Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 30



File:Ki Hong Lee, black shirt, looking at camera.jpg

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ki Hong Lee, black shirt, looking at camera.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source website is in Spanish so I can't tell whether it confirms the public domain claim or not (I don't think it does from a machine translation) but it is unlikely that this blogspot site owns the copyright. It appears to be a horizontally flipped version of this image. January  ( talk ) 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - as F9: http://www.magweb.com/actors/ki_hong_lee Eeekster (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mullah Omar.png

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mullah Omar.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image was directly copied from the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mullah-omars-face Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The image was not taken directly from the New Yorker, I used that image as a comparison between the one posted in the public-domain by the U.S State Department website Rewards for Justice and a copy of the original unaltered image published by the New Yorker in an editorial piece  . See . The fact that User:Krzyhorse22 uses this as justification for being possibly unfree is perplexing, as the image I posted was the Public-Domain alternative used by the U.S government and not the image used by the New Yorker article. The desperation in which User:Krzyhorse22 is pursuing for this image to be taken down, when he/she has given such a blatantly false and misleading explanation "The image was directly copied from the New Yorker" leads me to suspect agenda. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You had uploaded it to Commons and it got deleted, right away you uploaded it to Wikipedia and it got deleted and once again, and right away, you re-uploaded it. Your contribs and behavior demonstrate that you're a bad faith editor. , There is no doubt that you copied it directly from New Yorker , the one posted at rewardsforjustice.net is a cropped version of low quality.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're deluded if you think the image uploaded by the New Yorker is the exact same in terms of quality as the one uploaded by the U.S State Department at . The one published by the New Yorker wasn't taken by them, they have merely used it on an article, if that is what you're implying. That image is used by many news sources and editorials such as . No one knows who took the original version that was used by the New Yorker article and the Pakistani news article I just linked. The U.S PD alternative is clearly of a much more higher quality. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, declaring me a bad faith editor when my edits on, and have been to make those articles more concise with cited sources and examples so as to help those that use Wikipedia, is just insulting. I come onto Wikipedia to edit articles that I have an interest in, citing sources so as to eliminate the doubt of information and uploaded images to articles which I thought and still believe are in the Public Domain, and then all of a sudden you declare me a bad faith editor... your edit there was pretty uninformed to put it politely. It's just comical. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of this discussion, I would like to raise the following points in support of my argument, which I have detailed below: StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * a.) The source in which the image is derived from, is . It is an official site used by the U.S State Department for the apprehension of persons who are suspected in engaging in activity deemed unlawful by the U.S Federal Government. Contrary to User:Krzyhorse22, is not the same image as . They may represent the same person, but as you can see the quality of the images are completely different. The one uploaded is of the latter, which is cited as being in the Public-Domain by the U.S State Department. I will now insert an excerpt from the Terms and Conditions on the Rewards for Justice website: "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without RFJ's permission. We request that RFJ be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or RFJ, as appropriate." See  on copyright. No copyright is mentioned, therefore no permission is needed. Rewards for Justice is also mentioned as the source, as the Terms and Conditions stipulate. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * b.) There has not been any breach of copyright by uploading this image to Wikipedia. The source of the image is used by a U.S Federal Government agency, the U.S State Department, and explicitly states that is it in the Public Domain. Moreover, there is also no proof that the image has contained an original copyright, and were such a copyright to ever exist, if it would be deemed valid under copyright laws. I say this as under the regime in which this image portrays the head of state at the time, Afghanistan was isolated in every possible way. A copyright to the Taliban regime would have been classified as trivial at best, as officially their regime banned the use of taking pictures using photographic equipment. See . Another fact to consider is that it is assumed that the image in question was taken in Afghanistan, and therefore in the Public Domain in the United State, as Afghanistan is not apart of the Berne Convention. See . Afghanistan is also not a member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Trade Organisation See . Therefore, if there was ever a copyright on this image, it is non-applicable according to U.S copyright law and thus within the Public-Domain See  under Restoration of Copyrights. It is therefore likely to conclude that were a supposed copyright placed on the image in its country of origin, it is still in the public domain for the previous reasons. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * c.) Judging by this, it is already quite clear that this image is doing no harm in having being uploaded onto Wikipedia for scholarly discussion onto articles in which the image is relevant. It is neither hampering potential commercial opportunities for a supposed original owner nor infringing on any supposed original copyright. Furthermore, there has been controversy surrounding the image, as many, such as User:Krzyhorse22 claim the image may not in fact portray who it is intended to portray. This is merely speculation, and it is hardly justifiable in removing this image based on an assumption. What we do know is that an official branch of the U.S Federal government, being the U.S State Department uses this image on an affiliate website, . It is also used by a number of news publications, further enhancing legitimacy that the image is indeed accurate. The U.S government represents a strong, valid source in determining who is an individual, as the site which uses the image is based especially and exclusively for identifying individuals suspected of committing crimes. If any Wikipedia user challenges this assertion, than they should take it up with the U.S State Department, as well as the entire intelligence community of the U.S Federal Government. The sheer absurd lengths that User:Krzyhorse22 has gone to when trying to prove that this image is not valid in its depiction has included an obscure claim that he has made contact with John O. Brennan "BTW, I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar. " See  This should surely erode all legitimacy that User:Krzyhorse22 has as an editor on Wikipedia, and for his argument, as he is giving a false account on a federal government official to prove his point of view. Please for the sake of reason, do not pay heed to this fool. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop writing nonsense about other users. This discussion is about the image you uploaded with false license, which was likely created by a photographer in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the only two countries Mullah Omar lived in. U.S. government may post such image on its website but we know for a fact that U.S. government didn't meet with Omar to take his photo. This is circumstantial evidence and it's applicable in this case. Additionally, there is no proof that the person in the image is actually Mullah Omar. It's only speculated to be him. It's claimed that he's never been photographed.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not using a false licence, so please, just stop embarrassing yourself further by claiming that it is. You only started saying it was from the New Yorker article after I had linked it as a comparison image to the one I uploaded from another source. I did that becuase User:Mendaliv had suggested the image might have been taken professionally as opposed to clandestinely so I found a grainy version of the one I had uploaded from Rewards for Justice to suggest that the U.S might have some digital enhancing to make the image more identifiable, that is it. See Because you have such an aversion for seeing the truth with eyes, I'll bold it for your convenience:

