Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:46, 7 May 2011

File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg

It's provided by Hamid Mir, but he's clearly not an author so he can't release it on free license. I know that's the only photo of Osama bin Laden and it's used on many Wikis, but it doesn't matter as it's probably copyvio. Herr Kriss (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ File:Osama bin Laden portrait.jpg (crop). I see there was an earlier del req and it was deleted. Please avoid "keep lol" etc cause we are talking about copyrights. Herr Kriss (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, it was restored for unclear reasons back after the first DR. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why you call an OTRS an "unclear reason". If you have reason to believe the OTRS volunteer made a mistake, please explain that reasoning. Otherwise I would encourage the closing admin to discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't get why it returned. Anyway - keeping it and pretending that "oh, it's all right, no one gonna bitch about it" is just unfair to hundreds of other users. Let's remember that uploaded images serve as examples, therefore they should be more than "kosher" in every aspect and here, basically, owner of the photo doesn't own its copyrights. Masur (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please be also refered to this undeletion request during which this photograph was temporarily restored, deleted, and finally restored again. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a statement referenced in the undeletion debate: "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK attached to this E-mail." Do we have any reason to doubt that the permissions were acquired? I can hardly imagine the photographer thinking he would retain control over the photo. --LPfi (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that he owns the copyright of the photo just because he owns the photo itself. It's similar to family members who inherit physical photos and believe they can determine the copyright. They can't. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, first he states that author is unknown, next he says that he's a creator, but he's on the photo... He could use delayed shutter, but why at first he said that he don't know author? Weird. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are those statements? Or are you referring to our explanations of why he probably has the rights to license the photo? --LPfi 22:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the file description. "Source: Hamid Mir" and "Author: unknown/Photo provided by Hamid Mir". That's not good enough. FunkMonk 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem with our description, not a licensing issue. In fact it seems like an accurate description of the situation. It is indeeed possible to have valid permission without knowing the name of the author. --LPfi 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof the photographer transferred the copyright to Mir. FunkMonk 16:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have the statement of Hamid Mir, sent to OTRS. It is quite common that the original authors are unavailable for OTRS correspondence (this is certainly such a case) and we do not request scans of contracts. There is no possible way we could get any proof, other than such a statement.
There is no reason to doubt the photographer (if not Hamid Mir) and Hamid Mir were in total agreement about the rights being transferred to the latter. I can think of no realistic reason for the photographer to reserve any rights for himself (or for Hamid Mir to accept any restrictions relevant for this case). --LPfi 16:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that the guy's dead, the "could reasonably be replaced with free content" argument kind of goes out the window. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar at all with commons policy? This is commons, not Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a historic photo of dead man. It is irreplaceable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar at all with commons policy? This is commons, not Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The previous two "keep" !votes are confusing Commons with Wikipedia, where NFCC exists and non-free photos of dead people are allowed. At this point I would like to ask someone with OTRS permissions to review the ticket again for specific details. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those two votes can be completely disregarded. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LPfi. This is a case which mostly is impossible to known the man who held the camera so that a good-faith assumption like LPfi's one is totally acceptable. And if the photographer wanted to claim the copyright of this photo, he or she could sue Hamid Mir, not WMF.--Amore Mio (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Good faith" is for Wikipedia. This is Commons, see precautionary principle.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a wording way, I am not a native English speaker and I found not better way to express my opinion. BTW, precautionary principle doesn't mention the case that someone groundedly claim to be the copyright holder and donate the content to Wikipedia. If I give my camera to somebody to take a picture of me and my brother, which law make this person to be the copyright holder? Anyway, I have never hear any copyright lay of Afghanistan which is in effect.