Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

September 25

File:Connectphone LTD company logo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo: Connectphone ltd was deleted as non-notable. Doesn't seem to be useful. Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:14 Songs Greg Sage and Wipers.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Eight Songs for Greg Sage and the Wipers.png. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Chinese gangsters.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8. You do not need to see a picture of Chinese gangsters to understand illicit cigarette trade. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no way that such a fair use rational is credible. --Cold Season (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cold Season Mike (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Illicit cigarettes seized in Malaysia.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8. You do not need to see a picture of confiscated cigarettes in order to understand illicit cigarette trade. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Forged passport used by Samantha Lewthwaite.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Fair use claim has been amply made out, and in practice no court is likely to uphold a copyright claim about the image as it was created for an unlawful purpose. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt meet WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why having a picture of a passport is critical to understanding a biography article? Werieth (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's tool of the trade for being an international terrorist, changing identities in order to evade the authorities. It's also all over the press, which implies that it's been released by Kenyan Police for a purpose. I would have thought this was obvious but hey ho...Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenyan Police dont own the copyright, and thus cannot release the license. Werieth (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Lewthwaite does and of course it's highly likely she's going to crawl out of her hole and sue Wikipedia for using her image. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can back up the claim of "they don't own the copyright"? If they were the ones to take the photo then they do and if their government forbids them from holding copyrights then it would be PD. Mike (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can, any picture take of the passport is a derivative work of the original copyright. The person who created the passport (it may or may not have been Lewthwaite herself) owns the copyright. Werieth (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also disagree. The forged passport was the critical element which assisted the CIA, SO15 and Nairobi's Anti-Terrorism Police Unit in identifying the world's most wanted female terrorism suspect. The article explains that the photograph of the passport bearer bore such a strong likeness to Lewthwaite that police were alerted to who "Natalie Faye Webb" really was. The passport allowed security forces to build up a picture of Lewthwaite's movements in East Africa, and subsequently uncovered evidence of a terrorist cell in Johannesburg. The article is still under construction, and the image of Lewthwaite in the passport will become even more relevant when a suitable freely licensed image of the subject is identified and added. Furthermore, the image should not really be considered to be "copyright" as it was freely released by Kenyan police as a handout to assist in locating a fugitive. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have another suitable license for handling such "free handouts" but I went the extra mile and tagged it as best as the limited software/policies allow. If there is a copyright holder of this image (and Kenyan copyright law allows for fair use of government created images anyway) they would not object to further reproduction and dissemination of this "wanted" image of their most wanted terrorism suspect. Off policy, your tagging of the image for deletion was, in my personal opinion, passive-aggressive sour grapes simply because I undid your edit to my talk page and called you out for tagging the image as an orphan 2 minutes after uploading. It was quite obvious that you interrupted your mindless bot operation to tag that image and that image alone in retaliation, then restarted the botting. Blackberry Sorbet 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I address hundreds of non-free issues every day, Im not a bot. Yes the passport played a role in her capture, but its just a fairly common looking passport and doesnt meet NFCC. @Masem: can you comment here Werieth (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd crop out the photo from the passport and use that as the infobox image, as being a fugative from the law, a free replacement image for the person is unlikely. You don't need the rest of the passport details (though you can caption the infobox image as cropped from her confiscated passport). --MASEM (t) 00:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have seen this photo now in numerous publications with the source "provided by the Kenyan police". I am curious as to the actual copyright status of it since it is a forged passport, used in a crime, seized by a government agency and released to the world media. Mike (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright belongs to whomever created the original document. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, however some governments release images into the public domain see Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Government_resources Mike (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can only release stuff that they or their employees have the rights to. The Russians cannot release Avatar into the public domain just because they think its an awesome movie (I only selected that because its the highest grossing movie). One must first have the rights to the copyright before one can release them. Werieth (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the question of "who owns the copyright". Your example does not apply here, we aren't talking about a third party work. We are talking about a photo that was most likely taken and released by a government police force, not a commercial movie or work. Mike (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was a forged document seized as part of a criminal investigation, surely any copyright would be forfeited. I wonder if it would be regarded as a criminal asset, and therefore the property of the Kenyan authorities and theirs to do with as they wish. Also, we must consider the likelihood of them returning it to her. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer but I can't think of any reason a forged passport would be returned to her. Mike (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the passport is returned or not has no bearing on the copyright status. Just because something was seized does not mean copyright is forfeit. Unless you can provide documentation to that effect we must assume that the whomever created the passport retains copyright. Any photograph of the passport would be classified as a derivative work and the original copyright would persist. Werieth (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are confused I think. A photo is the copyright not the item in the photo. If the police release a photo of evidence the actually photo is the question not who created the evidence.Mike (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The police photo of the forged passport has several copyrights involved: the copyright on whomever took her passport photo, the copyright on the design/layout of the pages of the passport, and arguably the photograph of the passport, though in this last case, because it is a 2d object, the photograph of the passport could be seen as a slavish reproduction (like a photo of a work of art) and therefore there's no new copyright there. So at minimum there are two copyrights involved - whomever took her picture, and the copyright on the passport. The police releasing the picture does not alternate that it remains a derivative work of these two copyrights. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was given out by the agency which made the image for the purposes of apprehending the individual in the image and is relevant to the article for both the forged passport connection and also the worldwide search for its subject. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the photograph of the full passport. That photo was taken by the Kenyan police, and they therefore own the copyright to that specific image, and have released it to the public. The photo wihtin the full image is only a small part of the whole. Cropping the Kenyan image to just show the face photo is much more clearly a violation of the copyright to that original image, but in my opinion it is useful to understanding that section to show why the Police believe that photo is actually Lewthwaite. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is a derivative of a copyrighted work. The copyright is held my whomever made the passport. The police cannot supersede that. Werieth (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can a forged passport, which would be a copy of a copyrighted work, have it's own copyright? The original, which would be owned by the SA government, not be the copyrighted work in question? Mike (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The copyright to the face photo is held by whoever took the face photo, not by the creator of the passport. But anyway, that is not relevant to your original claim that the image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Following the advice of administrator Masem above, I cropped the image to show only the suspect's face which was key to identifying the female suspect linked to al-Shabaab as Lewthwaite, who had previously dropped off the intelligence services radars. I would prefer the larger image showing the passport - reasons discussed above, but compromised per Masem's advice.
