Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mirranay1.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.
Low quality flash photo of a poster. Unlikely the uploader's original work. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Low quality, but it is in use and apparently it is the only image for illustrating the article. Also probably {{PD-Afghanistan}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- ... oh right, Afghanistan. Well never mind then. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It is a flash photograph, which wrongly states it is the uploader's work. It clearly isn't. It is intellectual theft of a recent poster. What are we saying? Because Afghanistan is a failed state with no developed legal framework, then it is OK to steal from them? Is common's policy reduced to "we do everything that's legal - regardless of the ethics?". I'm asking not "will we be sued if we keep this image?" but "should we keep this image?". It has been fraudulently uploaded under an implausible claim. Surely that's not good enough. Further the claim "its the only image for illustrating the article" is irrelevant. There's lots of articles where the only image would be unfree - we simply have no illustration in such cases, it's no biggy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed the license tags. If you think {{PD-Afghanistan}} is an illegitimate tag that seems like a wider policy issue to bring up in another forum. I'm only concerned with enforcing existing policy and legal restrictions. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It is a flash photograph, which wrongly states it is the uploader's work. It clearly isn't. It is intellectual theft of a recent poster. What are we saying? Because Afghanistan is a failed state with no developed legal framework, then it is OK to steal from them? Is common's policy reduced to "we do everything that's legal - regardless of the ethics?". I'm asking not "will we be sued if we keep this image?" but "should we keep this image?". It has been fraudulently uploaded under an implausible claim. Surely that's not good enough. Further the claim "its the only image for illustrating the article" is irrelevant. There's lots of articles where the only image would be unfree - we simply have no illustration in such cases, it's no biggy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- ... oh right, Afghanistan. Well never mind then. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We may not like it, but the Afgani legislature has chosen to not address copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
PD-Afghanistan template has been updated and this file is not published 50 years ago and it has not been 50 years since the death of the creator of this work. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 04:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