--Amore Mio (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image was published in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The precautionary principle is about when there is significant (reasonable) doubt about the freedom of a particular file. In fact the principle states that we use good faith in most cases. --LPfi (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because we like an image doesn't give us the legal right to keep it here. It's the uploader's responsiblity to provide legal ownership of an image. According to this, Dawn newspaper appears to be the author/owner and we need a permission from them to use it here. If the uploader has connection with Dawn then it wouldn't be difficult to obtain a permission. Now that Osama is killed, this image of him in 1997 sitting next to the jounalist serves very little purpose.--Officer (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"serves very little purpose" It is valuable for illustrating the life of Osama. We couldn't find any content which is free (by someone's words) for use in Wikipedia, could we? --Amore Mio (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that he is dead we can simply use fair use images. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cannot. Not on Commons and not in the Wikipedias in e.g. Swedish and German. Possibility to use non-free media is irrelevant for Commons. --LPfi (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about Commons, obviously. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is Commons, obviously. And I noted we cannot use it in Wikipedia either (other than in some languages). So whoever those "we" are, Commons and Wikipedia users such as me are not included. --LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn newspaper seems to have obtained the right to publish the photo. Probably directly or indirectly from Hamid Mir - which would suggest they think he is the rights owner (in fact he is attributed in the "read more" section next to the image on the linked page). --LPfi (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that but it still doesn't explain which is the actual author/owner, and I feel that whoever it is probably now see this photo valuable and want to sell it. Dawn is not refering to the photo that's nominated here but another one which was created on the same day.--Officer (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've read through all of the reams of text here, and in the preceding debates and cannot see where some of the above surety comes from. What we do know is that Mr Mir was sent by the Daily Pakistan (that I cannot find asserts copyright for this image) to interview Bin Laden and comes away with this image. We have no information about how the image was taken except that provided by Mr Mir. Via OTRS we have confirmation that, were the photo of Bin Laden alone, would suffice and this debate would not happen. And yet a mysterious third party (with or without a beard) that may (or may not) have taken the image has entered people's thinking...a party that exists only within this debate. Why could he not have used the camera's self-timer function or the possible remote in his right hand ? I can only see wild supposition to support the side that Mr Mir is not the copyright holder of this image, and it is certainly not clear that he's not the author. I have taken such photos where I am part of the image, using the appropriate bits of the camera, and I lack even basic journalism training, let alone his depth of experience. - Peripitus (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no problem with copyright of this picture and never been. We ordinarily keep pictures like this, see Commons:Licensing -- ¨Pictures of yourself taken by a third party (Normally ok if it's a candid or casual shot made on your request. Formal or professional snapshots require a formal release. [...])¨ It´s a casual photo without any doubt, and maybe it was even created using delayed shutter. If one want to change this policy, a wider discussion is necessary (there was already such discussion, and no consensus was established there to change the current policy). Anyway the picture was created in Afghanistan. There is no copyright law there, so anonymous unpublished works from Afghanistan don't enjoy any protection (see Berne Convention). Trycatch (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per comment by User:The Man in Question. If the photo was created by Abdul Rehman (a Saudi Arabian) using his own camera, then there is no choice for us other than to delete this picture. Trycatch (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  So, does Abdul Rehman have the rights, or does Hamid Mir? Did Abdul Rehman take the photo on behalf of Hamid Mir? Hamid Mir may have not been allowed to use his own camera, so there may be an understanding between Rehman and Mir. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  We simply don't know the answers on these questions, so per precautionary principle we don't have much choice. AFBorchert tried to get clarifications from Mr. Mir about details during the undeletion request, but there was no response. Trycatch (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  We do not know the answer, but nobody has stated any real reason to doubt the validity of the licence. Hamid Mir having got the image without right to publish it seems really strange. I doubt Osama or Abdul would have given any specific instructions on how he was or was not allowed to publish it, and even if they gave such instructions, it is Hamid Mir who knows about them, not us. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a fair use image, which shouldn't be uploaded to here. --Minghong (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, it has nothing to do with fair use. Trycatch (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an OTRS. Or is it not valid ? --ArséniureDeGallium¹¹⁶⁷¹ 17:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As ArséniureDeGallium, we have an OTRS. Is it wrong? --Lucas 17:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per above, if an OTRS isn't wrong. –BruTe ^Talk 18:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although It might be a copyvio, reading up on the deletion and undeletion discussions it seems much more likely it is correctly licensed. A copivio deletetion request of a file with an OTRS-ticket should need to present some evidence that it is, not just point to some mysterious circumstantial information. Lokpest (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above (there's an OTRS permission) --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invalid OTRS.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theres OTRS permission so I don't see anything wrong. Cowik (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 30#Self photos by a third party, I think it is entirely valid to argue that Hamid Mir owns the copyright to the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this article, Osama bin Laden's son Abdul Rehman is the author of the photo: Quoting Hamid Mir, "I was not allowed to use my camera to take any pictures of bin Laden. One of his sons, Abdul Rehman, took my picture with his father, which is published with this story. […] Abdul Rehman used his own camera and gave me the film." — the Man in Question (in question) 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, does Abdul Rehman have the rights, or does Hamid Mir? Did Abdul Rehman take the photo on behalf of Hamid Mir? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Hamid Mir's description of the event (which I have no reason to question), I have no doubt in my mind that when Abdul Rehman bin Laden handed the film to Hamid Mir, his intention was to transfer the copyright to Mr. Mir. A contract doesn't have to be in writing in order to be valid. Clearly, the two men had an understanding of what was going to happen to the picture(s) on the film. If bin Laden Jr. had not wanted to transfer the rights to the picture, he wouldn't have given the film to Mr. Mir. This is a lot like the situation when a tourist hands you a camera and asks you to snap his picture in front of a monument. You take his picture and you give the camera back. Theoretically, you own the copyright to the picture, but you implicitly give that copyright to the tourist when you hand over the camera. Malatinszky (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you here, Malatinszky. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has failed to offer a reason why we should ignore the {{OTRS}} ticket. Some respondents here have asked if the OTRS ticket was valid. Please review this comment. Geo Swan (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment I don't know what everyone's talking about. There are plenty of images of him. Granted, I doubt all of them are free, but I'm sure at least one of them is. Flarn2005 (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there are hundreds of free images of OBL, or this is the only one, is irrelevant. The question is whether this is a free image, and in the scope of the project. Nominator has claimed this is not a free image -- based on misconceptions many of us have argued. Please either give a reason why you think this image doesn't belong, isn't free, or isn't in scope -- or revise your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Changed my vote type to Comment, as I think that would make more sense. But why is everyone saying it's the only image available? Flarn2005 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of permission from the actual copyright holder per comment of User:The Man in Question. If we can't reasonably get permission, as argued by User:LPfi, then we have to delete and not default to keeping per the precautionary principle of Commons. I hope the closing admin disregards the misplaced fair-use keeps made by some. Hekerui (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do we contact Abdul Rehman? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know? Providing accurate evidence of permission for copyright purposes is the duty of the uploader. Hekerui (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it is the uploader's responsibility - But knowing how to contact these people will help 3rd parties examine the claims of the uploader WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood of contacting Osama bin Laden's second son over the copyright of an image appearing on Wikipedia seems exceedingly negligible. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image with a valid OTSR ticket, I really don't see any reason for all this fuss. As they say on my land, you're being more papist than the pope.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt that Hamid Mir placed the picture under a free licence, and we have no reason to doubt his description of the circumstances under which he obtained the picture, which indicates that he owns the copyright. Malatinszky (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Gary Dee (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have doubts about the OTRS tickets that come with some of the images[2] uploaded by Saqib Qayyum. He appears to me as an ordinary Pakistani guy behind a pc and him obtaining permissions via email from different companies such as Demand Media, Inc. and major national talk show hosts in Pakistan is highly questionable. Hamid Mir is a very popular talk show host on Pakistan's national TV w:Geo TV and I don't think he will be sending a young Pakistani guy his passport photo in emails to have it posted online. I suspect that the uploader Saqib Qayyum is a fan of Hamid Mir and have decided to upload Mir's images by making false OTRS transactions. I hate to be rude but it's the truth, people in Pakistan don't believe in copyrights and they look for ways to get things done illegal. I've been there and know this very well.