- Werieth needs to pull up a comfy chair, place a damp flannel on his forehead and read WP:BLUD. WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME.
- Hallucegenia raises a good point - Werieth nominated this for deletion per WP:NFCC#8 (a catch-all clause, and I remain skeptical regarding his motives) which has been subsequently contested by the editor's here. However, Werieth has instead continued to bludgeon away at. every. single. contributor. about the copyright. This is a photograph of a piece of evidence handed out to the media by the police, just like a photograph of a getaway car. Or a murder weapon. Or a crime scene. The copyright, such as it exists, is with the creator of the image. Not BMW. Or Beretta. Or a building's architect. In this instance, as the Licensing/Non-free media information and use rationale states, the creator is a Kenyan government agency and under the Kenyan Copyright Act (2001) section 26(1)(h) the government permits fair use and reproduction "where the reproduction is in the public interest and no revenue is derived therefrom" - hence the {{Non-free gov}} licensing tag.
- Nobody is asserting that this is definitely, absolutely, free media. The discussion is re NFCC#8 and Werieth should let that discussion take its course. BlackberrySorbet 10:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the image has been cropped it not fails NFCC#1, an image of a living person is replaceable. Also Im not sure how you get the gov license, Its like taking a picture of a Picasso and deeming that the copyright has changed from Picasso to whomever took the photo. Taking a picture of a gun, or other object does not void the copyright on the object, (for reference see commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama) but rather just adds an additional layer of copyright. Werieth (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine by me - I preferred the complete version. Strange how after asking your mate to chip in a comment above ("{{ping|Masem}} can you comment here") you didn't object to his suggestion then. Blackberry Sorbet 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - She's a fugitive from the law - and in past cases of such living, notable but wanted people, we've allowed non-free to be used (the expectation that a free image could be taken fails here if they're purposely hiding from authorities), so this would be acceptable to ID her. I agree that the license doesn't change from what the passport license should be just because you cropped it down. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be some confusion about copyright law. First, you can't simply take a photograph of a copyrighted work and then distribute that. This is why we don't have a thousand "free" screencaps of the Simpsons floating around, produced by someone who pointed a camera at their TV. While the photograph is the work of the Kenyan Police, the fake passport is not. It's unclear to me whether a forged government document can (a) be considered a work of art and thus (b) be subject to copyright protection. The document depicted is a falsified South African passport. Even if works by that entity are in the public domain (unclear), in most countries derivative works are presumptively copyrighted and unfree unless asserted otherwise. Furthermore, leaving aside any discussion of the passport, the headshot is (a) not the work of a government entity and (b) unfree absent evidence to the contrary. None has been provided. The person's status as a fugitive does not change any of this.
Given that, this is a non-free image. As she is a living person, a headshot is replaceable by another picture. That she cannot presently be found (and therefore photographed) is valid defense to replaceability, see e.g. David Hicks where an unfree image was permitted for years until Hicks was released from Guantanamo. However, the article already has an (unfree) headshot of the person. Let's discuss NFCC #1 and NFCC #8. We have an unfree image of a forged passport. By definition we cannot create a free image of it. Can we describe it in the text? Absolutely. It looks like every other passport in the world. The article says nothing about the passport itself, save the name that appeared on it. There's no critical commentary about the forgery in itself. It does not significantly enhance the reader experience; the reader can probably work out from the text that there's a forged passport with a given name on it, without seeing the picture of that passport.
All that being said, this is in some ways a superior image File:Samantha Lewthwaite Interpol.jpg, and I'd be open to an argument to deleting that image and using this one as the primary (non-free) image, given that it's not possible to create a replacement at this time. So, either delete this image or delete the other one and use this in its stead. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright on the forged passport is likely that of the issuing country, because, arguably, the forger made a strict and faith copy of the work in question, and such recreations of 2D images are not given new copyrights. And I agree that cropping this image to the headshot, while not changing the copyright or non-free status, does provide the better image of the person. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's about time that this was closed as keep. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Gligor Paul.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F11 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality personal photo, with misleading {{wikipedia-screenshot}} tag. Chris857 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.