Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 June 13



File:JackFellure2012.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  03:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:JackFellure2012.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I suspect that the author did not actually take this photo. I believe he copied from the Prohibitionists website. William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (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:DennisatWork.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  03:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:DennisatWork.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image is credited in the Albany Business Review to DONNA ABBOTT-VLAHOS. I suspect this is not the same person who uploaded the file. William S. Saturn (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (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:Jondollah Logo.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: keep as non-free, as it has an apparently valid FUR. I've updated the license to indicate the logo is believed to be copyrighted. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Jondollah Logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is no indication that this was published before 1923 as suggested by the copyright tag. This seems to be a recent logo. Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2015 (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:Abu Fatima al-Jaheishi.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: keep as non-free. It would require some serious logical contortions to dispense with the possibilities where this is copyrighted, but as the image is currently tagged with a FUR that seems valid on the surface, we can retain it for now and list at NFCR if needed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abu Fatima al-Jaheishi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Iraq, but the uploader also claims that the photographer is unknown. There are some unknown photographers who are not citizens of Iraq, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Iraq. Plenty of non-Iraqi citizens fight for the Islamic State.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Ismael Zambada-GarciaDoS.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. There are several problems with this image. First of all, the most recent version of the image does not actually appear on the cited page from the Department of State website; thus, there is no valid source for the recent version of the file and it needs to be deleted.

If we were to revert to the prior version, the argument about the Department of State becomes relevant, and my closing rationale in this and the following paragraph applies to all files listed on this page asserted to be from the Federal Government. Contrary to what appears to be asserting below, no department of the United States Federal Government has the authority to declare an item in the public domain if they would not legally hold the copyright otherwise. Not even the President can do that.

Put another way, only works of the employees of the federal government are public domain. Works created by others are still under copyright even if they happen to get published on a Federal website. The fact that it appears on the State Department website without attribution is likely to be an error or omission on the part of the State Department employee who wrote/uploaded/maintains that web page and/or image; we cannot take such a possible error as a bona fide PD release.

For this file only, it's highly unlikely, given the subject of this photo, that it was taken by an employee of the federal government. For all we know, since the subject is a citizen of Mexico, this picture could have been taken by anyone in Mexico, or it may even be a work of the Mexican Government if it's a mug shot or ID photo. Either way, we cannot determine its true source, and under the precautionary principle, it is not reasonable to assume it would be PD. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ismael Zambada-GarciaDoS.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department:"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated." - http://www.state.gov/misc/87529.htm#copyright. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2015 (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:IS insurgents, Anbar Province, Iraq.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. The following explanation applies to all of the Iraq-related files listed on this page which haven't been handled as non-free content and are not claimed as works of the Federal Government.

The discussion linked by does apply to this case. As per that discussion, current consensus is to treat all works as though their home country copyright is valid, regardless of the status of our diplomatic ties or copyright treaties with said country. Under that guideline, works from Iraq are copyrighted for 50 years pma.

In the cases of these pictures purportedly taken by terrorist group members, the following principles apply, firmly rooted in the English Wikipedia application of copyright law: 1) The individual photographer retains his copyright to the work unless he assigns it voluntarily to another organization or person. 2) We have no way of knowing if such an assignment occurred. 3) Even if the photographer did assign his rights to the terrorist group, the group would still hold the copyright and we can't use the image. 4) Even if a law were passed, or a court decision handed down, stripping terrorist organizations of the legal right to hold intellectual property rights, the rights would almost certainly devolve back to their original creators. 5) We have no evidence such a law or court decision exists or has been passed.

Furthermore, these photos may not all have been taken by members of the terrorist group(s) involved; they may have been taken by other citizens of the country, or international journalists, etc. etc. Without a valid release, or knowledge of a valid body of law providing otherwise, we must assume images are under copyright. While I am aware that the precautionary principle is a Commons policy and not an official policy on English Wikipedia, consensus here at enwiki has long been to handle copyright issues in a manner largely consistent with that principle&mdash;if there is significant doubt, we delete. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:IS insurgents, Anbar Province, Iraq.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Iraq, but the uploader also claims that the photographer is unknown. There are some unknown photographers who are not citizens of Iraq, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Iraq. Plenty of non-Iraqi citizens fight for the Islamic State.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2015 (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:Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, King of Clubs.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 ⚡  15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, King of Clubs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Image was created by the Department of Defense, therefore it is in the public domain. The source provided proves this, and it is well known that these cards produced by the Americans prior to concluding the 2003 Invasion of Iraq were created by the U.S federal government in order to find high ranking members of the Saddam Hussein regime. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no statement on that page saying that the photographer was an employee of the United States Department of Defense. The pictures seem to have been taken from random external sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image of the card itself is a product of the United States Department of Defense, therefore it is in the public-domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue at question is whether the work of the government employee is sufficiently transformative to avoid this being considered a derivative work. The fact that the cards were created by the government, or that they were used to help troops learn to identify the subjects, is not in dispute.  What is a concern here is whether the addition of the card border, rank/suit, and wording is sufficiently transformative to override the copyright on the photo itself.  My opinion is that these cards, while important to the history of the second Iraq War, are not free content and should be deleted: the copyrighted picture in the center is a defining, central feature of the work, not incidental to it. However, I do not feel this is necessarily clear enough to close this discussion as such. I will simply leave this as a !vote and let another admin close. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I want this changed to non-free fair use if the consensus reached is to remove its PD status. I have had enough of re-uploading these images under a non-free license after they have been deleted for being determined not in the PD. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Put a free-use rationale on it yourself before it gets deleted, then. It's not the closing admin's job to come up with a rationale for an image someone else wants to use in an article. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2015 (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:Abu Suleiman ISIS.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: keep as non-free content. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abu Suleiman ISIS.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Iraq, but the uploader also claims that the photographer is unknown. There are some unknown photographers who are not citizens of Iraq, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Iraq. Plenty of non-Iraqi citizens fight for the Islamic State.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Ibrahim al-Rubaysh.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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ibrahim al-Rubaysh.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. Additionally, this picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. Besides, there are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (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:Osama bin Laden.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: keep as non-free content. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Osama bin Laden.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Afghanistan, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Afghanistan, but the uploader doesn't list the name of the photographers. There are some unnamed photographers who are not citizens of Afghanistan, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Afghanistan.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Afghanistan must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Afghanistan within 30 days from publication in Afghanistan. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Afghanistan and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Abu Muhammad al-Adnani.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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abu Muhammad al-Adnani.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. Additionally, this picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. Besides, there are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (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:Abu Omar al Shishani.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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abu Omar al Shishani.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Iraq, but the uploader does not indicate the name of the photographer. There are some unnamed photographers who are not citizens of Iraq, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Iraq.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (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:Abu Omar al-Shishani.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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abu Omar al-Shishani.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (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:Mugshot of Abu Ala al-Afri.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Mugshot of Abu Ala al-Afri.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