--Officer (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If OTRS is valid, this discussion is meaningless. The argument that someone(s) don't think the OTRS ticket is valid is also meaningless unless they have an OTRS account or permission to view the ticket. What's free is free. DragonFire1024 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the above post and elsewhere, some people are disputing the OTRS posts and disputing their authenticity WhisperToMe (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the above comments, all I see are accusations without any evidence to back them up. DragonFire1024 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do at this point is to get OTRS involved, so that it can confirm things. - Also, it is a good idea to independently find Hamid Gul's contact info and/or the contact info of the bin Laden son. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has questioned the "authencity" of the OTRS, but whether Hamid Mir is in a position to determine the copyright of the image. The copyright is most likely owned by the newspaper it was published in or the photographer. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well he interviewed Osama right? If he didn't interview him, the photographer, assuming for a moment it wasn't him who took the picture, would never have been there in the first place. The photo was taken because he was interviewed. Not the other way around. DragonFire1024 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funkmonk, go back and re-read Officer's 15:14 post. He is, right now, questioning the authenticity of the OTRS. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he/she has access to the OTRS ticket, then to question the authenticity of it is meaningless. DragonFire1024 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I mentioned in my comment above, the uploader did not provide sufficient proof [3] to convince us that he was in an email contact with Hamid Mir, who is a celebrity. Anyone can create an email address and pretend to be Hamid Mir and send an email saying I give permission for the image to be used in Commons. This is what I think the uploader did and it's not my job to provide evidence for this. It is the uploader's responsiblity to provide to us the complete license information so that we don't go into long discussions over its authenticity or permission.--Officer (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well i would assume the people involved with OTRS and the ones granting such permissions, are capable of determining whether it's authentic or not. We don't know the content of the emails, we don't know the discussion behind the emails so I say again...Unless you have access to the ticket and the contents of its discussion, then you have no clear evidence to suggest it is a fake or forged. So as it stands making accusations and basically calling people liars is pointless and is a total distraction from the one and only issue: The image is either free or it's not. As it stands, it is free. DragonFire1024 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out something that others probably didn't bother to look into. My argument is that the meeting of Hamid Mir with Osama bin Laden was a very historical one, Osama never allowed any news agencies but only this one guy. Pictures were taken and I'm sure these are very valuable to the people who own them, especially after 9-11-2001 when Osama was made famous. About 10% chance that the OTRS ticket is genuine and 90% it is fraudulent, the rest is upto you guys.--Officer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such probabilities involved. You may ask somebody with OTRS rights to check the e-mail once more (the timestamps of the intermediate servers show whether an e-mail was sent the location claimed). The uploader had done his part when we got the e-mail with the evidence. And the fact that the image is even more valuable now is no reason for us to delete it. --LPfi (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please change image. Image looks too Christ-like from prints and films Christians have grown up with. He looks kind and has a mocking smile, IMHO, please use a militant looking image to fit his deeds of 9/11 and others where thousands of innocent people were killed That smile is a mockery of what he really was -- unless the photo was taken immediately after 9/11. Brother Officer (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous and also a baseless claim for deletion IMHO. I respect religion, but what you are suggesting is censorship based on your POV. DragonFire1024 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"That is ridiculous and also a baseless claim. . ." A code of conduct and etiquette states that everyone should interact in a respectful and civil manner. I made my statement but I was not aware I would be attacked for it in any sort of disrespectful or uncivil manner. While we all should have a neutral point of view (NPOV) that is not what all of us always do even though we try. Too, our view may often be the view of many others. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view but sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view. Since all contributions, including images, are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article nor image. There is no you must be right while I must be wrong. Please forgive me for my grave mistake for interjecting my opinion for deletion but that opinion remains unchanged. I will leave you to do your work now. Brother Officer (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all right, let's calm down. As it is, no other free images of Osama bin Laden are known to the Wikipedians involved in this discussion and the Osama bin Laden article, so no other image is available for our use. There are many better (and higher definition) photographs of Osama bin Laden, but they are all subject to copyright. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't delete images that have any chance of being encyclopedic just because we don't like the content. Ever. This is not a valid deletion reason. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How to Solve It: Post a link to the dispute at facebook.com/capitaltalk and get the attention of Hamid Mir and his staff WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I doubt that Hamid Mir have the time to respond to this.--Officer (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would try it anyway. It would be in his interest to do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in our interest, not necessarily in his. If we have the image, anybody can use it without paying him. It is like a charity asking repeatedly "are you really sure you did want to make that donation?" At some point one might give up and prefer withdrawing it. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it's in his interest to respond to the query. If he said "No, that wasn't me who signed the OTRS ticket" then that would be helpful. We aren't trying to badger him into giving the photo rights. We just want to know if he actually signed the OTRS ticket or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the very bottom of this article, Hamid Mir's email is given as hamid.mir@geo.tv. To prove that the OTRS is not fraudulent it should contain this email address giving us permission to use his image.--Officer (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would undermine a major reason we have OTRS -- we don't make ordinary commons contributors reveal their email addresses to the whole world. But you are asking Mir -- who is not a wikimedia volunteer, to sacrifice his privacy in a way we don't require of our actual contributors. Authorizing a small group of OTRS volunteers to check the bona fides of our correspondents protects our correspondent's privacy. Geo Swan (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to expect more permission is to assume less good faith from Mr. Mir than we do of other users on commons. Any time someone uploads an image with a claim of self-creation, we must assume the person is telling the truth. That Mr. Mir is a reporter and has an OTRS ticket probably shows he's quite knowledgeable about copyright issues. I would trust this upload more than many others on commons. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for keeping; however, the point is the we try to be as reasonably infallible with licensing on commons as we can, but there is only so much we can do. For that matter, there is only so much anyone in the world can do (even governments and courts are imperfect at this). Without strong proof otherwise, it seems best to keep the image. If Mr. bin Laden Jr. ever speaks up to claim that the copyright has been improperly placed, then we can delete it. But given that he released the image, he would probably be just as sorely disappointed as we would to see it deleted. And it would be a travesty, given that we have an OTRS ticket from a well-known journalist, to go deleting the image on the technicality that we are not in touch with Mr. bin Laden (as if anyone else in the world is qualified to speak on his behalf, given that the man has been close to his father as of late). Finally, if there are issues with the OTRS ticket, this is something that someone on OTRS should certainly explain to us, but frankly it's hidden from us for privacy reasons, and we ought to respect that, absent a specific comment from an OTRS reviewer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much you know about this case, but this young Pakistani man uploaded the same image and it was deleted 2 times but on his 3rd try he decided to make an OTRS ticket which is simply to obtain permission in an email which could very easily be done by anyone who pretends to be Hamid Mir. False OTRS transaction are usually not investigated unless it becomes a controversy like in this case, and soon we will be able to know if the OTRS transaction was genuine or fraudulent as I suspect. Mir in Pakistan is someone like w:Larry King for example, and if he was able to reply to that young Pakistani man he should reply to us also but if he doesn't then we go ahead and delete it for lacking permission. It is stealing for someone to use this image without a permission from it's owner and that is against the policy of Commons.--Officer (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's kind of a shame. I thought OTRS might be more vigilent. In that case, Keep, but dependent only on the investigation proving true. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am quite disturbed by the aspersions cast on the uploader's motives and character. In another comment someone asserted the uploader had a "bad log" on wikinews, offering a link to uploader's wikinews user talk page. I checked that page and I didn't see anything obvious to justify those aspersions... Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The uploader of this picture has a very bad log at both wiki-en and wikinews, which includes sockpuppetry and copyright violations. After seeing it, I can not anymore support in good faith the keeping of this file. The only reason I do not vote for deletion is the OTSR ticket. On one hand he seems to be inventive and obstinate enough to contact Mir and ask for the license, on the other, it's quite possible that he would have made up the email himself, indeed. --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a possibility that the ticket might be fraudulent, then OTRS should be asked to recheck it (where would the right place for that be? here: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard?), but until then we should assume that OTRS has judged the permission to be genuine (perhaps it shows the e-mail as having come from Mr. Mir's professional e-mail). Otherwise what's the point in even having OTRS tickets if we're not going to use them for verification? --Terfili (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are you worried about getting sued by a dead man? Also, the person that took it probably deserves a double-tap himself... who cares?!! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.220.220 (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is ridiculous... by definition/convention you would retain copyright you have a camera, have someone take a picture, then send the image to someone else for use in a magazine. There is just a whole load of speculation as to who actually composed and whose camera was used. As it stands, there is a rebuttable presumption that the copyright is as given by the OTRS ticket. The assertion of ownership, in the absence of any rebuttal or rival claim, ought to be sufficient justification to keep the image in our banks. --Ohconfucius (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the OTRS ticket is pretty dubious for having come from this reporter (see discussion above). Apparently they aren't vetted closely until a discussion like this one comes up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I opened Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Ticket_of_File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion, one user, User:AFBorchert, who participated in a previous deletion discussion, stated his belief that the image is genuine, and he asked people to look at his comments at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-11#File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me; it finalizes my {{Vk}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We went over this before - tiresome. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to AFBorchert, there is no doubt that the permission is genuine; that should be goood enough. Otherwise what do we have OTRS for. --Terfili (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per AFBorchert.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What does the ticket #2009110510062011 say exactly? And what did Abdul Rahman bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, the real author of the photo permit Hamid Mir to do with the photo exactly? /p.s. there's nothing to do with the uploader and his credibility, it is only about Abdul Rahman bin Laden and Hamid Mir. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it also has to do with the uploader and his credibility, especially when he has a record of forging identities and bringing copyvios to wikimedia projects. But if the OTRS people says the ticket is ok, we have to believe it, I guess.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is OTRS is beyond the control of all, or with a fake OTRS this image stands here...by reading all the comments i tend to hold delete, as on the right hand of the person who sit's next to laden is not a 'remote for self shoot' its a pen...and this photo was taken in between some talks (Can read from image) not a self portrait, there is a hand behind the camera and he/she owns the copyright..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That Abdul Rahman bin Laden (the hand behind the camera) holds the copyright seems to be more of a theoretical possibility, since this is clearly not a professional photoshoot for which Mr. Mir hired and paid Osama's son, but a casual photo in which the artistic input by the photographer is almost zero. It really might as well have been taken by using the timer on the camera. Hamid Mir claims copyright and there is no strong reason to doubt this. He is a professional journalist and can be assumed to know about copyright. For all we know Abdul Rahman may even have verbally relinquished any theoretical copyright claims he might have had to Mr. Mir at the time. It would really be helpful though if Commons had a policy for such cases (casual, unpaid photos by a third person). --Terfili (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find anything in U.S. copyright law covering requested snapshots. If an employee takes a picture for his employer, the employer owns the copyright. But Abdul Rahman was not an employee of Hamid Mir. If someone pays an independent contractor/freelance photographer to take a picture, the independent contractor/freelancer owns the copyright. But Abdul Rahman was not paid, and in addition can hardly be described as an independent contractor/freelancer. I would say that the spirit of the law gives Hamid Mir the copyright. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that Mir 'requested' Abdul rahman to take the photograph, if not it will be Abdul Rahman's ownership and mir cannot claim anything......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the quote I originally mentioned above, "I [Hamid Mir] was not allowed to use my camera to take any pictures of bin Laden. One of his sons, Abdul Rehman, took my picture with his father, which is published with this story. […] Abdul Rehman used his own camera and gave me the film," strongly implies that, yes. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Abdul Rahman owns the rights to the image not Mir. The bin Ladens clearly didn't want any videos or pictures being made with Mir's camera since that would likely make him the owner, but instead Abdul Rahman took the photo with his camera and gave the film to Mir. In this case Mir can only use it for his own personal use but he doesn't have the right to share them freely on Commons unless he gets permission from Abdul Rahman.