Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josip Broz Tito.jpg
- File:Josip Broz Tito.jpg
- File:Josip Broz Tito cropped.jpg
- File:Josip Broz Tito left.jpg
- File:Josip Broz Tito infobox crop.jpg
The claim that the photo is created by the Yugoslav Armed Forces is based on absolutely no evidence, the "source" is useless and nothing more but a self-reference. According to http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/104421080/Gamma-Keystone the image is possibly an international press image. This request includes the derivative works, unless a source can be provided that supports the claimed copyright status this files must be deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This image was taken on January 1 1942 and is public domain according to Croatian and Yugoslav law. Please read the licensing. This is also the most famous state portrait of the president. Anyone in ex-Yugoslavia will find it instantly recognizable as the Yugoslav state photo displayed in offices and public buildings all over the country from 1945 to 1992. It is NOT an "international press image", please provide a proper source for such a claim.
- At this point I'll mention User:Martin H.'s uncanny interest in my contributions here on Commons, and his apparent association with users who very much bare a personal grudge against me from the enWiki's Balkans "battleground" (Croatian User:Ex13). If the venerable admin is indeed "angry with me" [1], I humbly beg his forgiveness and hope he will not embark on an AfD-spree for any such reason. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This deletion request is strictly related to this particular images. What evidence do you have that it was created by the Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA) as you have write on the file description. Whats your source for that? If you dont have a source: dont write such things. Furthermore I doubt that the photographer is a member of that army and I doubt that he is not identifiable individually. See the Austrian National Libray http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Pages/ImageDetail.aspx?p_iBildID=13034657: "First image published of him in 1942, by Georges Skirigin". The information Georges Skirigin does not help me much, but it provides enough evidence that the photo is not anonymous and that your author information is a pure guess or bogus. --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again: whether the source is indeed the Yugoslav Army (i.e. the Yugoslav Partisans) is irrelevant, as the image is public domain. No members of the international press were present with Tito and his few guerillas on the run for their lives in the mountains of Yugoslavia in the middle of Nazi-occupied Europe in January of 1942. The very thought is laughable. A quick search uncovers only the one site of yours that even mentions "Georges Skirigin" in any context whatsoever [2]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the work is of known authorship and the author did not die before 1949 it will not be public domain but protected for the lifetime of the author plus fifty years - according to your license template. You failed to provide any source - did the JNA came to your house and gave you the image??. Now it is your burden to provide a source (where did you take the image from) and to provide evidence that the photo, which is of known authorship, is public domain. That the ÖNB is the only hit for the name might come from a typo or from wrong spelling/transcription of a name written in a foreign language or in cyrillic letters. Thats not a reason to neglect the possibility of known authorship and to drop behind with false author statements like that we have at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just had a look at the ÖNB link: the source in German clearly states that the image was published by Georges Skirigin. I cannot be expected to provide evidence of authorship if the author, some random guy fleeing for his life with the Yugoslav guerillas in January 1942, is unknown. The WP:BURDEN falls squarely on you to prove your claim of the existence of your phantom owner (likely a Partisan killed long before 1951 in any case).
- If the work is of known authorship and the author did not die before 1949 it will not be public domain but protected for the lifetime of the author plus fifty years - according to your license template. You failed to provide any source - did the JNA came to your house and gave you the image??. Now it is your burden to provide a source (where did you take the image from) and to provide evidence that the photo, which is of known authorship, is public domain. That the ÖNB is the only hit for the name might come from a typo or from wrong spelling/transcription of a name written in a foreign language or in cyrillic letters. Thats not a reason to neglect the possibility of known authorship and to drop behind with false author statements like that we have at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again: whether the source is indeed the Yugoslav Army (i.e. the Yugoslav Partisans) is irrelevant, as the image is public domain. No members of the international press were present with Tito and his few guerillas on the run for their lives in the mountains of Yugoslavia in the middle of Nazi-occupied Europe in January of 1942. The very thought is laughable. A quick search uncovers only the one site of yours that even mentions "Georges Skirigin" in any context whatsoever [2]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This deletion request is strictly related to this particular images. What evidence do you have that it was created by the Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA) as you have write on the file description. Whats your source for that? If you dont have a source: dont write such things. Furthermore I doubt that the photographer is a member of that army and I doubt that he is not identifiable individually. See the Austrian National Libray http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Pages/ImageDetail.aspx?p_iBildID=13034657: "First image published of him in 1942, by Georges Skirigin". The information Georges Skirigin does not help me much, but it provides enough evidence that the photo is not anonymous and that your author information is a pure guess or bogus. --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your angle seems very well thought out: lets demand that this annoying, "anger-inspiring" User:DIREKTOR finds the author of an anonymous image, or else we delete it! Not bad at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- It not states this, I speak german quite well (it is the only language I speak). The 'phantom' is at least more tangible than your source, which is nonexistent and does not satisfy Commons:Project_scope#Evidence where you are asked to provide evidence that your version (unknown author) is true in the first place. Furthermore I dont know why you refer to my talkpage, that was related to your edits like this and has nothing to do with this. This one I saw in the NewFiles, I found it doubtfull that with only three klicks I can provide more information about the image then your whole description says and with only five klicks I can provide evidence that your JNA claim is your personal opinion but has not much to do with the truth. Its not clear to me why people uplaod such files if they can not provide the smallest evidence that their copyright claim is true. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Not all of us speak German, but I certainly know enough to understand exactly what those few words say. The sentence you are basing this entire deletion request is:
First image published of him in 1942, by Georges Skirigin
The image was published by Georges Skirigin, granted.
