. c/f Commons:PRP.  Chzz  ►  11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If the licensing information I read on the image's wikipage is correct, then there should be no reason to delete it for licensing reasons. Commons' mission is to be a repository of images, so there should be no bias in the selection of which images to host. It is the responsibility of other projects to decide whether an image fits their mission. Cogiati (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The image documents a relevant fact and has been explicitly released in the public domain by the author. The comments to the image in its Commons page (as they are now) do not deliver any hate propaganda or much less original research, and if they were, they could be changed instead of deleting the image. The odd wording of Breivik's licence must be reported, even if it sounds racist, as it is the original licence. Orzetto (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - same opinion like my pre-posters. --Trollhead (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is included in this PDF file, towards the end. On page five of this file, it says: "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form." 31.16.112.242 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This image is included in the version I saw of his "manifesto" (in the last pages, with other images of him), which is a personal, non-licensed work he apparently sent freely to all of his 7,000 facebook contacts, and in which he urges everyone to distribute the material to their contacts. Hence, if this photo was originally in his manifesto, and not added afterwards by the medias which distributed it, the image is logically free to distribution, because he says it himself.Munin75 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Wikimedia Commons doesn't pick and choose among photos to promote viewpoints, neither to help nor to hinder the dissemination of a POV. Besides, the claim seems absurd - Breivik either looks ridiculous in this photo, or else he looks like the sort of goon you see shot in vast numbers in PG-rated spy thrillers. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete
The picture shall be deleted. Arguments:
* The picture is not educationally useful. It does not show Anders Behring Breivik as he was. What he wears is not a uniform. He doesn't wear clothes typical for his profession or his everyday life. The picture shows Breivik in a costume.
* The picture does not have informative content that help the viewer gain knowledge. On the contrary - trying to understand or to describe Breivik is much easier using his 1518 pages manifesto or public statements during the deed or after his detention.
* The picture is self-promoting. Breivik made and spread this photo in order to market himself. The picture is an advertisment for himself and for his ideology.
* The picture is not neutral. Breivik chose a threatening, powerful pose in order to provoce feelings. Wikimedia Commons is for educational pictures - this picture is not neutrally educating - it is positive-biased.
* There are good reasons for Commons to provide a platform for informative images even if they depict bad taste. Only - this aspect (providing educational benefit) needs to be fulfilled. If a picture doesn't do this, we should contemplate about whether to host the picure or not. Deletion requests are the process Commons created for this purpose. There is one important aspect that has not been mentioned up to now: Our collective responsibility.
Science has well documented that images can provoce copycat crimes. The image at hand shows a murderer of 76 mostly young people in a heroic pose. Depicting him with powerful weapons makes it easy for mentally unstable people to identify with him. This is an existing threat. We do have the responsibility to balance the informational benefit of a picture and (in this case) the possible threat it poses. In this case, to me it seems that both aspects support the deletion of this picture. The picture does not educate about who Breivik is or how he committed his crimes. Sadly, the danger of copycat crimes is real. Out responsibility is not just collective - it is the responsibility of every single individual involved here. Let uns use pictures of Breivik as a private person, in any profession he had or as an arrested suspect. Let us outline the point of view he had and that he wrote down. But do not let us support his propaganda when it might facilitate similar crimes. Please consider this carefully. --131.188.24.42 15:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Science hasn't "proved" any such thing. There are examples of people producing copy-cat crimes based off a totality of media coverage. The picture does educate about who Breivik is; it shows him as he sees himself and how he wants to be portrayed. It shows him in a costume, and for the vast majority of people out there, if they choose to put on a costume and show it off, it says a lot more about them then their day-to-day wardrobe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prosfilaes! How do you come to the conclusion that there wouldn't be anything like copycat crimes? Science has well documented the effect of copycat suicides. Also, there has been a number of studies on rampages, e. g. Bennenberg (2011), Schmidtke (2002): Imitation of amok and amok-suicides (after an amok event, the propability of similar amok events rises drastically; "Therefore, it may be dangerous to report about amok events in a sensational way"). There is even indication, that every second amok event is done by a copycat criminal (the article is in German language, you might try Google translator). Also, this article from a German Institute for crime prevention might be interesting to read, as well as the book "When crime waves" from Vincent Sacco, a Canadian professor of sociology.
Yes, the picture does show Breivik. But all other, non-sensational pictures of him do so, as well. And yes, you can also try to draw conclusions. The problem is that would be interpretation - not learning. Every viewer will interpret the picture differently. That's why an analysis of his written material seems more helpful. Still, emotional pictures make it easy to identify with the depicted person. With the side effects mentioned above. Please consider this. --131.188.24.42 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there wouldn't be copy-cat crimes, but that they're based off a totality of media coverage. I think your line between interpretation and learning is absurd; for humans, the most natural form of learning is not didactic lecturing, but learning through interpreting a wide variety of material. Pictures of people in clean normal clothing makes me identify with them; this getup makes me point and laugh. Again, if you want to edit Wikipedia, go do so, but by deleting it here you're obliging every project not to use this picture in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-neutral material" is useful when it illustrates non-neutral viewpoints. We carry a fair assortment of political documents, cartoons, and photos representing the range of human philosophies (most of which are abhorrent). Concern about copy-cat crimes is not unjustified, but let's be serious: this is Geert Wilders and the Tea Party come home to roost. Every country has its bigots, and for some strange reason all of them - from the American Nazis to al Qaida, even Inkatha - seem to prefer to kill their own people more than the minorities they detest. The material we see here is disseminated very widely in the popular press, but those researching here are not acting as casual vectors of transmission - we are antigen presenting cells whose role is to take up this material, digest it into analyzable bits, and present it to others in a way that they can recognize and respond to, i.e. reject. