The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dharmpal Singh Dudee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Too small to be anything but a direct image, user has uploaded a lot of scans as own work under the misconception that having an image means owning copyright, see also CCI:LRBurdak —SpacemanSpiff 04:38, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TX-CR-Loho.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is logo of organization. No evidence that it is released under free license or that uploader is copyright holder. Kinu ^t/_c 07:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether it is a logo or not is irrelevant. It was created in 2008 meets the criteria for copyright eligibility. Ergo, it is a copyrighted image and needs to be labeled as such. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuba-Trinidad-map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a photo of a 2D map, Does Trinidad allow for FoP of 2D works such as signboards? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IBAGAZA.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is tagged with as having been uploaded by the copyright holder, however given the quality of the image and the editor's extensive history of uploading unfree files I believe this is likely a copyvio. (update - it appears they've uploaded many images today claiming copyright that look like obvious copyvios. It may be time for a block). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Though I can't perform a search from my current location, I recommend using www.tineye.com to do a reverse search for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/IBAGAZA.JPG Buffs (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashby plot big.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• All granta Design plots are copyrighted by that company -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is like saying Microsoft holds the copyright to any diagrams created in Microsoft Visio or documents created in Microsoft Word which is obviously not the case. I can find no indication on Granta Design's website saying that it retains the copyright to any diagrams created in its software. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 19:42, 20 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:10YearHomicideByBorough2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File creator added this image to an article, then removed it ten months later with an edit summary of "Map does not have copyright index from Ordnance Survey or MapInfo GIS", possibly realising that they shouldn't have used it. They didn't request that the image be deleted. McGeddon (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobberyRate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File creator added this image to an article, then removed it ten months later with an edit summary of "Image does not have correct copywrite labels added from Ordnance Survey & MapInfo", possibly realising that they shouldn't have used it. They didn't request that the image be deleted. McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GongLi-UBX.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GL13.jpg Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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; these files are clearly PD in the US, as Iran does not have copyright relations with the US, and is unlikely to anytime soon. Usefulness of files is not an issue of PUF; that needs to be determined at WP:FfD.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:U.S. RQ-170 on display in Iran 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
• File:U.S. RQ-170 on display in Iran 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
• File:U.S. RQ-170 on display in Iran 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
• File:U.S. RQ-170 on display in Iran 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
• File:U.S. RQ-170 on display in Iran 5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
• Image liberally lifted from Iranian sources with dubious public domain claim. Furthermore images are used in a gallery manner which is unfair use. One of these could be picked as fair-use I suppose but File:RQ-170 in Iran.png already serves this purpose. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  The images I posted of the RQ-170 on display in Iran were not "liberally lifted from Iranian sources with dubious public domain claim", they are the actual handout photos the Iranian government released to the public for reprinting by domestic and foreign press and for propaganda purposes. Under Iranian copyright laws, press handouts by the national government are public domain and can be reprinted by anybody. (Interestingly, the image files are so unrefined that you can see the EXIF information of each image (the camera used, the aperture settings, etc)) If you have a valid reason to think that the public domain tag I placed on the images is inaccurate and not in accordance with Iranian copyright law (which they are), please explain your argument for holding such a belief. Also, please back up your claim that "images are used in a gallery manner which is unfair use". --Bronzmajom (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While that claim does seem somewhat confused, as they are being claimed as public domain, not fair use, I do think it would be helpful if you could provide evidence of your assertion that these files are indeed in the public domain. Can you do that? --John (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We need evidence that authors (Iranian government or whoever shot the video/images) are willing to release these in a manner that allows free distribution (without restrictions of any kind), commercial use and derivatives. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  no we don't. According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, as of January 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations whatsoever with the U.S. Published works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(b), quoted in the Circular. Unpublished works, however, are copyrighted regardless of their origin or of the nationality of the works' authors, as long as they remain unpublished. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(a)..Buffs (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking of the metadata, why does it say that the date of generation was September 17th on the first image[1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.104.250 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth noting that works created by a resident of Iran and published within the country are not protected by US copyright law. Since we are concerned on WP-en as to whether they are copyrighted in Florida, it seems to me that (for the purposes of use on here) they are in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Not protected by US copyright law until they become party to bilateral or international copyright agreements"

  Berne convention (which Iran is not signatory) is not the only criteria we use to establish copyright. To be more specific we want text, images and other media to be forever usable. If Iran simply signs the Berne convention tomorrow, we would have to delete these images immediately. Furthermore any printed copies would need to be collected. A good deal of fair-use images are fair-use becasue their copyright status is unclear and the assumption is "fully copyrighted until proven otherwise."