The vast majority of the employees ot the United States Department of State are not citizens of Iraq. Furthermore, this was almost certainly not created by an employee of the United States Department of State.
 * The uploader claims two things:
 * The photographer is a citizen of Iraq, and
 * The photographer is an employee of the United States Department of State.

Additionally: See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Iraq, but doesn't provide any evidence of this.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2015 (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:Al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia.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: keep as non-free content. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Missing evidence that this wasn't published outside Somalia within the first 30 days after publication in Somalia. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), pictures which are uploaded to the Internet are published concurrently in all countries in which the Internet is accessible. Since the Internet is accessible in some countries which have signed the Berne Convention, this means that the uploader needs to show that the picture was first published in offline form in Somalia and then not uploaded to the Internet before at least 30 days had passed since publication in Somalia. The source given is a website, which is not any kind of offline publication. Furthermore, the website seems to have posted this picture less than 30 days after the picture was created, implying that it didn't remain offline-only for at least 30 days after the first publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Al-Shabaab fighters.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 as non-free content. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Al-Shabaab fighters.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Missing evidence that this wasn't published outside Somalia within the first 30 days after publication in Somalia. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), pictures which are uploaded to the Internet are published concurrently in all countries in which the Internet is accessible. Since the Internet is accessible in some countries which have signed the Berne Convention, this means that the uploader needs to show that the picture was first published in offline form in Somalia and then not uploaded to the Internet before at least 30 days had passed since publication in Somalia. The source given is a website, which is not any kind of offline publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This picture was taken by members of a terrorist group. It belongs to an international illegal terrorist organization, and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it doesn't need fair use. It has no copyright. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are no special rules for terrorist groups in copyright law. Besides, if a terrorist group can't be the holder of some material according to the laws of some country, then it just means that these rights are re-assigned to someone else, unclear who. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Ahmed Abdi Godane.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ahmed Abdi Godane.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2015 (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:Saif al-Adel in Afghanistan, Janaury 2000.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 as non-free content. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Saif al-Adel in Afghanistan, Janaury 2000.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14 Per that RfC, the file is to be treated as unfree on Wikipedia unless the file is in the public domain in Afghanistan, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Additionally, the uploader makes unsourced claims about the origin of the picture:
 * The uploader claims that the picture was created by a citizen of Afghanistan, but the uploader doesn't provide any information about the identity about the author, except that the author is a member of al-Qaeda. There are some members of al-Qaeda who are not citizens of Afghanistan, so the uploader would need to provide more specific information about the photographer's identity in order to prove that the photographer is a citizen of Afghanistan.
 * The PD reason the uploader is quoting additionally requires that Iraq must have been the country of first publication and that the picture mustn't have been published outside Iraq within 30 days from publication in Iraq. Per Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012), this means that the uploader is required to prove that the picture was first published offline in Iraq and not posted to the Internet within the first 30 days from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 14 June 2015 (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:Abubakar Shekau.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  04:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Abubakar Shekau.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader seems to claim that this picture was created by the United States federal government's police force's photographers, but the linked page states that the United States federal government's police force has no idea where this person is located. This implies that the picture wasn't taken by the United States federal government's police force's photographers but by someone else, meaning that the copyright tag is invalid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has the appropriate PD tag of being released into the Public Domain per the U.S State Department: "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." - https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/about-rfj/frequently-asked-questions.html. No copyright tag was indicated on the image. Therefore, it stands as being in the Public Domain. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That notice is obviously not correct. Since the Department of State isn't the copyright holder, the Department of State can't release the picture to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that up with the United States State Department. As far as this is concerned, the onus falls onto you to prove to the contrary that it is not correct. I have cited the necessary source and statement that allows it to fall into the PD from a reputable branch of the U.S Federal government. The statement says it is in the public-domain if there is no copyright tag on the image, of which there is none. Case closed. Either find out who then is the 'copyright holder' with credible sources, accept that the 'original source' is exempt from copyright protection or that the U.S government is the original copyright holder. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2015 (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.