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like it or not Breivik still owns the copyright of this picture and I don't see any evidence that he released it under a free license. SpeakFree (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Well I read he released it now. But then one can ask if he was in a sound state of mind when he wrote the document. If he is declared to have been mentally unstable at the time his release of the image is null and void. Better err on the side of safety. SpeakFree (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Clear copyvio; the purported release in the 'manifesto' is not compatible with Commons.  Chzz  ►  22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form" is not any more ambiguous than "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose." It is obvious that the author wanted to make the photo as free as possible. Releasing something into public domain is not incompatible with Commons. Mathias-S (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the same section of the same document, he also states, it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world. That isn't PD. Furthermore, all non-PD licences require us to know the author. At no time has Breivik said, "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work"; instead, he declares that "the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world", and "I have written approximately half of the compendium myself" - clearly, we do not know which half. Therefore, we have no 'author' information. In addition, we already know that the same document contains other copyrighted content, without appropriate licencing.  Chzz  ►  10:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has since been indefinitely blocked [2]  Chzz  ►  11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep clearly licensed, though we have to face the absurd situation, that the author obviously planned to have spread his selfpics via content platforms like these. I guess that's what we call 21st century media terrorism.Schmelzle (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has since been indefinitely blocked [3].  Chzz  ►  11:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The legal status of this image is unclear: there is no undisputed evidence that Breivik is indeed its copyright owner and that the "license" in his manifesto is valid in the sense of COM:L. Unless these issues are resolved, this is not a free image. Unfree images should be deleted per policy (see COM:D and COM:PRP). Wutsje (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree with everyone who said "keep" too Crusier (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The legal status of this image is unclear. Zabia2 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It is released to "all Europeans across the European world" hence not universally accessible for all people in the world. The license would thus only be suitable for a right-wing wiki such as Metapedia. SpeakFree (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We can reasonably consider the image to be licensed under a CC-BY license. Here's the reasoning:
    • The licensing terms are garbled, as Chzz notes: on the one hand, they say that the content "belongs to all Europeans across the European world" and on the other hand, "it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used," and that besides that, about half of it comes from other sources. Obviously Breivik cannot license material that he doesn't own, so those terms don't apply to material that he didn't write.
    • As for his own contributions, a conservative interpretation of the license terms (most restrictive) is that he continues to own the content but grants permission to reproduce it provided that the authors are credited: i.e. CC-BY.
    • By all accounts, he has had no assistance writing his manifesto or planning his attacks, so we may conclude that the photograph of him wearing a wetsuit and holding a rifle is a self-portrait, and therefore licensed under the CC-BY terms described above. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What a mess. Here is my view on the subject at hand:
    1. The image is with a dual licensed at best. It has that restrictive copyright for "European" use with a dubious scope and also perhaps a free license. This needs to be clarified.
    2. The correct procedure here is OTRS not COM:DEL. The result of the vote is irrelevant as even if it is a keep if the image isn't freely licensed it would still be deleted. A vote is counter productive when establishing copyright. That said the copyright is held by the person snapping the photo and not the model/subject of the photo itself unless proven otherwise. Of course asking the model of the photo would be more than difficult at this point.
    3. I am astonished at some of the comments here based on POV. POV has no place in COM:DEL discussions. I suspect the nominators motives have nothing to do with commons policies. It is clear that we are deleting with a POV oriented canvassing effort.
    4. As for other rationale, this image is educational as it can be used to demonstrate rifle shooting stance, the rifle itself, the uniform of the Norwegian military/divers assication (or whatever the logo represents) as well as demonstrate the target person himself. Einsteins most famous photo is when he is being silly w:File:Einstein tongue.jpg, this can be what this person be remembered by I suppose. So it is well within the project scope. Of course the mentioned uses would be tasteless but as long as it is a possibility it satisfies project scope criteria.
    -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Tough luck getting OTRS permission unless he gets internet access in his jail cell. SpeakFree (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete:Manipulated Image: Anders Behring Breivik, the suspected perpetrator of the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway, Source Andrew Berwick, Author Andrew Berwick. Permission:"intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations." Not worldwide, CNN has not been able to independently verify the souce as BreivikPurported manifesto, video from Norway terror suspect detail war plan, CNN 24 July 2011

