File talk:Gul Mudin.jpg

 

Spiegel IS claiming copyright

This is a public domain image and i am going to remove the speedy deletion tag so that this topic can be brought to to right forum to discuss. Iqinn (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a public domain image. the licensing information is here: http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.deV7-sport (talk)

That is false it is a public domain image. I agree to not add the image to any article until that has been discussed. So stop adding the speedy deletion tag. It has been challenged and discussion in the relevant forum is next. Iqinn (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The link you added goes directly back to Spiegel, Spiegel Gruppe has altered this photo and asserts it's copyright over it's intellectual property. If you want to license this photo for publication here or elsewhere follow the link provided for the information. V7-sport (talk)

That is false.

Notice to the administrators V7-sport keeps adding the speedy deletion tag to the image despite the fact that the speedy deletion has been challenged. This is censorship that leaves no room for discussion. I repeat again the image is in the public domain and his claims are false. That should be brought to the relevant forum where the copyright status can be discussed with the community. Please do remove the speedy deletion tag and replace it with the tag of files for deletion where this should be discussed. 04:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply stating that it is false isn't evidence to the contrary. The link you posted goes straight back to Spiegel which asserts copyright and this has been deleted before for copyright infringement. Please stop re-posting previously deleted, copyrighted intellectual property. V7-sport (talk)

This image has never been deleted for copyright infringement. That is false. Spiegel does not claim copyright for this images that are in the public domain. "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Stop adding the speedy deletion tag. This is censorship. That needs discussion with the community. Iqinn (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

An image from this series (File:15. January 2010 Gul Mudin.jpg) was deleted previously for copyright infringement. This image is not in the public domain as it is not of a part of "the person's official duties" to be taking such photos, indeed it is against DOD policy and standing orders to do so. This isn't censorship, you are in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYVIO.V7-sport (talk)

There was no copyright infringement with that image and the topic has never been discussed in the relevant forums at Wikipedia. They are made by US soldiers during the their deployment to Afghanistan collected by the DoD and are part of the court case and they fall under "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." as the Abu Ghraib images. Stop edit warring and bring it to the relevant forum here at Wikipedia. So take the speedy deletion tag of the page that has never been discussed in the relevant forums at Wikipedia. Iqinn (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. If the person is being court marshaled for it then it obviously wasn't a part of their official duties. Abu Ghraib photos were released into the public domain, these haven't been yet. Spiegel does claim copyright and the licensing information of their copyright has been provided. Please stop uploading other peoples intellectual property on to Wikipedia. V7-sport (talk)

I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. Spiegel does not claim copyright for these images the licensing information you provided does not concern these images. Out of context. These images are in the public domain as the Abu Ghraib images are in the public domain. No these images are not intellectual property of the Spiegel or anybody else their are made by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore they are in the public domain. Read the sources the DoD tried to keep these images out of the public domain. But they are now in the public domain and nobody can and has claimed copyright. Iqinn (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752996,00.html Notice

• © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
• Alle Rechte vorbehalten
• Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

That translates into

• © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
• All rights reserved
• Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH V7-sport (talk)

Out of context. This does not concern the images, these images are not taken by der Spiegel. They do not claim copyright for these images. These images are in the public domain as the Abu Ghraib images are in the public domain taken by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore there are DoD images and in the public domain. Read the sources the DoD tried to keep these images out of the public domain. But there are now in the public domain and nobody can claim copyright for these images. Iqinn (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

These images were not in the public domain to begin with and have been edited and altered by the Speigel Group. They have affixed a copyright notice. V7-sport (talk)

To repeat myself. That is false the notice does not concern the images they are in the public domain. These images are in the public domain as the Abu Ghraib images are in the public domain taken by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore there are DoD images and in the public domain. Read the sources the DoD tried to keep these images out of the public domain. But there are now in the public domain and nobody can claim copyright for these images. Iqinn (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is demonstrably true, the images were not public domain and they have been altered by the Speigel Group which is claiming copyright. "Publicly available doesn't equal "public domain". They are different things. Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. This image is none of the above. V7-sport (talk)