  If these images are really OK, they should be posted to commons instead. What prevents me from claiming copyright/ownership of these works? Do we know (for sure) that this was shot in Iran by an Iranian citizen without another berne Signatory citizenship? Declaring something public domain in the absence of critical information on its author is like declaring invisible pink unicorns existence. It is not like all works from Iran are automatically treated in the public domain. I cannot legally upload entire Iranian made movies for this reason.

  -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  They can not be uploaded on Common. Please note that "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work" so they cannot be uploaded on Commons because they are not free in Iran (Governmental works are not in public domain in Iran). IMHO they can be uploaded on EN:WP locally. AMERICOPHILE 20:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No it can't. It can only exist on en.wikipedia with a fair use license and we do not need or want a gallery of fair-use images. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  The above is complete bull. Iran and the US do not have agreement with regards to copyright (they don't even have consular relations). As clearly stated in both WP and other documents, in the US, Iranian government files do not have any copyright protections. Therefore, they can exist on en-wp, but not on commons. There is need for a fair use rationale for files ineligible for copyright. Furthermore, if the US and Iran sign a treaty tomorrow regarding copyrights, we will be bound by the agreements of that treaty which could possibly have some retroactive components; making an assumption that they are definitely going to be retroactive is pure speculation. Until such time as they become signatories, they should be tagged as PD. Perhaps it is worth making a PD-IRAN template? Buffs (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Will you be financing the collecting and destruction of every copy and also be willing to pay for the damages the second they sign? There are practical considerations beyond just the copyright law. If they are PD they CAN exist on commons. Why can't they exist on commons if they really are PD? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  let us deal with the law and leave the nonsensical speculation out of this. Iran doesn't have any standing to bring a lawsuit against WP since they do not have any copyright agreements with the US: if they want to sue based on a later agreement, they are welcome to do so but that sort of issue will be vetted out throughthe state department. As for why it can be copyrighted elsewhere and still PD in the US, i will give you another example. In the UK, there are many govt documents that are protected in the UK by crown copyright. These documents maintain copyright in the UK in perpetuity but the US doesn't recognize those claims. These images can be hosted on en-WP but not on commons because of their rules.Buffs (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That "nonsensical speculation" is how this website operates. We do our best to avoid copyright problems. When UK copyright versus US copyright comes to light we use existing court cases as a rationale ie through Case law. We cannot base our licensing policy on the theory of random people in academia. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  no, we don't base our actions on WP based on hypothetical damages from a treaty that doesn't exist. This situation doesn't have any case law because it doesn't apply. There is no protection afforded Iranian government media within the US as no treaty exists. I am not basing my opinion on "Random people in academia" but on the rules written in WP, specifically Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Countries without copyright relations with the United States

  "According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, as of January 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations whatsoever with the U.S. Published works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(b), quoted in the Circular. Unpublished works, however, are copyrighted regardless of their origin or of the nationality of the works' authors, as long as they remain unpublished. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(a)."