--88.110.248.99 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:: You are lying for us! The correct quote is:

"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."

Some parts of the compendium were written by other authors than Breivik. The pictures of Breivik, however, are not meant at all !!!!! Fjordman did not publish a picture of Anders Behring Breivik saying: This is my picture. Did he? Nobody here wants to put texts of Fjordman on Norway Attacks. Why would you do that, when there are many hundred pages left, that couldn't possibly be anyone elses but Breiviks's. And we are talking about one of the pictures here. Some people argue, that you mustn't publish anything of 2083, as there might possibly be someone in the future saying: Hey, that sencence is from me. Such a thing might happen, who knows, but that's the same with most peaces of writing. But people usually are not inclined to not citing at all for this reason. The only "reason" here is hate against Breivik. --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer those questions, Zanaq; bear in mind that this 'manifesto' is a rambling, enormous text; I will try to answer you showing direct quotations, so apologies that I have to write several lines, to present it fairly;
  • Does he own the rights? We don't know; there's no proof either way. Nowhere has he said anything clear, such as our declaration when you upload or send OTRS permission - there's no specific mention of the specific images in the manifesto. In discussing "marketing", he advises that Resistance leaders of larger networks should also arrange photo sessions with female patriotic models to use in online marketing/recruitment campaigns. It is essential that enough resources are invested into marketing material in order to create a professional and appealing image of our struggle. It is essential that cell commanders and/or cell operatives budget at least a portion of their operational budget to photo sessions and remember to delete all other unfortunate photos from the past. This is to prevent the media/police from getting access to them and exploit them for their own propaganda. The police usually “leak” “retarded looking” photos to the press after raiding the cells apartment after an operation. By removing and deleting all “negative” photos, and by making available the professional, photo shopped photos prior to the operation; we make their job significantly harder. Additionally, in alleged list of things he purchased (which also includes bomb-making equipment, guns, ammunition, etc) he mentions Casio EXZ 330 SR digital camera, for marketing purposes, from Expert, cost: 80 Euro. This would allow me to complete a photo session, without the need to use a professional photographer. I have used a professional in the past but it is obvious that the regalia I intend to use in the photo session will generate suspicion and threaten the security of the operation. Lack of professional digital equipment, green sheet background and other related and expensive photo gear can be compensated by my Photoshop skills..
Some users, in this deletion debate, have claimed this is evidence indicating that he owns the copyright of this specific image.
  • what does his license say exactly? There is no 'licence' as such. There's various mentions of his wish for people to distribute it. In one part, "Distribution of the book", he says, The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know. Please do not think that others will take care of it. Sorry to be blunt, but it does not work out that way. If we, the Western European Resistance, fail or become apathetic, then Western Europe will fall, and your freedom and our children’s freedom with it… It is essential and very important that everyone is at least presented with the truth before our systems come crashing down within 2 to 7 decades. So again, I humbly ask you to re-distribute the book to as many patriotic minded individuals as you can. I am 100% certain that the distribution of this compendium to a large portion of European patriots will contribute to ensure our victory in the end. Because within these three books lies the tools required to win the ongoing Western European cultural war. As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations.
Some, here, think that the first part of that is clear intent to allow free use. However, others think that the later conditions that state it "belongs to all Europeans across the European world" negates that.
In addition, we have evidence presented in reliable sources which confirms portions of the manuscript are copyright violations. The article on English Wikipedia states this;[4]

