Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward Snowden.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Edward Snowden.jpg

[edit]

License is in question. VOA normally tags media from other sources but an editor has questioned whether they failed this time. Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See File_talk:Edward_Snowden.jpg - It's a screen grab from an interview by The Guardian which would be copyrighted and VOA failed to mark the picture as such WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's just our speculation (on the talk page). The source, who we can trust, noted this image as public domain (source 1, 2; archived: 1, 2). I don't know how they got the rights. Perhaps they acquired the rights from the copyright holder or it were obtained in another way. But in any case, we operate within the policy of WMF and rules of Commons. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After Snowden's revelations, who hasn't lost trust in the US Government, or more specifically its main propaganda vehicle? --Ohconfucius (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    clearly wikicommons needs a written okay from the photographer, probably from the guardian team. US surveillance uses whatever photo they can use. and by publishing it they don't automatically make it 'public domain'. Maximilian (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't true. Photographer and copyright holder are a different subjects of law. The agreement between them can assume anything. We are interested in the copyright holder's rights only. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where on http://www.golos-ameriki.ru/content/us-surveillance/1687563.html does it say that the image is in the public domain? I can't see any mention of "public domain" or similar phrase in the Google translation. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have only one transparent criterion that the copyrights belong to VOA. For example, they purchased (!) them from the original copyright holder. It's VOA's watermark only. If they remove this watermark and apologize to us we will remove the photo from Commons. Otherwise we need to ban the use of this source. I know hundreds of similar situation. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As I've already explained, even if your unlikely assumption that the copyright was transferred to the VoA were to be true, the content would not be in the public domain unless the VoA explicitly released it into the public domain. (And if the VoA acquired the copyright, why would they continue to apply the AFP watermark in the print version and on their other sites?) —LX (talk, contribs) 09:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you purchased copyrights fully you can distribute works under any license. It depends on the terms of your contract. Only in this case, you can set your own watermark, without identifying the author and the source. Conscientious user does not have to think how and what happened there. We are guided by end criteria only. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. I can admit that they could be mistaken. But let them declare about it. We should not discredit VoA without good reason... and it isn't in our interest. If VoA will be confess to a crime - fake license, we will remove this image. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no idea what "fake license" you're talking about. If the copyright was transferred to the VoA (again, unlikely), the VoA could distribute the content under any copyright license they wanted or release it into the public domain. But the VoA never did claim that this was published under a free license or that it was in the public domain. They've applied a source watermark that is somewhat misleading, but the bogus PD claim is all on you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think what he means is: VOA has a version that they either own the rights to or is public domain. They put their watermark on it to indicate this. They state on their site that "their" works are public domain. Whether they helped in the authorship by supplying equipment, photo shopped a PD image and then marked it as derivative work, or other reasons, we don't know. All we know is that we should assume good faith on the part of the VOA according to our policies and guidelines.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're misrepresenting the statement on their site, which is much clearer and more limited in scope: "material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain" (emphasis mine). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That may be why they put the watermark on the image. We originally thought The Guardian was the rights holder, now some think it is http://www.praxisfilms.org/ . In order to be the rights holder all they would need to do is finance the video. This would give them "exclusive" rights. The way the timeline went on this was rather rushed. VOA may have been the only money and equipment available (at a good price) when half the world's media flew to Hong Kong. Mr. Snowden himself may have made the condition that the video be PD. The Guardian hasn't marked their version as copyright and neither has Praxis. VOA is the only marked version we have and it indicates that it is PD by them. We either accept their version as bona fide PD or as someone said below "just get a consensus that VOA is full of crap" and delete all of their works hosted here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That is incorrect. The Praxis film has a "© 2013 Praxis Films/Laura Poitras" notice at 12:30. The VoA screengrab has a VoA source watermark in one resolution on one site (probably a simple mistake) but no explicit PD notice. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That is even more evidence that it is PD. The Guardian has claimed it as "exclusive", Praxis has put a copyright watermark on it, one source has it as a work by API. As another states above anyone can put any mark they wish on a PD work and claim it as copyright. If you look at http://whitney.org/Collection/EdwardHopper/31426 you will see that the museum is trying to claim that their version is copyrighted by the heirs of the artist. This artist has no works in copyright that we could find according to this DR. This is called w:Copyfraud. We should continue to have good faith in the VOA that they did not err. All the ones claiming rights to this PD image have been notified. The next step is up to them and the WMF. Either that or we seek consensus that all of our VOA images are in question and should be deleted. We may assume from the lack of response from Praxis and VOA so far is that the video is PD for reasons we don't know and thus we don't warrant their time to respond. Mr. Snowden is the center of this issue and he is an advocate of freedom of information so he may have asked for the PD status. He may end up dead over this but at least his image and story will remain on our projects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        A copyright notice is evidence that the work to which it is attached is in the public domain? Good one! "Anyone can put any mark they wish on a PD work and claim it as copyright" – not true. So when it comes to the VoA, assuming good faith extends to assuming they never make trivial mistakes, but when it comes to Praxis Films, you immediately assume that their formal copyright notice is fraudulent and against the Snowden's supposed wishes? For someone who makes no assumptions, you make a lot of assumptions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making any assumptions. I am merely repeating what others have said about policy/guidelines in this DR. We trust VOA, we upload images from VOA, people can put any marks they wish on PD images. The next step is out of our hands. Are we going to keep repeating ourselves or let others bring up any new points in policy or guidelines?Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Commons hosts images donated by external databases (such as VoA, Bundesarchiv, RIAN,...) in good faith. If there is something wrong with the copyright, then it is VoA and not WMF who is responsible; and, as long as no one contests VoA's copyright, we can use the image and everything's fine. See also this DR. --A.Savin 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In the thread Russavia said "I am deleting all of the images with the exception of the RIA Novosti images, as it is possible that RIAN has obtained the necessary permissions. The issues related to those 2 RIAN photos need to be taken up with those collaborating with RIAN, and they will need to report back to us as to the outcome." - So it may help to contact VOA and see if they did get permission to re-license the single video still as "public domain" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes we could ask them. But we must not. --A.Savin 19:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Ohconfucius said in File talk:Edward Snowden.jpg that "this is an obvious example of media which has been used by VOA without properly attributing its copyright status as belonging to The Guardian, the true copyright holder. Crediting non-self-generated content has never been a VOA strength." and the video from the guardian is available here. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. If this were an image from Flickr then I would question the rights transfer. If VOA messed up then The Guardian will let them know. They will probably be aware of the image in the page eventually and they can either contact WMF or VOA for takedowns and license changes. Until then we have done nothing wrong but assume good faith on the part of VOA. If the WMF acts quickly on a takedown notice then it shouldn't cost us a dime. We shouldn't flinch at every image we are suspicious of. Btw, the only reason I put it in DR was to remove the speedy delete tag that was added.Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the WMF acts quickly on a takedown notice then it shouldn't cost us a dime" – a prime example of arguments that amount to "we can get away with it". Keeping something around with a PD rationale that we know to be false and crossing our fingers and toes that we don't get a C&D notice can hardly be considered good faith on our behalf. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "we can get away with" anything. I meant that normal DCMA takedowns, when done quickly and uncontested very rarely go any further. We have acted in good faith without wrong intent the same as we should assume on the part of the VOA. What part of "assume good faith" translates to "we can get away with it"? --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial arrangements with affiliated networks don't allow it to be so clear-cut. Hyping your own photographers work on their home network isn't going to be contractually restricted by the sale of the copyright to VOA, or the VOA's right to release it on their standard free license. They can still toot their own trumpet. The photographer himself can display the image on his own website stating it's copyright, and that is true. Doesn't rule out that he has already sold the rights to a dozen agencies, and it doesn't rule out he is on payroll, and it doesn't rule out it's on a free licence. I still own the copyright to all of my own art that I've uploaded to commons, and I'm entitled to call it copyright, that it's also released on a free license won't make me argue if someone wants to pay me a million dollars. If they have a standard license for everything that is not specifically ruled out, then it applies until they specifically rule it out. What can they do ? blame us for listening to them ? Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Voice of America is a part of the US Federal Government. Works created by their employees are in the public domain under section 105 of the United States Copyright Act. However, we know that the image was not created by a VoA employee, but by Glenn Greenwald for The Guardian . Even if VoA licensed the content for their own use (a reasonable albeit unsubstantiated assumption), that does not place it into the public domain. Even if the Guardian transferred the copyright to VoA (a wildly improbable and entirely unsubstantiated speculation), that does not place it into the public domain; VoA would have to explicitly release the rights. I have seen no assertion by the VoA in any of the sources provided that this image is in the public domain. (The watermark is not sufficient indication in this case.) According to the VoA Terms of Use, "All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain ... However, voanews.com content may also contain text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in VOA programming only. This material is not in the public domain..." The Terms of Use make no mention of copyrighted content necessarily being identified as such on their site. We cannot in good faith host this image under the claim that this is in the public domain as a work of an employee of the US Federal Government when we know that claim to be false. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VoA marks copyrighted material corresponding watermark. Examples: 1, 2, 3. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they usually do. That has no bearing on any of what I wrote above. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, clear copyvio. As per my comment on the file talk page. Where the image might have found its way to is is entirely irrelevant. A lot of copyrighted stuff finds its way onto Flickr, and even a lot of Flicker files are copyrighted. Here, there is no doubt the copyright belongs to The Guardian. As the Guardian claims exclusivity over the interview, and the fact that no other journal except the SCMP has had access to Snowden during his stay in HK, there is NO POSSIBILITY that VOA simultaneously had a camera in place at the said videoshoot. --Ohconfucius (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: Has anyone noticed that the original upload of this image has been replaced by User:Canoe1967 with a much higher resolution one taken at a slightly different face angle? I would say any claims that might have been valid about the original image has been disqualified by the new upload. Consensus really doesn't come into it. This file should be speedily deleted (as originally tagged by me) without further prevarication. --Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the same photo on Chinese VOA shows it come from AFP [1]--太刻薄 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, so does the print version of the cited source (i.e. the source for the original version uploaded by Krassotkin, not the other screengrab uploaded by Canoe1967, as noted by Ohconfucius). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emailed both the VOA and The Guardian with links to OTRS to confirm any license they may wish to give us. They will both be aware of the issue and either contact WMF for a take down, email OTRS, or not respond at all. If they don't respond then I will assume that they don't care. I still believe we have done everything correctly on our end. The next step will be for them to ask WMF for removal. It still won't cost us a dime, no one will lose an eye, and we can keep the image in articles until that point. Deleting on the assumption that VOA failed instead of keeping it and assuming their good faith is not the way decisions should be made here. If we start this now then every image we have from VOA and other PD sites may be taken to DRs just because someone gets paranoid. It isn't on your server and you don't pay for court costs. We have done nothing wrong and should wait for the others concerned to act.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reiterate: Crediting non-self-generated content has never been a VOA strength. Just because there is no takedown notice does not entitle us to keep using it knowing with a high degree of probability that the image is not in the public domain. --Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have had many similar cases where copyright at the source is brought into question. In most cases they are kept until the rights holders have weighed in as keep or delete. As mentioned above they may gone against the norm in this case and released a single frame of a video to the public domain in order to expedite use of it in the name of freedom or some other reason. Our policy is not to just delete images because "Crediting non-self-generated content has never been a VOA strength." We have done a normal upload, the license was brought into question, this review has started, both parties involved are aware, and have a link to this DR. It should now be in the hands of the WMF and any rights holders. Our end should be to assume good faith with licenses. As I said before, this shouldn't cost us anything if the WMF acts quickly enough on any take down request. Our disclaimer should cause most lawyers to balk if they try to push for any damages. An apology by us and the VOA may be a good solution all around if an error has been made. To continue to state that an error has definitely been made is not policy, just an opinion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the prevailing idea is that unlike YouTube where copyrighted videos stay up unless someone complains, on Commons the community is supposed to remove images that they know are copyvios even if other people aren't asking them to be taken down. We do have a way of using this still picture: we can claim fair use and move it onto the individual Wikipedias which allow use of fair use images. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not "know" that it is a copyvio. That is all conjecture that since we think X never does Y then VOA made a licensing error. Far too many assumptions. We have many images from the VOA and if we take them all to DRs on a similar theory then that would take up much time and effort. We should assume good faith, our disclaimer has us covered, and both parties have a link to this page. We shouldn't second guess the actions of one of our sources. It is correctly licensed according to our normal procedure. Having it deleted is not our decision here according to policy. It is now the decision of The Guardian, the VOA, and the WMF. We have done nothing wrong except accuse the VOA of failure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:
  1. You're claiming that this content is in the public domain. By which mechanism are you claiming that it entered the public domain?
  2. Has the Voice of America asserted that this content is in the public domain anywhere? If so, where?
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I would recommend: In dubio pro reo ("when in doubt, for the accused"), since this might be one of the last images of a real person whose welbeing, future and/or life might depend on being known to a broader public. From the whole context of what is going on with Ed Snowden I guess we can be fairly sure no one involved in these events worries too much about the copyright of this image since it's all over the planet already and the whole point was to push it out to the public in order to make his face known before things go as bad as with other whistleblowers like Bradley Manning. We need to be correct no doubt about that but let's try to maintain a bit of common sense as well. mueller_felix 11:25, 25 June 2013‎
    Comment: AFAIK that would be a good fair use justification, but it means deleting this image from the Commons and moving it to the individual Wikipedias which accept fair use images. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "No one involved in these events worries too much about the copyright" and "it's all over the planet already and the whole point was to push it out to the public" are pretty much paraphrasing points (1), (3) and (5) on our list of common arguments that run counter to our aims. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't see it as our place to argue with organisation which are creating free material. They have their own people on payroll to do that if they want to. I'm not sure they have someone paid to have the following conversation on a daily basis:
  • <Commons> Is it PD ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> Are you sure ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> really sure ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> really really sure ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> it's been a few minutes, what about now ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> Are you sure ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> it's been 5 minutes more, what about now ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.