--Officer (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure speculation. They also could have had security concerns about Mr. Mir using his own camera (maybe they thought the CIA may have put explosives in it or a deadly laser, who knows, I'd be pretty paranoid if I were a wanted terrorist leader in hiding). As it stands, Abdul Rehman likely relinquished any claims he may have had when he handed over the film, and that seems to be how Hamid Mir, a professional journalist who knows all these details we are speculating on, perceived it. --Terfili (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The reason, as stated in the article I cited above, was not that the bin Ladens were unwilling to relinquish ownership, but as a security measure to prevent weapons or espionage being used against bin Laden. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide something which shows that Osama was a wanted terrorist in 1997, they year in which this photo was taken? What you say is also speculation. Hamid Mir alone went to see them and Osama's men could have easily examined Mir's camera to look for explosives, lasers, etc. Regardless what the reason was, the image was made by Abdul Rahman's camera and not by Mir's. In normal situation when you give a photo film to someone you are not telling them to go share your private pictures with everyone in the world.--Officer (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course what I'm saying is speculation, but I'm labeling it as such. I'm not seriously suggesting they thought Mir's camera would have a laser in it that he would kill someone with. But everything's possible. But what should count here are not speculations but what is known. And as far we can tell with the information we have, Osama's son handed over the film to Hamid Mir and Mr. Mir's understanding was that he could do with it whatever he pleased. And uhm, yes, if a journalist interviews you, you ARE expecting him to share whatever happens during the interview with the whole world. --Terfili (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to sharing of the copyrights of the images not the article or documentry.--Officer (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article plainly states Mir was not allowed to use his own camera because of security concerns. "Abdul Rehman used his own camera and gave me the film. Despite all of these security measures..."--Chaser (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What did Abdul Rehman tell Mir to do with his film? The main purpose for Mir wanting the pictures taken was to show to people that he met with Osama bin Laden, he especially wanted to impress his boss at Daily newspaper which is what most beginner journalists do. But at that time in 1997 there was no Commons, so the pictures were meant to be used in his article or documentary about him meeting bin Laden. The image would appear in a newspaper with Abdul Rehman being credited as the author.--Officer (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By common sense, would a terrorist really care about who owned the copyright to an image? It's clearly for security reasons, which is supported even further by articles on the event. (Just to clarify, I'm not talking about being sued, but rather their motivations behind prohibiting Mir from bringing a camera.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First what is a terrorist and who is the terrorist?--Officer (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know their motivations 100% sure. Forget what I said about terrorists and copyright and focus on the second part of what I said. Let's also say we don't know whether bin Laden was a terrorist in 1997. In any case, we do know that he had reasons to fear for his safety. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Osama really has nothing to do with this, it's about his son Abdul Rehman.--Officer (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But he does. The reason his son took the picture was for the safety of Osama bin Laden. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with being the author of the image, he just appears in it. You failed to understand my point and I'm not going to repeat it.--Officer (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable image.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but unfortunately not a valid argument if the photo were to turn out to be a copyright violation. --Terfili (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is though unless you have evidence that a photo is copyrighted and doesn't belong to the OTRS ticketee then it should not be deleted period.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a photo. Is it that serious, really? Now, I don't get angry alot but this is just ridiculous. Go buy a doughnut or something, just get off this page and stop complaining. Stop being like kids fighting over a toy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.130.1 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of permission - the copyright holder is still most likely the photographer and there is no evidence of what commons license he allegedly releases the picture under or if he releases the picture under a commons license at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing is not at stake here; what is being questioned is whether Hamid Mir owns the copyright. I say that he does because there is an implicit contract; he is not permitted to bring his camera for security reasons, so Abdul Rehman takes the picture as if Hamid Mir had done so. Since Hamid Mir is a journalist, the implicit contract suggests that Hamid Mir is authorized to publish it as he like, and not just for personal use. (Why would Abdul Rehman even bother to take a photo and then give him the film if it were for personal use only? Just so he can show his friends "look at me, I got a photo taken with Osama bin Laden"? Preposterous.