Out of the public domain that what the sources say. Demonstrably these images are in the public domain as they are images taken by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore there are DoD images and in the public domain as well Afghanistan (were the images were taken) has no official copyright relations with the United States. Der Spiegel did not alter the images in any way that would give them copyright over these images and they have never claimed copyright for these images.They are in the public domain as shown. Iqinn (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources say "public view", regardless, that's irrelevant to the fact that these are copyrighted by the Speigel Group. V7-sport (talk)

Nope they say public domain and these images are not copyrighted by der Spiegel. They are in the public domain as shown above. Iqinn (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, your "source" a web blog states "pubic view" and again, it's irrelevant because Spiegel is claiming copyright. Licensing information has been provided to you. V7-sport (talk)

Do you even follow the case like me who has done so for almost a year now? (my source?) The sources say public domain [1], [2]... and the fact is that they are in the public domain. Demonstrably these images are in the public domain. Nope, out of context there are no licensing information for these images. Der Spiegel did not alter the images in any way that would give them copyright over these images and they have never claimed copyright for these images. They are in the public domain as shown. Iqinn (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, these were not taken during the course of the person's "official duties" nor were they released by the DOD into the public domain. The copyright claims and licensing info are on the complaint. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over, this is clearly someone else's intellectual property. V7-sport (talk)

Again, der Spiegel did not take these images nor do they gain ownership or copyright for material that is not theirs and has only been leak to them. This is not their material and they never claimed copyright nor blurring a face does grant them copyright. I think you are Wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles. Yeah surely it was not their official duty to murder innocent civilians but that does not change the fact that they were deployed by the DoD to Afghanistan and that the DoD then seized the images and that they are in the public domain. These images are in the public domain as the DoD is undoubted part of the federal government and does not claim copyrights nor are the images classified. They are in the public domain as shown above and it is as important to have them on Wikipedia as to have the Abu Gharaib images. Iqinn (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that these photos were not taken as a part of their official duty. That alone would make your licensing claim void. [User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] (talk)

That is obviously false. I did exactly say the opposite. "Yeah surely it was not their official duty to murder innocent civilians but that does not change the fact that they were deployed by the DoD to Afghanistan and that the DoD then seized the images and that they are in the public domain. These images are in the public domain as the DoD is undoubted part of the federal government and does not claim copyrights nor are the images classified." Iqinn (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So you admit "Yeah surely it was not their official duty..." yet that is what you claimed in the licensing. Therefore the licensing is fraudulent. The DOD taking possession of a copy of something does't make it public domain. With that, © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 and with Speigel stating "All our material is copyright-protecteted" your case for free licensing is void. V7-sport (talk)

The DoD sent them them to Afghanistan and that happen during their tour. Stop Wikipedia:Wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles. They got paid from the DoD for every day they spent in Afghanistan. The same tag and principle applies to all the other "thousands" of images taken by US soldiers during their tour in Iraq or Afghanistan that we have here at Wikipedia. You are repeating yourself that has already been cleared. No matter how often you are shouting copyvio copyvio it does not make it true. It has happen many times often when someone tries to remove an image he/she does not like. Again, der Spiegel did not take these images nor do they gain ownership or copyright for material that is not theirs and has only been leak to them. This is not their material and they never claimed copyright nor blurring a face does grant them copyright. Iqinn (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The personal photos of US soldiers are not public domain. You state that Speigel never claimed copyright when that is clearly not the case. (© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 ) and yes... I am repeating myself. V7-sport (talk)

To quote from the articles talk page: "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." Iqinn (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement of a wikipedia editor isn't something that can contravene copyright law.V7-sport (talk)

Note for the administrators there is a another discussion going on. I suggest to remove the speedy deletion tag until these discussions have been played out. In any case, if the discussions would show the image would be copyrighted, in that case i would make a claim of WP:fair use for this picture and would change the page accordingly so a deletion is not necessary at this point. Iqinn (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use is not allowed on Commons. Feel free to upload it locally to :en claiming fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Decision on Speedy deletion - Picture stays

The file has been nominated for Speedy deletion several times.