"The type of image suggests it wasn't taken clandestinely, but instead professionally... " - User:Mendaliv "Is it possible if the U.S government purposefully enhanced the quality of the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mullah_Omar.png from the undoubtedly original version http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/120123_r21781_p323.jpg for identification purposes? This is directed at Mendaliv (talk • contribs) who suggested said image was taken professionally as opposed to clandestinely." - User:StanTheMan87 Do not misinterpret what I typed, by "original version", I did not mean original publisher or original source, I meant the image used in that article appears older than the one on the Rewards for Justice website, just look at the quality, and see for yourself, oh wait I forgot, it appears you don't have eyes, becuase I have typed this before:'''The image was not taken directly from the New Yorker, I used that image as a comparison between the one posted in the public-domain by the U.S State Department website Rewards for Justice and a copy of the original unaltered image published by the New Yorker in an editorial piece. See . Now, becuase I know you cannot and probably will not comprehend what I have just typed above, I'll link some other media sites that have used the same image as the New Yorker article, which were used before January 2012''' as you seem to think the New Yorker were the original publishers. See - May 3, 2011,  - September 08, 2010,  - October 27, 2008 Do you understand, or are you still adhering to your moronic paradigm? Understand? Are you sure? I’m not going to repeat myself a fourth time. Make sure, and re-read what I have typed above just in case. Alright, now that that’s finally over, my next point has been pretty much proven by you when you stated likely created by a photographer in Afghanistan or Pakistan which demonstrated that the image is therefore in the Public-Domain at the very minimum in the United States, as Afghanistan is not a part of the Berne Convention. I have never heard of Mullah Omar ever visiting Pakistan, as he fought in Afghanistan throughout the 1980’s against the Soviets and remained in the Kandahar region, his birthplace throughout the  civil war with the Islamic State of Afghanistan/Northern Alliance and during his reign in the 90’s. It was said he left Kandahar only twice during his rule to visit Kabul. If in doubt, read point b.) . As for there is no proof that the person in the image is actually Mullah Omar, there is more proof saying it is him as opposed to saying it isn’t, and those that profess the latter do so out of mere speculation… not good enough for Wikipedia, which demands facts, and the facts are that it is indeed him, as stated  by a Government agency dealing exclusively with identifying people and various media outlets. The facts state it is in the Public-Domain. See point c.). You have yet to refute any of my claims whilst you just repeat the same mantra which I have countered time and time again, but you just don’t seem to listen. This leads me to believe that you are a troll on Wikipedia. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously have no idea about usage of images in Wikipedia. I'm not going to waste my time teaching you, go learn for yourself. Ranting about it is not going to keep the image when it's someone else's work. To avoid copyright violation, the U.S. government used only a portion of the image for own purpose but you uploaded the full version. That's a clear violation, especially the fact that you concealed the real source for the full version. I suggest you stop writing very long text, have a little respect for the admins who come here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You never heard about Mullah Omar visiting Pakistan? Are you trying to defend Pakistan or something? He was educated at a Pakistani madrasa by Pakistani Sami ul Haq (Father of Taliban). Nearly all Afghans lived in Pakistan, including Afghan President Hamid Karzai, it's their second country. Since 2001 Mullah Omar has been living in Pakistan. That image was very likely made in Kandahar or in Quetta, Pakistan, the two cities Mullah Omar often visited.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I never knew he was educated in Pakistan, thanks for the article. I thought he was only a peasant village mullah from Kandahar with only a rudimentary education. Anyway, what if the proportions of the image were slightly changed? And does it count for nothing that the image is considered PD in the U.S? Can't we just have a disclaimer that it's free use at least in the United States due to the fact that Afghanistan isn't a signatory to the Berne convention? See under Licensing. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. Works that are first published in the United States or in a country with which we have a copyright treaty or that are created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which we have a copyright treaty are also protected" Both Afghanistan and Pakistan's works are protected in the United States.  --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pt. Harish Chander Bali & Prof. Kirpal Singh Jandu.jpg

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Pt. Harish Chander Bali & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Composite image with unknown sources. Eeekster (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:KatLPaige.jpg

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:KatLPaige.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF: ©2013 Nik Alexander Eeekster (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, this is my image, I'm happy for it to be used on wiki (I uploaded) but don't want it used anywhere else, have I selected the correct license?Yellowxander (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The licence selected allows anyone to use it for any purpose . Images with permission for Wikipedia use only are not accepted. January  ( talk ) 09:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.