The introductory chapter of the manifesto defining "Cultural Marxism" is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation.[1][2][3] Major parts of the compendium are attributed to the pseudonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman.[4] The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while exchanging the words "leftists" for "cultural Marxists" and "black people" for "muslims".[5]

  1. ↑ William S. Lind , ed. (2004-November) "Political Correctness:" A Short History of an Ideology, Free Congress Foundation
  2. ↑ Scholars Respond to Breivik Manifesto[1], National Association of Scholars, 28 July 2011
  3. ↑ Anne-Catherine Simon, Christoph Saiger und Helmar Dumbs (29 July 2011). "Die Welt, wie Anders B. Breivik sie sieht". Die Presse.
  4. ↑ Dette er terroristens store politiske forbilde – nyheter. Dagbladet.no (18 August 2009). Retrieved on 25 July 2011.
  5. ↑ Massedrapsmannen kopierte "Unabomberen" ord for ord. Nrk.no. Retrieved on 24 July 2011.
I hope that helps answer your questions.  Chzz  ►  14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the questions that should be asked according to the policy. Your answers sound (unsurprisingly) like a delete to me. Zanaq (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This image and related images all were released to the public domain, and no credible objection to this has arisen from any potential copyright owner other than Breivik himself.--Cerejota (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the bit about europeans was meant seriously, then it's utterly moronic and thus invalid; if meant symbolically (my opinion), it is no different than some left wing tract stating that it "belongs to the working class", and can be considered not a restriction. Victor falk (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob is lying for us! The correct quote is:

"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."

So, what is Off2riorob hiding from us? He is hiding that the pictures of Breivik are not meant at all by what he is citing for us, to make us delete the pictures!!!! Liar!!!! --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A well-formulated CC or GPL (which have no inherent legal status whatsoever) is not necessary, only a statement of the type "I hereby release this in the public domain". The intention is clearly stated that the manifesto is to be freely distributed.
  • On the the copyright ownership: there is absolutely nothing here that allows us to have any suspicion whatsoever that ABB has it. (If a professional took that picture, then he also acquired the distribution rights, unless a special deal was made. That the authors' rights (droit d'auteur) always remains with the original artist is something else, some editors seem to have confused the two).
  • Also, I'm a bit worried that if so flimsy a degree of doubt is sufficient to delete a picture, then a large portion of all the pictures on wikicommon could be easily deleted. We should let the fact that it is related to a major and very controversial current event could our judgement). Victor falk (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the manifesto does it say "public domain".  Chzz  ►  16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form" sounds pretty much like "I hereby release this in the public domain" in my ears. Doesn't it in yours? Victor falk (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Breivik wrote " the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world " which is not a valid licence on Commons. And we should have the same decision for all those pictures: Keeping some of them and not the others just doesn't make sense. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christophe Dioux is lying for us! The correct quote is:

"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."

