File talk:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg

I wonder if this pic is really PD. I've found a recent article in VoA with the same image, and it's tagged as a photo from AP. --PFHLai 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem credible that this photo would have been taken by a journalist, and the AP is well known to put its mark on images it doesn't own. The question is, was this photo taken by Americans forces or by Pakistani forces participating in the capture of KSM? I'm not sure that is public information, or at least it wasn't clear the last time I checked. The w:9/11 Commission Report, which is probably better vetted than any VoA article, credits an image of Bin Laden to Reuters, but gives no credit on its KSM image.--Pharos 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, I've identified three distinct images that were taken at the time of his capture, (1) the one we're using now (2) this one, taken from a different angle, and with a forelock falling over his temple, and (3) the 9/11 Commission Report photo, a frontal view but different from (1) in that the forelock is over his temple. Images (1) and (2) are in color and were widely published in the press at the time — (3) is in black and white and I've only found it in the 9/11 Commission Report and direct reprints. This seems to be conclusive evidence that the photos were either taken by the US government, or by the Pakistani government, which shared the photos with the US.--Pharos 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, news about the circumstance of KSM's capture are quite murky. Some sources say the Pakistani ISI did it (with CIA support and oversight), while others say the CIA did it with a token ISI force. If a CIA agent snapped the photo, then it counts as a "work produced by a government employee while executing his official duties", and would therefore be in the public domain. If an ISI member took the photo, then I don't know what the copyright status would be. (I don't know if Pakistan even has a policy on whether the ISI can hold copyright.)

The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't credit the photo is a strong indicator that the photo is not copyrighted. This is a best-seller written by a high-profile government agency and published by Barnes and Noble. Both groups employ many capable teams of lawyer who are very careful not to allow copyright infringements in works they publish. I think it's safe to re-tag this image as PD. Quadell (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yahoo! Canada News tags this image as a file photo from AP on one page, but from AFP on another. AP ? AFP ? What the F is between A&P ? Confusing..... --PFHLai 08:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AFP is w:Agence France-Presse, a big French news agency. It seems both the AP and the AFP have committed copyfraud by putting their marks on images they don't own, which unfortunately is extremely common.--Pharos 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

comment

w:Stephen Colbert used this image.

He was going to interview a security official, and he said he was going to complain about the use of photo id to screen travelers, "...because everyone's driver's liscence photo makes them look like a terrorist -- why just look at my driver's liscence..." He then showed a closeup of a driver's liscence with his name on it -- but this picture or KSM. Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)