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha…true. I feel like this sort of issue must have gone to court in the real-world United States (since Wikimedia is governed by United States copyright law) at some point. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid speculations and concentrate on what actually happened. Mir admitted that Rehman created the image with Rehman's camera. Mir claims he received the camera film from Rehman. The author is the creator of the work and that would be Rehman. I feel that someone is trying to ignore this. Mir can use the image in other places but not here since we know already that he isn't the author.--Officer (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We know Mir is not the author. But he could be the copyright holder, if an implicit contract is assumed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that Mr Mir was/is a journalist, not some random dude, makes it rather obvious IMHO. Of course he would want to use, publish and sub-license the photo as much as he wanted and could ever think of, why would a journalist be intrested in a for-personal-uses-only-photo (hint: he wouldn't as its useless), or even an these-listed-uses-only (btw, why haven't we heard a single word of such a list then? because it doesn't exist!). Bin Laden and his son understood that this was whats going to happen when dealing with a journalist, and thus there where an implicit contract. This discussion should be about the validity on the OTRS.Lokpest (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The year was 1997, there was no Commons then. The expectation from everyone was that this image would be published in Pakistan with Rehman being the author, and I think it happened that way. So now that Commons exists Mir cannot speak for Rehman, the author and the copyright holder. Just because Mir has a hold of Rehman's photo(s) it doesn't mean he is the copyright holder. It's possible that double prints (copies) of this image were made, one given to Rehman and the other kept by Mir. Osama to all Pakistanis was and is a celebrity, regardless of profession everyone wanted a picture with him.--Officer (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just keep. He is an important person that should be remembered. He is part os history now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.184.175 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for the deletion request are downright mundane. BetoCG – ¿decías? 07:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it as its . please dont remove it (122.179.52.207)
Keep There is no evidence that the OTRS ticket is invalid, please provide this before starting useless discussions Bulwersator (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those last four comments contin valid arguments. Remember the precautionary principle. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *: Not sure how much you know about this case, but [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saqib_Qayyum_and_Chiaki_Hayashi.JPG this young Pakistani man] uploaded the same image and it was deleted 2 times but on his 3rd try he decided to make an OTRS ticket which is simply to obtain permission in an email which could very easily be done by anyone who pretends to be Hamid Mir. False OTRS transaction are usually not investigated unless it becomes a controversy like in this case, and soon we will be able to know if the OTRS transaction was genuine or fraudulent as I suspect. Mir in Pakistan is someone like [[w:Larry King]] for example, and if he was able to reply to that young Pakistani man he should reply to us also but if he doesn't then we go ahead and delete it for lacking permission. It is stealing for someone to use this image without a permission from it's owner and that is against the policy of Commons.--[[User:Officer|Officer]] ([[User talk:Officer|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 *:: Wow, that's kind of a shame. I thought OTRS might be more vigilent. In that case, {{vk}}, but dependent only on the investigation proving true. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
+*:*I am quite disturbed by the aspersions cast on the uploader's motives and character.  In another comment someone asserted the uploader had a "bad log" on wikinews, offering a link to uploader's wikinews user talk page.  I checked that page and I didn't see anything obvious to justify those aspersions...  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * {{comment}} - The uploader of this picture has a [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Saki/Archive_01 very bad log] at both wiki-en and wikinews, which includes sockpuppetry and copyright violations. After seeing it, I can not anymore support in good faith the keeping of this file. The only reason I do not vote for deletion is the OTSR ticket. On one hand he seems to be inventive and obstinate enough to contact Mir and ask for the license, on the other, it's quite possible that he would have made up the email himself, indeed. --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * {{comment}} If there is a possibility that the ticket might be fraudulent, then OTRS should be asked to recheck it (where would the right place for that be? here: [[Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard]]?), but until then we should assume that OTRS has judged the permission to be genuine (perhaps it shows the e-mail as having come from Mr. Mir's professional e-mail). Otherwise what's the point in even having OTRS tickets if we're not going to use them for verification? --[[User:Terfili|Terfili]] ([[User talk:Terfili|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:46, 7 May 2011

File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg

Navigation menu

Search