So, what is Christophe Dioux hiding from us? He is hiding that the pictures of Breivik are not meant at all by what he is citing for us, to make us delete the pictures!!!! Liar!!!! --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sannmann, insulting the other contributors will not help your point of view. Breivik can release his pictures and his book (Oops, the pictures only, not the book, as part of his content seems to be a copyright violation) under a CC or a PD or a GFDL licence at anytime if he decides do do so. Until then, these pictures are not yet released under such a licence. Period. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One is not required to relinquish one's intellectual property rights on Commons. One is only required to give everyone the right to modify and distribute under the same license. So the releasing of those rights to all Europeans is a bonus, but not required. Zanaq (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To give to others the right to distribute a file, one must own the intellectual property of it. Once Breivik has given this intellectual property to "all Europeans", only "all Europeans" (all together?!?) could decide to release it under a valid PD licence. I'm not a lawyer but I think that this in not a clear PD or any other clear licence according to WP regulations. Breivik did not write clearly "PD" or "CC-BY-SA" or "GFDL". Even from his jail, he can do it anytime, via his defence counsel. Until then, we don't have a clear PD or CC or GFDL licence and we can not create a new kind of licence especially for M. Breivik. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Per chzz and others. This is all too fishy - the wording of his "license" makes it sound not free for people outside of Europe. Killiondude (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I cite from Breiviks 2083:

Distribution of the book

The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know

All the pictures are "content of the compendium". So they all "belong to everyone" and are "free to be distributed in any way or form". What some people here on Wikipedia are trying is to burn a book. And their only "argument" is, that they locked away the author without a chance to reconfirm what he already has made clear as can be before they locked him away in total isolation. This argumentation is a dictators argumentation. I find it hard to understand that people who argue like this are allowed to write on Wikipedia.

And yes, why don't these people come up with a guy who claims one single little bit of 2083 is his????? Why???? Because they have nothing but their wish to burn a book. They have nothing but their foolish little catch-22 argumentation! --Sannmann (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Sannmann has since been indefinitely blocked [5]  Chzz  ►  11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Public domain. The paragraph written by Breivik is not anything like that. When I read it, i first thought "well, that sounds like Public Domain". Then I thought "but it is only the right to translate and distribute", nothing about the right to modify it, or about the right to sell modifications of it. So it is not PD either. It could be rather some kind of a CC-BY licence, but it is not sure. I'm not a lawyer, but what seems clear to me is that the licence of this pictures is unclear. Which is a case of deletion under Commons policy. Now, if some day M. Breivik, directly or by way of his lawyer, declares "I release my pictures under PD (or CC-BY or other)", then it will be different. Until then, the licence of these pictures remains unclear. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hummm... And what about " the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world "? is it part of "Gemeinfrei"=PD too ? And do we have the right of derivative work ? of commercial use ? Sorry, but it is still not clear to me. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not formulated as a restriction. And, strictly speaking, {{PD-USGov}} is only free in the US; the US Government is entitled to charge royalties for distribution in Europe. As to your additional questions, "Permission is granted to Do What The Fuck You Want To with this document" is an acceptable license; not very lawyerly but very clear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first point, you're probably a lawyer or a specialist, i'm not. As to my additional questions, was "Do What The Fuck You Want To with this document" really M. Breivik's will ? Do you know it or are you deciding it for him ? --Christophe Dioux (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Book III (p. 777), he not only allows modification but positively encourages readers to come up with their own "fictional" scenarios of ethnic cleansing in Europe to distribute. Victor falk (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, self-promotional image with obvious retouching and unclear license. Runs counter to the ethos of Wikipedia projects. Guy 21:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fact 'CNN could not independently verify that Breivik wrote the document or posted the 12-minute video, and Norwegian authorities would not confirm that the man in their custody wrote the manifesto, saying it was part of their investigation. Police told the Norwegian newspaper VG that the document is "linked" to Friday's attacks.'

The author was 'Andrew Berwick, London', release was not worldwide. Yes the image is manipulaed and is promotional.

