Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv

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:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of a Canadian CBC television documentary, as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. The image also obviously has a needlessly racist title. Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, possible rename, The title is a direct quote from the film clip, it is in fact what makes the film clip notable. It could just as easily be referred to as "Canadian soldier referring to niggers.ogv", but I believe that title is already taken. It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sherurcij's dishonest comments above, no, I have not been chastised by admins for removing large chunks of the Somali Affair article. That is a blatant lie. I invite you all to have a look at this post to see what all of this is really about. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only files I see deleted on copyright grounds are File:Ediacaran_sea_biotics.png which was following a large-scale debate on the freedom of panorama, and whether the diorama had been created by Museum staff or outsiders, and File:Palestinian_Youth_With_Sling.png which I supported deleting because it was shown to be Flickr-laundered. Considering I have 12,000 edits, I'd hardly consider that evidence that I "don't know the meaning of properly sourcing images". Sherurcij (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's cause you just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings, Mr. Honesty. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) - not here. Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I find a folder of images on the bus, and I show them on television, do they now belong to me? Of course not, their copyright status is unchanged, since I am not the creator, and never will be. Sherurcij (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This discussion should be about the facts. I believe the several of the assertions of the nominator and those voicing delete opinions are simply incorrect. For starters, the image was not taken by the CBC. I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor Sherurcij has been able to produce evidence to prove any of your claims. No links were produced to support your assertions or anything of the sort, so your claims thus remain nothing but claims. I also find it odd that another Wiki Commons user has already accused Sherurcij of being a sockpuppet of you, yet you of all people show up on this of all conversations and without Sherurcij so much as once having contacted you for your input. Very odd indeed. I also noticed you posted only 16 minutes after Sherurcij. What gives? Middayexpress (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[1]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cpl. Adrian Harlen is a photographer for Soldier Magazine (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk) and a unit photographer for his regiment. He took the photos in question for a British press release; that is substantially different from what is the case with these files. Sherurcij (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete First published in Canada, {{PD-Somalia}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per Pieter Kuiper High Contrast (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Somalia_breaking_arms_and_legs_of_niggers.ogv&oldid=32134120"