Furthermore. I understand that you're not familiar with Yugoslav history and do not quite grasp the context of this image's creation on January 1 1942 in Bijele Vode. We are talking about a tiny band of guerrillas in the Yugoslav mountains in the middle of Nazi-occupied Europe on the run for their lives from the SS after the First Offensive - at a time when the guerrillas were not even known to be in existence by the West. Not exactly Time Square. The very idea that "international journalists" were there taking photos is utterly ridiculous.
Again, I must express my disdain for this apparent ploy. The author of this image is anonymous (most likely an anonymous Partisan). You cannot demand of me to present the author of an anonymous image, and then threaten to delete the photo if that is impossible. Provide real, tangible evidence that the author of this image is not unknown, or else please stop this "campaign" you've apparently unleashed against me and my contributions here. To be frank I do NOT consider you unbiased at all, since you have yourself admitted to harbouring intense resentment towards me. I am a long-standing editor with over 32,000 edits on enWiki, and numerous contributions here as well. I am not one to stand idly to be bullied by admins in this abhorrent manner. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I corrected your quote above, it was incorrect. If you change a sentence with removing commas from it you change the meaning and you will of course not understand it correctly. First, it was not me who uploaded an image with an invented claim. That was you. Second, you now corrected it but the situation has not changed: You are required to provide evidences that the copyright status is true. You now removed the magniloquent claim that the army created the image and we now have a file description that expresses what this upload really is: A file grabbed from titoville.com with no information at all about its creator or its copyright status. But we still not have any evidence confirming the copyright status. You can misinterpret foreign language sources, you can accuse me of intentions that I not have, this will not change the situation that this is a questionable upload. --Martin H. (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me if I do not believe you are here in good faith, after your expressions of intense personal resentment towards me [3]. You are here on a personal "revenge" mission because you personally disagree with some of my contributions. This is not my opinion - you've said so yourself.
When I uploaded this file, I was yet new to Commons and made some errors in describing the image. Granted, Since that seems to have offended you on a personal level I must offer my heartfelt apologies. However: with or without the comma (the omission of which was an honest mistake), the link you've provided talks about the image's publication, not its authorship. The fact that you are here trying desperately to delete some four or five long-standing Commons images, in widespread use among the individual projects - on the basis of a comma, is exactly why I think you are not here on objective grounds.
The image was taken in the middle of the Yugoslav mountains in Nazi-occupied Europe. The West was at the time completely unaware of the existence of Tito's forces (and indeed, Tito himself). Your claim of "international journalists" taking photos at that time and place is laughable even from the bare point of view of geographic and historical possibility.