CNN 24 July 2011 --Hemshaw (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my comment above - the front of the compendium says its by Andrew Berwick, London, someone else, other than Breivik claimed to have created the pdf by combining files, I no idea who took the photo. Whoever produced the compendium added a lot of information from wikipedia, odd they did not release licence for the photographs under creative commons/GFDL. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No; it's called Anglicization. Anders Breivik obviously uses Andrew Berwick as his English name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which licence do you consider it compatible with?  Chzz  ►  03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you believe that? The "license" is identical to the one on every other Breivik image which was found did NOT comply with Commons:Licensing requirements. 3 weeks is more than long enough to come to a conclusion on this discussion. The license and arguments are identical to other images from the Breivik compendium which have since been deleted. Can an admin plase make a decision and close this? ShipFan (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Non-neutral... !votes of indef banned users should be struck. Albacore (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I'm among the first to be cautious about copyright. However, I think it's pretty obvious that Breivik clearly released this image, and the fact that we're bickering because he didn't specifically cite cc-by-sa 3.0 or something is utterly ridiculous. The last thing I'm seeing is a "clear copyvio", though. Wikipedia has "not a bureaucracy" and "ignore all rules" policies, so if this really is such an flagrant violation of commons policy (because he doesn't cite a "commons compatible license" it should really just be copied over to Wikipedia. Swarm (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, because it was mine some weeks ago. Now, under which licence exactly do you think Commons should keep this picture ? Because it is not enough to say "keep": We need to decide under which licence exactly we decide to keep it. Are you suggesting CC-BY-SA ? Or GFDL? or PD ? or WTFPL ? Which one? --Christophe Dioux (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Copyrighted free use}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with {{Attribution}}? That seems perfectly appropriate to me. Swarm (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Attribution}} includes the right of commercial use. I'm not sure Breivik allowed that in his manifesto. But if _you_ and so many others are so sure of it, after all, i won't waste time to defend such a criminal's royalties... IMHO, the situation is still unclear, that is all. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for this is, "free to be distributed in any way or form". Swarm (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very important point. It's a categorical statement of free release. "In any way" shows that he was putting no restrictions on the method of distribution. "In any form" shows that he was not prohibiting any changes to the original image. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm affraid not: "no restrictions" and "no prohibiting" are not enough: Breivik should have positively allowed changes and commercial use. Swarm said he thinks it is so. I think that it is still unclear. If you are right (not prohibited but not positively allowed), then it is a case of deletion per policy under Commons policy. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's clear that Breivik intended for these images to be in the public domain. --Rainbow boy (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's clear that the creator of the image intended it to be distributed as widely as possible. If he intended to restrict its usage he would have said so. His statement indicates no such restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - There is no positive proof that mr. Breivik is the sole author and copyright holder of this work, and the so-called 'license' is vague and unclear. Permission to re-use for modification and derived works is implicit and subject to interpretation at best. The way copyright works is not 'If [the copyright holder] intended to restrict its usage [he or she] would have said so', but rather 'If the copyright holder does not unambiguously state that certain restrictions (that come automatically with copyright) do not apply, one has to assume that they apply'. Pbech (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete With the same arguments as mentioned above - 1) All the other images of ABB from the compendium has already been deleted with the same arguments of unclear licence. - 2) It is probably correct, but not proven/admitted ABB is the owner of the compendium. - 3) Even assuming ABB is the owner the licence in the compendium is in my opinion dubious at best: It gives everybody the right to translate and redistribute in any form or medium, but in doing so you must credit the author(s). It is mentioned you are allowed to "[...] delete or change the wording in certain chapters before distribution" if you're worried about "violating any European laws", but that doesn't mention images and only certain chapters. The additional sentences of "[...] this compendium belongs to Europeans across the European world [...]" and "[...] distribute the book or some/all of its contents to [...] patriotic European political activists [...]" makes the licence even more dubious. - 4) Big chunks of text and plenty of images in the compendium are copy&paste from other people, which not necessarily ABB himself had the permission to use and redistribute, and if so can't give away. -Laniala (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can an admin please action this request. The "license" is identical to that applied to File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg which was was found not to be released "in any legal sense of the word" and was deleted as incompatible with COM:L. Nothing more can be said to change this. ShipFan (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The license states The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. which clearly places Breivik's contributions into the public domain by transferring ownership to everyone. He can't re-license the work of others, but the pictures are obviously Breivik's, and as such are compatible with COM:L. --Rainbow boy (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am European. I can distribute it without limitations. So I distribute it as PD. --Dezidor (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: it's not clear who is the copyright holder and if that copyright holder agrees with the "license" Jcb (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_diving_suit_with_gun_(self_portrait).jpg&oldid=62534184"