Status: This picture was taken by an US-soldier in Afghanistan during duty outside the compound.

THe picture is one of several pictures published by the german magazin "Der Spiegel". It is one of several thousand pictures,

many of them according of the magazin are to cruel to be shown in public.

The copyright notice of the magazin "Der Spiegel" does apply for the article and the complete website, but not specifically

for the picture, since it was not taken by The Spiegel or one of their photographers.

The copyright tag on the site of "Der Spiegel" is without meaning for the status of this picture.

Discussion: The discussion is about the question, if the behaviour of the soldiers during their duty (not following the army rules and

code of conduct), eliminates the status public domain for the pictures.

This question is not new and has been discussed on commons before.

The pictures of Abu Graib prison are also taken by soldiers on duty not following the army rules.

They are in the public domain.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abu_Ghraib_18.jpg

The pictures of the massacre of My Lai in Vietnam is a similar situation, where the commons pictures showing killed children.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg

I come to the conclusion, that the picture has been taken by an soldier on duty and that the fact that conduct (crimes)

against the rules of the army during duty does not remove the public domain status of the picture.

So I remove the Speedy Deletion Tag of this picture because it is a picture in the public domain.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, calling your opinion a "Decision" is a little bit strong. But we can put in in a DR, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Turelio,

This decision was on the part of the Speedy Deletion request with regards to the copyright infringement part at least against "Der Spiegel". -- Neozoon (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The photos at Abu Graib and My Lai are public domain because they were released into public domain during the trial as evidence. There has been no trial in this instance. Further, the Abu Graib photos state "unless the photographer claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have denied this under oath", there has been no such denial in this instance so using the Abu-ghraib photos as presidence is flawed. Der Speigal has altered those photos and is calming copyright. V7-sport (talk)

(your are repeating yourself that has always been cleared) The Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." and blurring a face does not grant them copyrights.

These images were taken by the soldiers and all of the sources state that the killing of Gul Mudin happened during the soldiers regular service [3], [4],[5], [6], [7]..., it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area what was there official duty at that time and they can not claim copyright for a work that was produced during their official duty. "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Iqinn (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

stating that spiegel doesn't claim copyright is obviously untrue. The information to license the image has been provided to you. Blurring the face, etc, imparts intellectual property to the image and therefore their copyright is valid. This was certainly not made during the course of their official duties and unlike the Abu Graib photos, this hasn't been released into the public domain by a court marshall. The news sources credit Spegel, which is the copyright holder. V7-sport (talk)

The Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." and blurring a face does not grant them copyrights. The image is all over the media and the internet.

These images were taken by the soldiers and all of the sources state that the killing of Gul Mudin happened during the soldiers regular service [8], [9],[10], [11], [12]..., it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area what was there official duty at that time and they can not claim copyright for a work that was produced during their official duty. "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Iqinn (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for just posting the same thing over and over. Impossible to assume good faith when you only post spam. V7-sport (talk)

After calling other editors jihadist, sockpuppets, liars you are now refusing to assume good faith solely because you are missing compelling arguments that would support your point and you just repeat your false arguments that have been already invalidated here on other pages by me and other editors. That is not very helpful. Iqinn (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Better copy

A copy of this photo without the teen's face obscured is here. This photo should be replaced with that one. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

qiestion

In the formal deletion discussion some contributors said they had tried to contact Der Spiegel to clarify if they were or weren't asserting intellectual property rights to this image. So, did Der Spiegel respond?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You will find the answer when you read the deletion discussion carefully. Iqinn (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)