The author of the image is anonymous, the image dates from well before 1951 - and as such it is public domain. According to WP:BURDEN, you are the party required to provide proof positive for your claim of the existence of any "phantom author" of yours. As opposed to demanding of me the impossible task of proving a negative. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- You repeatedly link to my talkpage where I say that I will not take action against you because I myself already reverted your vandalism on some files already and that someone else should take care of you. I dont know if you need to insult me or if you need to accuse me to rebuilt your own reliability. I dont know why you refer to that, it is unrelated. We are here on Wikimedia Commons. The Commons:Project_scope#Evidence reuquires YOU to provide evidence that this file is an anonymous work. Reasonable doubt exists that it is not. Its reasonable to require that you consult at least the most obvious sources, gettyimages claims copyright on the file, have you asked them? The ÖNB quotes an author, have you asked them? What source can you provide that confirms that the photographer of this work is anonymous?? --Martin H. (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why am I linking to your completely unprovoked rage-fit on your talk? Precisely to illustrate (in part) why I do not consider your claims of "reasonable" doubt to be even remotely NPOV. The link you posted does NOT mention or describe the authorship of the image. Merely its publication. Simmilarly, Commons:Project_scope#Evidence does NOT state or demand of editors the logically impossible task of proving a negative, that is merely your own interpretation, augmented by you appointing yourself the "Grand High Arbiter of Reasonable Doubt". This image is older than 1951, and its authorship is anonymous. It is public domain. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- "and its authorship is anonymous". What is your source for this piece of information. --Martin H. (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll repeat. It is not possible to show that the author is NOT known. The WP:BURDEN, considering the image's date, is on you to show that the author IS known. People can, but mostly do not list unknown authors ("oh and btw the author of this image is unknown"), as demonstrated by the fact that an author is never listed alongside this photo. What that essentially is, i.e. what you are doing here, is using an argument from ignorance: "you cannot prove that the author is NOT known, so the author must be known". When in actual fact, it falls to the other party to show that an author IS known.
- Have you never heard of "proving a negative", i.e. such a request being a logical fallacy?
- "and its authorship is anonymous". What is your source for this piece of information. --Martin H. (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why am I linking to your completely unprovoked rage-fit on your talk? Precisely to illustrate (in part) why I do not consider your claims of "reasonable" doubt to be even remotely NPOV. The link you posted does NOT mention or describe the authorship of the image. Merely its publication. Simmilarly, Commons:Project_scope#Evidence does NOT state or demand of editors the logically impossible task of proving a negative, that is merely your own interpretation, augmented by you appointing yourself the "Grand High Arbiter of Reasonable Doubt". This image is older than 1951, and its authorship is anonymous. It is public domain. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This whole matter can therefore be construed as: "the author of this image is anonymous, so I'll ask him to produce an unknown author and delete the image when the silly newbie finds that impossible". While in actual fact, considering the photo's age, the burden is on you who is trying to delete it. If you think the author is known, and therefore the image not public domain (as would otherwise be the case with regard to its age) - then please produce the author. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- All photos have an photographer. So you have to accept that also this photo has an photographer. You can not provide any positive that the photographer is unknown but you demand the project to provide sources for the opposite? It is your burden to provide evidence that the copyright status that you claim is actually true - something that you never did in a reasonable way (asking the possible sources, providing reliable sources that confirm the unknown authorship of this particular photo)! Dont you think that claiming your information the truth - without having the smallest reference and given that the opposite of your information is possible - and claiming all others wrong is a little bit... unfair? Isnt what you do here exactly what you accuse me to do? I (differently from what you did) provided my sources: There are copyright claim on this photo, it is not impossible that this claim are correct - depending on the authorship, depending on the first publication and the publication in the U.S. So without evidence of the opposite you have to assume that this copyright claim is valid. There is a hint that possibly the author is known and there are a lot of sources that you not asked to determine the copyright status - reasonable enquiry to declare the existing author an unknown author would require to ask this sources. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your own sentence, lets have a look at it. "you can not provide any positive that the photographer is unknown." "Unknown" means "NOT known", so your sentence states "you can not provide proof positive that the photographer is NOT known" And I cannot, because it is impossible to provide proof positive for a negative claim. And, as I said above, your own argument boils down to "you cannot prove that the author is NOT known, so the author must be known" - which is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
