User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2009/February

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could you please explain more fully...

I was going though my upload log, and I saw you had deleted File:Alleged to be Omar Khadr, being trained to construct a time bomb, from video captured by the USA.jpg, as a copyright violation.

Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion it was a copyright violation?

I have brought up the issue of the copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan, on the village pump, a number of times -- seeking clarification, and discussion.

  • Afghanistan has never been a signatory to the Berne convention, or any other international copyright agreement.
  • Afghanistan has no domestic copyright laws.

Some people act as if this meant that the intellectual property rights on an image taken in Afghanistan are like a gold rush -- they belong to the first person to stake a claim to them -- even if they didn't actually take it, and didn't negotiate a release from the actual photographer. They act like the rights belong to the first person to publish the image in a country that does have intellectual property rights.

Others act like all images from Afghanistan start out in the public domain, and remain in the public domain, without regard to where they are published later.

I've been seeking the community's consensus on this. But, while some people have stated they favor the PD model, I don't think enough people have weighed in. I have also wondered whether this was an issue where the wikimedia's intellectual property lawyer's opinion should be sought out.

If the "gold rush" model is the one we decide on, what if the image was first taken by a GI? Some photos taken by GIs are being credited to the first person to publish them in the USA. I am sure that is not right

So, could you please clarify your position, and how it relates to this particular image?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

More than likely my original logic goes something like this: #1 you've got a copy of the player in their with the picture which is very possibly copyright (See also, Windows UI). #2 you tagged it {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} which applies when someone in the Army makes content and I highly doubt the Terrorists let the US Army stand there to video tape their training. #3 All work in Berne convention countries is Copyright. If the work is anonymous we have to wait the obligatory 70 years etc etc etc. Since there was no country listed on this video, I generally assume it is a Berne convention country since they are in the majority.
I hope this helps. Obviously it's been a while, so I can't tell you exactly what was running through my head, but those reasons seem logical. You are welcome to swing by COM:UNDEL if that logic doesn't suit you. Good luck! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If I may add something, I believe the US Federal Government or US Military tags can ONLY be used here when rights to an image are "released" to the public. Usually you see the word "RELEASED" in the description of most US military images in their websites. Let's be realistic here, I don't think every single image taken by US Feds or US Military you find online is allowed here. For example: I think this mug shot, File:Dilawar 1.jpg, which was uploaded by User:Geo Swan in February of 2008, is a copyvio. The mug shot was NOT RELEASED by US Feds or US Millitary, it was obtained by CBS for the purpose of using or displaying it in one of their news articles. CBS, in their website, says "all rights reserved".--Executioner (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that borders, and screen logos were themselves copyrightable when I uploaded that image. I know now this is a valid concern. And I know it is completley trivial to crop those elements from a picture, and upload a version with the offending elements cropped.
WRT your liscense concern -- so, if it had borne a {{PD-Afghanistan}} liscense you wouldn't have been concerned?
So, couldn't both of your concerns have been addressed by less extreme measures than deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Africa Festival

Hi ShakataGaNai. There is a new image from Africa Festival (talk · contribs). I suspect it is more of the same type of copyvio, though I have been unable to find the original. Please see File:Tsvangirametro.jpg. It is currently being used on Wikinews. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I suspect it might be also (With the size and lack of copyvio and history) but I can't find any solid backing. I checked Tineye, the previous site he got pictures from and google images and I came up blank. So my hands are more or less tied. Keep an eye out, if he uploads more than you can confirm is Copyvio or you can find backup on this one - let me know and I'll shut the user down for good. Thanks --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, it turned out to be a Reuters photo. Someone found it on WSJ among their Davos photos. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
oh goody. Well it was obviously deleted already, so I did one of my favorite things. Indef block, and the problem is solved. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of requests

Be more constructive, senseless removal of request is a waste of your and (even worst) my time. --TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell are you and what the hell are you talking about? Pointless comments on my talk page are are waste of your time, and much more importantly, a waste of my time. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kindle_2_-_Front.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)