  in short, I say you are completely wrong on the subject and WP and the US copyright office agree with me. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without getting into the general discussion on PD status, I agree that there is absolutely no need for a whole gallery of images with dubious PD status. As a start, I would delete all but one. Jeff Song (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There already is a 6th image (File:RQ-170 in Iran.png) that is properly tagged with fair-use. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  then let's use that one, and delete all of these. Jeff Song (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's use all 6 and tag them appropriately as PD. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to: Admin@sepahnews.com date: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:34 PM subject: RQ-170 (American drone) images copyright question Hi, are the RQ-170 (American drone) images on sepahnews copyrighted? May I post them on my website? Thanks from: Admin@sepahnews.com date: Thu, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM subject: RE: RQ-170 (American drone) images copyright question There is no copyright. You can post it on your internet site. --Bronzmajom (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how this works unfortunately. First of all, we do not know if they are the authors. My belief is that the author here is Government of Iran. Even if that turns out to be the case, we need this through WP:OTRS. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't the authors, IRIB is. Since they are a de jure branch of the government of Iran, they are treated as part of the government and the image is PD in the US. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I've created ((PD-Iran in US)) for these images. Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of relevance here is this mailing list post from Jimbo in 2005 which essentially says that we should still respect the copyright laws of countries even if there is no copyright relationship with them (and actually uses Iran as an example). As far as I'm aware there has never been any discussion to change this and so this still stands, especially as it is linked to from WP:C. I've no idea why it's not linked to from Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Although I agree the images are in the public domain I still don't think we should be using them except in cases where we could make a valid fair use claim if they were copyrighted. That is unless there is a discussion that changes the "policy" (in quotes as WP:C isn't listed as a policy although it's pretty much the same thing). Dpmuk (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was going to list the template at TfD for the reason I outline above but then found it was already listed for a different reason (lack of use). I've also let Jimbo know I've quoted his e-mail. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, then I guess I disagree with Jimbo on this one (albeit 6 years after the fact...and WP has changed drastically as has the world). Iran is no closer now than 8 years ago in becoming signatories to international copyright treaties. The fact remains that these images are PD in the US according to US law and we should treat them as such on en-wiki. Realize that Jimbo's words were quoted at a time when the commons and en-wiki we're much closer in policy then they are today. Any files from Iran should be appropriately labeled. Other countries claim copyright on other items well past what the US recognizes, but we don't. While I respect those country's rights to invoke copyright the way they want within their borders, the fact remains that we are governed by US law, and we DON'T recognize those laws that don't conform to certain standards. So we are left with a situation where files are copyrighted in Iran, but not in the US. Labeling them as PD alone is not sufficient. Labeling them as copyrighted isn't accurate as they ARE PD everywhere but in Iran.
    • So, what do we do? For starters we need to consider the use of these images. Right now, anyone outside of Iran can use these images as PD images and numerous entities have done so. There is no chance that Iran will ever sue over the use of these images. If they do so, they will be laughed out of court as they have no standing.
    • To an extent, I agree with Jimbo that we should respect the copyrights of other countries, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect the valid rights of the people outside of Iran to use these images as they see fit as they are PD images. To simply label them as copyrighted and fair use does us a huge disservice and reduces the accuracy of our encyclopedia.
    • So, what do we do? I think it is worth presenting to the WP community as a whole via rfc, but I'd like to come to them with a unified front to do so. I propose the following stipulated points:
      1. These files meet the qualifications to be copyrighted in Iran. No evidence has been presented which shows that the copyright was registered as required by article 21 of Iranian copyright law.
      2. These files are currently in the public domain in the US. This is due to the fact that there is no governing treaty between Iran and the US and such materials have no basis for copyright in the US.
      3. There is disagreement as to how to treat these images (as PD or copyrighted) and how to specifically label them (they are PD in the US, but not Iran and there is no template which covers this)
    • ...and request community feedback from there. Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree with you that things have changed since 2005 and think this is worthy of further community discussion. I think I largely agree with you that the way we use images now, especially using images copyrighted elsewhere but out of copyright in the US, would suggest that we should just use them as PD. The one slight complication in my mind, is unlike those other images it's possible (if unlikely) that these images (in general) could become copyrighted if the relevant countries signs the relevant treaties etc. I agree that this needs further community input but personally I'd drop point 1 from a RfC and just discuss the question in general for all images from these countries so we have a general precedence not a specific one for "from Iran and unregistered". Dpmuk (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit point 1[edit]

I'd like to inquire, what is the point of keeping these images? What value do they add? They aren't even a different perspective. All images are front shots with a very small change of angle. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed gallery from the article Bulwersator (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think major changes like that while a discussion is ongoing, while not prohibited, could certainly be seen as edit warring. Let's come up with a conclusion and then apply it evenly/fairly across WP. If this is an editorial concern, then it can certainly wait. This article isn't going to be FA status sometime soon... Buffs (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of youthfule Eugene O'Neill in New London, CT IMG 0998.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP in the US for statues. Not enough information to verify that it is PD. MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park next to New London Day newspaper IMG 1029.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP in the US for statues. Not enough information to verify that it is PD. MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tesla National Memorial at Niagara Falls, NY IMG 1361.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP in the US for statues. Not enough info to confirm that it is PD. MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It was "published" (first publicly displayed) in 2006 and it was in Canada, not the US, so copyright applies for quite some time. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.