- All photos have an photographer. So you have to accept that also this photo has an photographer. You can not provide any positive that the photographer is unknown but you demand the project to provide sources for the opposite? It is your burden to provide evidence that the copyright status that you claim is actually true - something that you never did in a reasonable way (asking the possible sources, providing reliable sources that confirm the unknown authorship of this particular photo)! Dont you think that claiming your information the truth - without having the smallest reference and given that the opposite of your information is possible - and claiming all others wrong is a little bit... unfair? Isnt what you do here exactly what you accuse me to do? I (differently from what you did) provided my sources: There are copyright claim on this photo, it is not impossible that this claim are correct - depending on the authorship, depending on the first publication and the publication in the U.S. So without evidence of the opposite you have to assume that this copyright claim is valid. There is a hint that possibly the author is known and there are a lot of sources that you not asked to determine the copyright status - reasonable enquiry to declare the existing author an unknown author would require to ask this sources. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This whole matter can therefore be construed as: "the author of this image is anonymous, so I'll ask him to produce an unknown author and delete the image when the silly newbie finds that impossible". While in actual fact, considering the photo's age, the burden is on you who is trying to delete it. If you think the author is known, and therefore the image not public domain (as would otherwise be the case with regard to its age) - then please produce the author. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- So no, I am in fact not so stupid as to "do the same thing I am accusing you of". My position is a negative statement and does not (by definition) require proof positive - "the author is NOT known". What you claim is a positive claim and does require prof positive "the author IS known". If you wish to delete this image, which is public domain due to its age, on the basis of your claim that the author is known, I would like to see you provide proof positive that the author is known. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please dont start with language things. I make it short: you are not the center of the world. Your opinion is uninteresting - if it is not just plain nonsense. With adding {{PD-Croatia}} to the file you claimed the author unknown, provide at least one reliable source that confirms that the author of this file is unknown, you are required to provide such evidence with your upload, not later if demanded. If you can not do this do not make such claims (the author field is empty!). If you made the claim (as you did) without any reason you have to life with the situation that your claim can be disputed on the basis of reliable sources and that you are again asked to provide evidence. You can not lean back and require that anyone accepts your unfounded claim (or plain nonsense). --Martin H. (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. I could say the exact same (insulting) nonsense. Thank you for explaining geography and cosmology to me. And yes, I most certainly CAN sit back and wait for you to provide a source - this is your AfD. Also, I do not think we will be rejecting logic (and that's logic, not "language"):
- My position: the author is NOT known (negative).
- Your position: the author IS known (positive).
- The image is public domain by virtue of its age. For your claim that "the author IS known", you are required to provide positive evidence - yes, while I sit back and have a glass of '61 Cheval Blanc.
- Let me be brief. The image is public domain. If you want to delete this public domain image - produce an author and prove your claim that he is not anonymous. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- And thats exactly wrong. The image is public domain only if your possition is true and if the image was first published in Yugolslavia. Possibly it is not public domain, there is information that MUST be followed, if it is not followed or if the required information of the anonymous authorship is not provided then doubt remains and the image will be deleted precautionary COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto again. From my perspective, the above is "exactly wrong" and the image is not PD only if your position is true. We can do this all day. Who's perspective is more accurate then? Mine. Why so? Because of the fundamental difference between our two positions: you're the one trying to prove a positive assertion ("the author IS known"), and I'm the one sipping the Cheval Blanc and waiting for you to prove it - 'cause I certainly cannot go about trying to prove a negative.
- Your whole AfD is based on the claim: "you cannot prove that the author is NOT known, so the author must be known" - which, again, is the very definition of an argument from ignorance.
- And thats exactly wrong. The image is public domain only if your possition is true and if the image was first published in Yugolslavia. Possibly it is not public domain, there is information that MUST be followed, if it is not followed or if the required information of the anonymous authorship is not provided then doubt remains and the image will be deleted precautionary COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. I could say the exact same (insulting) nonsense. Thank you for explaining geography and cosmology to me. And yes, I most certainly CAN sit back and wait for you to provide a source - this is your AfD. Also, I do not think we will be rejecting logic (and that's logic, not "language"):
- Please dont start with language things. I make it short: you are not the center of the world. Your opinion is uninteresting - if it is not just plain nonsense. With adding {{PD-Croatia}} to the file you claimed the author unknown, provide at least one reliable source that confirms that the author of this file is unknown, you are required to provide such evidence with your upload, not later if demanded. If you can not do this do not make such claims (the author field is empty!). If you made the claim (as you did) without any reason you have to life with the situation that your claim can be disputed on the basis of reliable sources and that you are again asked to provide evidence. You can not lean back and require that anyone accepts your unfounded claim (or plain nonsense). --Martin H. (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- So no, I am in fact not so stupid as to "do the same thing I am accusing you of". My position is a negative statement and does not (by definition) require proof positive - "the author is NOT known". What you claim is a positive claim and does require prof positive "the author IS known". If you wish to delete this image, which is public domain due to its age, on the basis of your claim that the author is known, I would like to see you provide proof positive that the author is known. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not start Wikilawyering on me, I am aware of COM:PRP - it does NOT apply. The difference is that, due to its age, the image is already public domain (unless you can prove otherwise). I'm still waiting for you to show me the author and to show that PD does not apply in this particular case. In Croatia, public domain is 60 years, this image is older than 60 years and is therefore public domain by default - unless the author is known. Can you show that the author of is known? (your famous positive assertion) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you insist so much on the law: The law does not say "public domain is 60 years". The template argues that Croatia is the country of first publication and that "it was published before January 1st, 1949". I cant see that you provided any such publication. Didnt you noted that providing such a publication will already suffice?? You were asked to provide at least one publication many times already. If the author is however known, your pd-rational will burst. The ÖNB photography (according to the context it was taken in an exhibition in Gornje Stubice in 1987, if this helps) shows a hint that possibly the author is known. If the photo was first published outside croatia the pd-rational will also burst because then Croatia will not be the country of origin. Therefore you should better follow this tracks. And damn, thats your requirement, before upload! --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look, this is stretching out to last the entire day. This image is public domain, and the author is unknown. Please show otherwise - the burden of evidence lies squarely on your shoulders and this is your AfD. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- EOD for me. Arguments have been shown that possibly the author is known. Aditionally the uploader applies double standards: for himself he take a shortcut and claim the photo is PD because it is old - without providing a reference and without following the text of the template and naming the required publication; for demonstration that the file is possibly not public domain he wants certain evidence, neglects the provided evidence and tries in an disgusting way to discredit the arguer. The uploader did not comply with the requirements of the project scope when uploading the file in the first place, he just uploaded a file that he grabbed from the internet without any respect in direction to the photographer and/or possible copyright holders. The only good we saw today is that the uplaoder removed the shamefully faked source information from the file description. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look, this is stretching out to last the entire day. This image is public domain, and the author is unknown. Please show otherwise - the burden of evidence lies squarely on your shoulders and this is your AfD. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you insist so much on the law: The law does not say "public domain is 60 years". The template argues that Croatia is the country of first publication and that "it was published before January 1st, 1949". I cant see that you provided any such publication. Didnt you noted that providing such a publication will already suffice?? You were asked to provide at least one publication many times already. If the author is however known, your pd-rational will burst. The ÖNB photography (according to the context it was taken in an exhibition in Gornje Stubice in 1987, if this helps) shows a hint that possibly the author is known. If the photo was first published outside croatia the pd-rational will also burst because then Croatia will not be the country of origin. Therefore you should better follow this tracks. And damn, thats your requirement, before upload! --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not start Wikilawyering on me, I am aware of COM:PRP - it does NOT apply. The difference is that, due to its age, the image is already public domain (unless you can prove otherwise). I'm still waiting for you to show me the author and to show that PD does not apply in this particular case. In Croatia, public domain is 60 years, this image is older than 60 years and is therefore public domain by default - unless the author is known. Can you show that the author of is known? (your famous positive assertion) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Martin H. (who by his own admission harbours a personal grudge against me [4]) deliberately places me in an impossible situation. The image is PD in Croatia due to its age and due to the fact that the author is unknown (I speculate due to the chaotic circumstances of the image's creation). Even though such a requirement is impossible to satisfy in most, if not all, circumstances, User:Martin H. demands I show explicit evidence that the author of the image is NOT known. This, of course, is nearly impossible due to the fact that most sources simply do not list an author when he/she is anonymous, and is additionally, in logical principle, a demand to "prove a negative" (an argument from ignorance, i.e. a fallacy). As I have pointed out numerous times, the ÖNB link the user provided does not even discuss the authorship of the image, but merely makes a comment on its publication. Astounded at the strange AfD, I assume it is a deliberate (and rather transparent) attempt to get back at me for modifying some of Martin H's "favourite" images, which subsequently caused the user to follow my contribs and attempt to delete the next image I upload the instant I upload it.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There are many uncertanties surrounding this image. User:Martin H. finds at least one source that names a photographer. User:DIREKTOR argues that it was taken by an unknown photographer in the mountains on 1/1/1942. I find the latter improbable. It is a quality, professional looking image. While there is no question that amateurs occasionally take images of this quality, it is unlikely. I also would not be surprised if the written record of this image has been manipulated for political purposes over the years.
It is certainly true that proving a negative is difficult, but at the moment we have evidence on the other side.
Since our rule is to avoid significant uncertainties, I don't see any way we can keep this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
