Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anas al-Liby.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I nominated this for speedy deletion, but apparently it wasn't sufficient to say that the photo was almost certainly not taken by the FBI. I thought it was self-explanatory, but apparently it wasn't: This is a photo of an individual who was on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list since its inception in 2001 to his capture just this month. He has been suspected of being involved with terrorist groups since the mid-1990s. How, when, and why would the FBI have had the opportunity to take this photo but not arrest him? And with a black-and-white camera? The fact that this was in an FBI publication doesn't mean this was taken by an FBI employee. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is an interesting question indeed. First, I'd like to see a specific source for this image; as it stands I am prepared to support deletion simply due to no source. If the source is provided, and it comes from an FBI page, than I'll be looking forward to a discussion of authorship and our assumptions of it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- The source information from the original uploader on the English Wikipedia was simply "This is a picture of ANAS AL-LIBY taken directly from the FBI Most wanted terrorist website dedicated to him. Since it was created by the US government, it is in the public domain". That poster in question is at [1]. You can see the rest of the individuals on the list at [2]. The FBI has photos for all of them (and they also had one for Osama bin Laden as well). So, again, we'd have to believe the FBI is able to take all these photos or, more likely, they are just able to locate non-free photos for use in their wanted posters. -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please check this photo. It was also taken from the FBI website under this license:
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use.
|
 |
| This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. | ||
--80.30.114.95 13:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, with that we can source Liby's photo to [3]. As presumably all content on FBI's pages is licensed under the said license, I don't think it's in our merit to second guess if or how FBI acquired those photos. They claim (PD) copyright, so that's seems to be it. If anyone has any problems, they should take it with FBI, not us - we are simply reproducing their content under a license of their choice. And let's not give into copyright paranoia - who's going to sue us over this photo? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's exceedingly obvious that the photos are just non-free images used for their posters. Again, can you think of a reason as to how, when, or why an FBI employee would have been able to take this studio-quality photo? Probably not. No, we should not be paranoid about copyright. But there's no reason to accept completely unreasonable assumptions about photos just because we are unlikely to be sued by anybody. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The unreasonable assumptions are yours. If FBI claims copyright, the ball in in their park. We have a proof that a reliable organizations have asserted Wikipedia friendly copyright status. I don't see why we should try to be more holy than the Pope, other than to enforce copyright paranoia, and hurt our readers by denying them a useful image. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's exceedingly obvious that the photos are just non-free images used for their posters. Again, can you think of a reason as to how, when, or why an FBI employee would have been able to take this studio-quality photo? Probably not. No, we should not be paranoid about copyright. But there's no reason to accept completely unreasonable assumptions about photos just because we are unlikely to be sued by anybody. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, with that we can source Liby's photo to [3]. As presumably all content on FBI's pages is licensed under the said license, I don't think it's in our merit to second guess if or how FBI acquired those photos. They claim (PD) copyright, so that's seems to be it. If anyone has any problems, they should take it with FBI, not us - we are simply reproducing their content under a license of their choice. And let's not give into copyright paranoia - who's going to sue us over this photo? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: only free if self made during their work for federal government, not if taken from elsewhere Denniss (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
