Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Fatemeh Pahlavi.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.
Exact source, author and date of publication unknown. PD-Iran questionable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Iran, we use Occam's Razor, a picture of the Shah of Iran, and other members of the family, are assumed to be under Iranian copyright law until proved otherwise. Iran is a 30 year jurisdiction. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I disagree that your argument is compatible with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (and I actually find it very similar to one of its examples: "The file is obviously common property"). The uploader, User:GTVM92, has been reckless enough to assume that any picture that appears to depict Iran before 1979 is in the public domain. As a matter of fact, there is a possibility that this picture was taken by a non-Iranian photographer, or it was not published in Iran. That brings to doubt the claim that Iranian law can be applied to this picture (some examples of this case, in which Occam's razor fails to be practical: Jack Garofalo, Gamma-Rapho, Point de vue, Raymond Depardon, AFP, Life, Andy Warhol). On the other hand, I have no prejudice to nominate files that have any indication of being PD-Iran. For instance, the initial version of File:Mohammad Reza Shah and Shahbanu Farah 1962.jpg had a very little "مهنامه ارتش" marking visible (along with the Persian years "۱۳۴۲ - ۱۳۰۰", the latter corresponding to 1963), suggesting that it was published by the magazine Māhnāmah-ʼi artish [1] in that year (probably as a poster). So I uploaded a new version of the file with better quality and improved the information section. If you have any evidence that the file in question was published in Iran more than 30 years ago, I would be thrilled to know about it and withdraw my nomination. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Why should one assume that an Iranian Photographer did not take the Iranian Princess' intimate portrait photo? Would we assume that a intimate portrait photo of the First Lady of France was taken by a non-French photographer? Not likely. Occam's razor or "The simplest explanation is usually the best one." The simplest explanation is this an Iranian work, so PD-Iran. --Ooligan (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I disagree that your argument is compatible with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (and I actually find it very similar to one of its examples: "The file is obviously common property"). The uploader, User:GTVM92, has been reckless enough to assume that any picture that appears to depict Iran before 1979 is in the public domain. As a matter of fact, there is a possibility that this picture was taken by a non-Iranian photographer, or it was not published in Iran. That brings to doubt the claim that Iranian law can be applied to this picture (some examples of this case, in which Occam's razor fails to be practical: Jack Garofalo, Gamma-Rapho, Point de vue, Raymond Depardon, AFP, Life, Andy Warhol). On the other hand, I have no prejudice to nominate files that have any indication of being PD-Iran. For instance, the initial version of File:Mohammad Reza Shah and Shahbanu Farah 1962.jpg had a very little "مهنامه ارتش" marking visible (along with the Persian years "۱۳۴۲ - ۱۳۰۰", the latter corresponding to 1963), suggesting that it was published by the magazine Māhnāmah-ʼi artish [1] in that year (probably as a poster). So I uploaded a new version of the file with better quality and improved the information section. If you have any evidence that the file in question was published in Iran more than 30 years ago, I would be thrilled to know about it and withdraw my nomination. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- When you present actionable evidence like an image attributed to AFP, I have agreed French law applies. Here we are talking about an image where Tineye has given no clue to its origin, so we default to Iranian law. Prior to exif data contained in digital images, all images rely on contextual clues to ascertain the date and the location.
Kept: I don't see any reason to think that it wasn't taken in Iran, and therefore published there. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)