Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

[edit]

Tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} but I don't think it qualifies because it hinges on the "5 years for non-artistic works" clause. This seems to be another version of the Lichtbild vs Lichtbildwerk issue (as described at Template talk:PD-Germany and Template talk:PD-Italy), so it all really depends on what the interpretation of "artistic" works is in Iraq. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority modified the 1971 copyright law[1] and made copyright 50 years pma. As far as I can tell this order is still law, although it may be modified by the Iraqi government as it regains independence. The modification is not retroactive (see paragraph 27) and does not apply to this image. The PD tag needs updating though. -Nard 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aha, found one. The relevant clause is "However, with respect to photographic and cinematic works which are limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery, such rights shall expire with the elapse of five years as from the date of first publication of the work."[2] In the hustle and bustle of the meeting between Misters Hussein and Rumsfeld there doesn't seem to have been much creative choice. The cameraman was simply there. -Nard 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally disagree. If this were a stationary camera with no cameraman (such as a security camera), then this statement would apply. There were creative choices to be made -- what angle to shoot from in order to catch them both, where to set up the lighting, how to move the camera in order to keep them both in view, etc. These are not "mechanical" in any way. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. American officials,as in lots of other cases is Iraq :P , act as if Coalition modifications are offical, yet The Coalition Authority modification was never approved by the Iraqi parliament. The current enforced law is still the 1971 law and it states that the protection is valid for 5 years only. The Video itself was made back in 1983. It was PD in 1988. Until something new is decided in Iraq, we should maintain the 5 years protection period, and our tags should reflect the enforced law.--Tarawneh 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it entered the public domain 5 years after the end of the year it was made (counting from January 1, 1984, so it entered the public domain January 1, 1989). The new law would only make works made after January 1, 1999 copyrighted in any case. Feel free to revert my modifications to {{PD-Iraq}} if you believe the new law is not in force. -Nard 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Tarawneh --Madmax32 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This image, and the video it comes from, are not "the mechanical transmission of scenery", and therefore are not subject to "such rights shall expire with the elapse of five years as from the date of first publication of the work." To the contrary, both have people in them, acting on behalf of their respective governments in a photo op staged for the press, and the camera operator appears to have been responsible for moving the camera around and much of the lighting. I recommend deleting both.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article 21 of the Iraqi law:
The protection provided for in this law shall not include works published without the name of the author or its pseudonym. However, if the author or his heirs reveal his identity, the period of protection shall start on the date of such disclosure.
The work was clearly done by a government employee, but nothing more can be known.--Tarawneh 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the situation is unclear but I recommend keep until the US signs a copyright treaty with Iraq, "mechanical transmission of scenery" would definitely apply to CCTV cameras for example, I think this clip would also apply due its nature but that is debatable Madmax32 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure if this conversation is still going on, but as discussions seem to move slowly on commons... I wrote the original PD-Iraq tag (and others) following a TfD on the PD-Arab template that resulted in a consensus to replace it with country specific tags. I am not a lawyer, not an Arabic speaker, and ceratainly not an Iraqi lawyer. I based the template on an automated ([translate.google.com google]) translation of the Iraqi statute, one not-very-good English translation, and paralel translations of several other Arabic countries' statutes that shared wording. With the caveats stated above, my reading is that the statement which are limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery is meant to be descriptive, not restrictive. That is, my reading is that all photographs of events that were not created by the photographer (some Arabic countries use the term "journalistic photograph") are considered not artistic and therefore fall under the 5 year exception. I believe the law was worded to distinguish videos such as this one, from truly artistic works such as The Sound of Music. --Selket 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incedently I find it amazing that Bremer was able to unilaterally alter the Iraqi copyright laws to match the rediculously over-restrictive American ones when the power was still out in many parts of Bagdad. Oh wait, the power is still out in many parts of Bagdad. --Selket 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't this a screencap from a video shot for and broadcast by an Iraqi TV Station? 74.70.206.55 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default, video shot (for broadcast or not) is copyrighted. See en:Berne Convention. We're simply trying to determine if the image is "free", that is, if it can be held on Commons, as we assert that Commons products are free, rather than simply requiring that local projects (English Wikipedia for instance) would have to host it locally with some sort of "fair use" claim. It being a screencap is completely irrelevant to the discussion. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The image itself has been linked from Digg, in case you see a high amount of activity here. -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority of these "keep" votes seem to be ridiculously biased, and based on absurd arguments that could be applied just as easily to a copyrighted tv show (i.e.: broadcast on Iraqi TV, historical, relevent to current affairs, and not a problem if you aren't ordered to take it down). I also doubt that this could fall under any reasonable definition of "mechanical transmission of scenery", as neither were the means mechanical, nor was "scenery" the target. Despite all this, as Tarawneh works without any author claiming ownership still fall into public domain under Iraqi law, so the image/video are appropriate.68.126.150.240
    • Addendum to my previous comment, I meant to say "as Tarawneh pointed out, content published without any claim of ownership isn't protected by Iraqi law."68.126.150.240
  •  Comment It appears N is voting to keep the image. However, the shirt another editor wears should have no bearing on what you think should be done with the image. To all of the people from digg: assuming the commons works like wikipedia, what happens to the image depends on the consensus.This is not a democracy, so a simple yes or no will not help. 72.46.10.212 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many things on Commons are decided through consensus, but if the image's copyright or licensing status is incompatible with Commons' policies, we cannot keep it despite its historical value. ~MDD4696 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doesn't appear to be violating copyright, so I don't see why it should be deleted. It is important, relevant, and violates no copyright. Obrysii 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting arguments. Although Iraq does have copyright laws on the books in order to comply with their obligations under the relevant copyright conventions, there hasn't been a prosecution for copyright violation in Iraq for over 20 years. Whether this image is protected by copyright in Iraq or not is irrelevant since wiki doesn't have a physical presence in Iraq. Additionally, since there is no known claim on this work by its author, it should be kept until such time that a source comes forward and makes a claim to the work. Until then, it should remain in the public domain for all to enjoy. Brian1975

Closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg&oldid=164706697"