  • <Commons> cross your heart ?
  • <VOA> Yes, it's PD.

As an alternative to all of this, just get a consensus that VOA is full of crap. If you can provide enough examples, we can review all of their material this way, rather than just one high-profile 'enemy of the US' Penyulap ☏ 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --sasha (krassotkin) 12:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sent them an email with a link to this page as well. The two persons that made it are strongly involved in freedom of the press so even if it found that VOA didn't have PD rights a PD version then they may allow us a screen shot. DR run 7 days minimum so if they respond back in that time then we may be able to extend longer if they are going through any OTRS backlog. Closing admin may still agree that all is in good faith and keep pending any takedown in the future since all involved should be aware of it now. I still don't see why it is being kept out of the en:wp article because of all the broad assumptions above. I could discuss it over there but that would end up in the same repeated conjecture as well I assume. Is it normal policy to remove images from articles on conjecture and assumptions? Commons handles the copyright issues. En:wp is covered by using them the same as anyone else that re-uses images from here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You keep alluding to some assumptions, but you still haven't answered my questions above about your apparent assumptions. Also, what do you mean by "have PD rights"? I don't think that's a phrase I've come across before in my admittedly limited experience. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your questions above. I am not making any assumptions here but others are. They are assuming that The Guardian owns the rights, they are assuming that the VOA made an error, and they are assuming that the original film itself is not PD. I have emailed the film makers to verify these questions. We have uploaded an image assuming good faith on the part of the source as we do with many images. In cases where the source is something like a shady Flickr user then we can delete images through consensus pending OTRS. File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg is an example of a trusted source. We trusted the Ford Motor Company that it was a CC-by license. They have since changed the license. I seriously doubt that Jennifer Graylock would release any of her images under such a license. She has a stock that rivals Getty's. The issue with this image is between Jennifer and Ford. Our upload was legal and if Jennifer decides to contact WMF to have it removed then that is the next step. I see no difference with this Edward Snowden image. We can't go through 1000's of DRs on images because a few members 'assume' a trusted source made and error. If there is an error then it is up to http://www.praxisfilms.org/ and the WMF at this point. Deleting files on assumptions should not be the guideline/policy in this case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but you are making assumptions. You are assuming that the content is in the public domain, and my questions were essentially regarding what you base that assumption on. If the VoA made any error, claiming that the content is in the public domain isn't one of them as far as I have seen. That claim seems to have been introduced here on Commons. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming anything. I am just stating that this trusted source has been used for 1000s of images here and as Penyulap says above we could just get consensus that the VOA "is full of crap" and have all of their images deleted here. This file like many 1000s was uploaded on the good faith of the source. The assumptions are that they failed to license it correctly, it is not public domain, etc, etc, etc.... You keep asking the same questions and I keep giving the same answers. Could we let others have some input now while we wait for emails or actions from the WMF?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The VoA is a good source, but only when it comes to content created by their own employees, which is in the public domain by law. Nobody is arguing that such content should be deleted. As the VoA themselves state, not all content on their site is created by their employees, and third-party content may be protected by copyright. We know that the Snowden footage was not created by VoA employees. (Or are you disputing that?) The assumption that recently created works by non-government employees with no sign of an explicit PD release is protected by copyright stems not from anyone here, but from the Berne Convention and US copyright law. So why would this footage be in the public domain (or otherwise eligible for hosting on Commons)? You still haven't given an answer to that, and saying that you have doesn't make it so. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source you will see the VOA logo on the image. Others are assuming that is an error on their part. We won't know who was involved in making the image until we are contacted by the producers. Originally it was thought to be The Guardian, now it is thought to be http://www.praxisfilms.org/ . It was uploaded as a work by the VOA, it is marked as a work by the VOA, and we should assume good faith that the VOA has licensed it correctly. We have done nothing against policies by hosting this image. The policy now is to wait for any WMF action.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, on the sole basis of a VOA watermark on the original screengrab in one of the resolutions offered on a single VoA edition, you're assuming in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that this was a work created by an employee of the US Federal Government. Thanks for clarifying. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Overwhelming evidence"? I don't see any evidence. We find images at the VOA, we upload the ones that they indicate as PD, and that is how he have always done it according to policies. If it were a shady Flickr account then we seek consensus about whether the Flickr user is in error. In this case we assume good faith that VOA has not erred. If they have then the next step according to policy is to wait for WMF. How many times do I need to repeat this. If one of our reliable sources fails to license something correctly then that should be between the creator and the source with WMF acting when needed. The two mentioned in the video could very well have shown up in Hong Kong with documents that they were working for VOA and used VOA equipment. The VOA in that case may have asked for any rights made PD. Until the rights holders respond all we are doing is assuming various creators as listed above. We won't know who the rights holders are until they contact us and until then we should consider it PD as indicated. As I said before we have done nothing wrong according to policy. The next step would be a WMF action. Can we let others discuss it now or should we just keep repeating ourselves?