Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahsa amini.jpg
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.
Out of scope - The face image was taken from ny times (as per this discussion) so imho that would more or less be a copyright violation (whilst only the outline exists it would still be Derivative Work, That aside the uploader has tried to get this plastered on EN and is using this as a political statement[1] which in some respects goes against what this project is about,
Either way I don't see where or how this could ever be used internally or externally, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- hello, if the copyright (that not originaly from nytimes), i used iranwire image as nytimes did. but the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_art have sample of this kind of digital works. also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mahsa_Amini has 31 languegs and reached more than 100K views each day. so it's useful for this event. we are talking about copyright problem, all news agencies (bbc, daily mail, nytimes, guardian, cnn and ... used this photo) the source is iranwire.com that mahsa amini family gave photos to them. i'm in email contact with them. please extend the duration of this nomination. Roxjor (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- also, please keep an eye on this page:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#does_my_upload_violate_any_rule?Roxjor (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it is out of scope, other than possible copyright issues. The uploaded said the underlying image came originally from Mahsa Amini's family. If -- and this is a big if -- they license their contribution to this derivative work from a photo to which they presumably hold copyright, then I think we should keep it. But that underlying copyright issue needs to be addressed. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- hello, i don't know why people think when someone right after upload an image want to use it is unsecure. at the time image was uploaded can be used, :::what's the problem with it? here is the addressee of newyork time quote that said image provided by family to news agencies:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/world/middleeast/iran-protests-mahsa-amini.html
- and the quote (right side of picture in nytimes article):
- "A picture of Mahsa Amini provided to Iran Wire by her family. The authorities have said she died of heart failure; her family say she had been in good health."Roxjor (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Because Commons doesn't accept an image on a vague, "Yeah, you can use it." We need an explicit license (e.g. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}), or an explicit release into the public domain (e.g. {{Cc-0}}). - Jmabel ! talk 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it is out of scope, other than possible copyright issues. The uploaded said the underlying image came originally from Mahsa Amini's family. If -- and this is a big if -- they license their contribution to this derivative work from a photo to which they presumably hold copyright, then I think we should keep it. But that underlying copyright issue needs to be addressed. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete Clear DW copyright issue. Linked discussion shows copyright of original photograph held by some unknown family member. Without a free license from that unknown member, the artwork does not belong on Commons. That news organizations have published the photo does not imply the license is free. The claim that it is just an "outline" minimizes the importance of the photo, but it is much more than just an outline. Even if it were just an outline, it would be a derivative work. Glrx (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- Delete For copyright reasons and as a derivative work of file without a free license. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment The copyright issue may be resolved or not. But I strongly oppose the outofscope rationale. WMF has started the picsome site, that takes its media from commons and is supposed to become the leading free stockphoto service. The image in question however is in scope for any MW wiki with Instant commons that support the Iranian human rights issue (while may be not WMF wikis). --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
some modification
[edit]
User:C.Suthorn User:Mateusz_Konieczny User:Glrx User:Jmabel User:Davey2010 .We have two problem to discuss, first is out of scope and second is copyright. i uploaded another version of it with less elements (no but shape and form of original work (face texture in texts), dose it fix the copyright problem? and i'm still waiting for iranwire.com email reply. just look at texts of this picture, they are totally white without any pattern, this is new (current) version of it i uploaded. and compare it with old version that i used face texture inside fonts.Roxjor (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The source of image is iranwire.com.as i mentiond form newyork times, the family members shared the image with that site. in the PRIVACY AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS of that site (this link), they wrote: "You may not copy, reproduce, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, post, modify, create derivative works from, sell, license or otherwise exploit this Website or any of its Materials without our prior written permission, which may be requested as specified in Section 2 below.", i email them again and inform them newer version has less elements of original source. and want them to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for permission. can you please wait until they reply the email?Roxjor (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Roxjor even if a file is deleted, it can be undeleted later (and will be if VRT-permission is received). Importent however: The permission sent by the copyright-owner to VRT has to make it explicitly clear, that the media is available under a free license (cc-zero oder cc-by-sa-4.0 are fine, others will do, but the license has to be named or included, and it has to be free: NC will not do.) C.Suthorn (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Roxjor: If I understand C.Suthorn correctly, I'm in complete agreement: you need permission for the underlying photo (as laid out in COM:VRT), but once that is resolved I see no scope problem. - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per the discussion above, it is a derivative work and a copyright violation. --4nn1l2 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
