Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abu Laith Al Libi from released video.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"This file is in the public domain, because This image was anonymously released to the press by an underground group." There is no such exception to any copyright law that I know of. Samulili 07:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- Really? What is the usual license status of material in an ordinary press release? Isn't the pertinent word "release"? What rights do you think the original copyright holders retain to material made available in an ordinary press release?
- If, for the sake of argument, the material in an ordinary press release hasn't been released into the public domain, who are you suggesting retains rights to material that has been anonymously released?
- Cheers! Geo Swan 10:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright for the content in a press release belongs to whoever made the content. Works that are released/published anonymously, are also protected by copyright. Samulili 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, what does the "release" part mean?
- So, suppose, for the sake of argument, the meaning of "press release" is not release into the public domain; and suppose a peace agreement is forged with al Qaeda; suppose the original al Qaeda photographer survived the war, and wanted to reassert his rights... How could he? How could he prove he took the photo? He can't. So, I suggest that an anonymous release is tantanmount to a release into the public domain, no matter what the releaser's intentions were. Geo Swan 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Releasing is publishing. As for your suggestion, you're basically suggesting that we reinterpret the laws to our liking. Samulili 10:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We're a repository of free media, not a repository of images you can probably get away with using. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