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listen Canoe, I am still trying to assume good faith here, and you seem to be pushing the boat out a long way from the pier. Even if the copyright owners had released a single frame into the PD, doesn't mean the high definition version you uploaded – and whose facial position is decidedly different to the VOA image and whose source is not credited – is PD. I am absolutely disgusted at the way things work here. Things that ought not to be deleted are deleted, while things that obviously need to be speedy deleted can be subject to a consensus-like deletion process where copyright violations are condoned and the law is but one consideration. --Ohconfucius (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it back to the other image. I am not claiming that this work was originally created by the VOA. I am simply stating that they have their logo on the source image indicating that the source image is a PD work released by them. We still don't know the copyright status of the original video but we do know that the VOA considers it as PD. In this case we assume good faith that the VOA has followed procedures correctly so there is no reason we can't. Find image on VOA, check to see if it is marked by 'other' which would make it protected according to VOA, if not marked as such then feel free to upload. If the indication at the source is changed or the WMF is contacted then the image may be deleted. As I have said before it is in the hands of the WMF, VOA, and any possible rights holders I have emailed. They can email OTRS, chime in here, or contact the WMF. This is the same as File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg. I am quite sure that Jennifer is the photographer and rights holder as she states in the EXIF. I can also state that her releasing rights to Ford seems very incorrect as I have never seen any of her images licensed that way. Ford has since revoked their license but until Jennifer asks the WMF to remove it then we continue to host it. I see no difference with this Snowden image. License accepted from source, keep until further actions by others. We won't need to go to court or anything as I think that if the WMF acts quickly in removal then no harm is done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete we assume good faith that VOA has not erred. Of course. Nobody is arguing that we not assume that this work was created by an employee of the US federal government. But that assumption has, in this particular case, been decisively rebutted!--Brian Dell (talk)
  •  Delete I found a copyright notice of the maker of the picture:
"Copyright © 2013 Praxis Films / Laura Poitras
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this video is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes." --**Copyright © 2013 Praxis Films / Laura Poitras
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this video is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes."
I hope that helps, --Lorra (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. The way I read it is that she has copyrighted material in her film that she is claiming 'fair use' on. Is this a copyright notice on the video in question or a notice on videos she has made with 'fair use' material by others?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until/unless Praxis re-licenses the footage or a piece of the footage (OTRS can be useful for that) I would get to work on identifying which Wikipedias have fair use, and make plans to have this image uploaded to those Wikipedias WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are still accepting the VOA image as PD. Praxis has been notified with a link to this page and OTRS. Fair use is not allowed on en:wp with people that are still alive. I have emailed reps of Edward Snowden as well to see if they wish to provide images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not made by anyone listed above that others think may have the rights to it. It is clearly marked by the VOA as their public domain image though. In this case we should accept their word that it is in the public domain or delete all of their images on commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close: Deleted
There does not seem to be much doubt that this picture has been created by Praxis and thereby it is not to be considered as a work of the U.S. federal government, i.e. {{PD-USGov-VOA}} does not appear to apply. ~~~~
✓ Done Closed per proposal.
--AFBorchert (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above VOA has marked it as their work. I also mentioned that they have been the only ones with equipment readily available in Hong Kong at the time, or they could have even simply financed it to get rights. They marked it PD, we trust their judgment, then we wait for any further action from WMF. This has always been the way we do things here. We don't flinch just because we have a hunch that they may have erred. Until someone does contact us about an error then we either continue to host it or delete all of our VOA uploads.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As already pointed out by LX this does not matter. The license tag {{PD-USGov-VOA}} is valid only if and only if this is a work of the U.S. federal government. And as it appears from this discussion, this is apparently not the case and this does not seem to be doubted even by you. And even if they mark it with VOA, it is not thereby put into the public domain and they do not appear to claim this anywhere on their site as far as I can see. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The VOA logo is in itself not a PD license. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Guardian/Reuters work Denniss (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Edward_Snowden.jpg&oldid=99587497"