Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golan evacuation.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:Golan_evacuation.jpg

[edit]

User:Jiujitsuguy nominated the Golan evacuation image based on his claim that: "The photo has no author, comes from an obscure and unreliable blog calling into question its veracity and it also may be in violation of copyright laws. The source site has no license specified" [1]

This is inaccurate as the photo is a historical image taken in Syria in 1967, and under Syrian copyright law, images taken before 1994 have they're copyright expired. Thde image is also not from an "obscure blog" as he calls it, its from syrianhistory.com/ which is a website entirely dedicated to Syrian history and run by Sami Moubayed, he has his own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Moubayed, has articles published in the Huffinfton post, [2] Asia Times:[3], The Washington post:[4], Gulfnews:[5] more info here about the site: [6]. So far not one shred of evidence or argument has been presented by Jiujitsuguy to delete this image, so the image should definitely not be deleted:  Keep --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be possible to find the original source of the image if we ask Moubayed perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Clear cut case of copyright violation if ever there was one. The source site does not specify a license. For that reason alone it should be deleted. In addtion, there are serious reliability problems here. The photo has no author and comes from an obscure Syrian blogger. We don't even know when the photo was taken as there is merely an imprecise date. The year 1967 is a rather large net.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained above, the source site does not need to specify a license as all photos taken in Syria before 1994 are free, so the image is free. What reliability problems? The photo is not from an "obscure Syrian blogger", its from syrianhistory.com, more about the site and who runs it has been provided above, which you have ignored. The source says: "during the 1967 War" Israel occupied the area during the 1967 war, which was 6 days. So the source is specific that it was taken during the six day war of 1967. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "clear cut" at all. If it was published in Syria first, then it's PD and will stay here forever. If you can demonstrate that it wasn't, then it's "clear cut". As is, the precautionary principle is what could get it deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one follows the paranoia principle, the best thing is to close down Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The latest copyright law from Syrian can be found here [7]. It doesn't seem to say anything about 1994. Anyone can start a history site and put what they choose up as valid. (I have one myself) That doesn't mean that everything they put up is valid history. It appears the author is an opinion columnist in his other life. Stellarkid (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source:[8], says on page 6, Article 25 "Copyrights of photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work." Article 26: "All unprotected works or works with expired protection periods according to the stipulations of the law herein shall fall in the public domain.", this source: [9] says "the term of protection begins for 50 years from the date of production of the work and reduce the protection period of ten years from the date of production of seed with regard to photographic works", either way, this is further evidence that the image is infact free. Furthermore, Stellarkid is a blocked sock on Wikipedia [10] and I have evidence that he and Jijutsuguy are part of an of wiki canvassing group. So Jijutsuguy probably just sent him another email telling him to come here and back up his bogus attempt to delete this photo. Notice that he hasn't made one single edit on Commons for 1 year and then just "magically" showed up here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get real, SD. I like to keep my eyes on things here. Talk about the paranoia principle. Just deal with the issues, not personalities. Stellarkid (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SD I’d rather not indulge you on your paranoid and asinine insinuations. If you’d like to talk about canvassing, I can easily link to a mysterious user who in one day contacted more than 30 editors with the message “Hello, I don't know who I should speak to about this important matter. The Golan article has been taking over by Israelis and they have removed everything mentioning an occupation and changed it to "disputed" They have also removed the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" that was on top of the article while it is written in a completely pro-Israeli way. Please do something about this!” Do you want me to link to that user? Please stick to the issues and stop engaging in endless paranoia and hypocritical personal attacks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did post that a very long time ago when I was new and didn't know anything about the rules at Wikipedia, I acknowledged that I made an error, this is not the same thing as you did, your attempt of mass canvassing of wiki when you was an experienced editor and then pretended to apologize to stay at Wikipedia and then your participation in an of wiki email ring was exposed some months ago (together with Stellarkid). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As there doesn't appear to be any evidence to the contrary, ie that the photo is of what it says it is and taken when it says it is then all is fine and dandy and should be kept as a valuable archival image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't contribute to Commons all that often but have had User:Supreme Deliciousness' Talk page watchlisted for a while and uploaded a file from an old phone of mine just now, which is how I got here. When I try to access samimoubayed.com I get redirected to http://www.cunemagazines.com/sami, with a message in the browser window that says "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)." Is anyone else able to access his blog? We should check if Moubayed has other photos there that are obvious copyright violations, which would then indicate that he freely uses images without consideration of their copyright status. Otherwise, although I'm withholding voting temporarily, my inclination is to say that this photo doesn't depict Syrians at all and that Moubayed was either misled or is misleading for propaganda purposes. The issue came up once at in a Wikipedia discussion at Golan Heights, where an editor pointed out that the subjects' dress doesn't correspond to what Syrian inhabitants of the Golan would have been wearing at the time. That's a valid concern that needs to be addressed in order to convince me that this photo authentically depicts what Moubayed is claiming it depicts. In the event that this discussion should move to be closed before I can comment again, my vote can be considered  Delete on account of there being no accompanying data indicating who the photographer/publisher was, which would allow us to corroborate Moubayed's claims.Biosketch (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Edited to move Template:Vd to front. Biosketch (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because I see no evidence of copyright violation and other reasons sound too subjective. The request sounds biased, especially the characterization of the source site as "unreliable" and the requester not addressing clarifications about the source when presented by others. What exactly makes that site unreliable? And why is it relevant (to the deletion request) that it is Syrian? Why is it "obscure"? Is it obscure (or unreliable) *because* it's Syrian? The requester also does not seem to be able to justify or respond to the clarifications that have been made about copyright, either, while seeming to repeat that the request is "clear cut." These things smell fishy to me. I'm sorry if I'm contributing to an attack on users instead of content - I'm trying to look at the content of the request. Anyway, I guess an anonymous vote doesn't carry much weight but I'm not a regular contributor other than random minor edits from time to time.--99.171.125.144 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The anonymous IP above has never made a contribution to Commons[11] and, by some miraculous force of nature, finds this discussion to post its first comments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I mean - your reasons for the deletion request all seem to have been strongly refuted, but you're continuing only to beat up on contributors here including me. Not that anyone should have to justify offering an opinion even if it's their first one, I found the Golan Heights article, was intrigued by its (sadly childish) discussion page, saw this. If you can't stick to the issues, it does your *cause* a disservice, and it becomes clear that you are in fact here for a cause other than sharing fair knowledge with the world.
  •  Delete - I was reading about Golan and noticed this illustration. I looked again and, very peculiar, what did I see? A picture of a family with a basket that shows two dark ladies without scarf or headcovering. One in trousers and one in a sari. As I read above, I see this impression has been had before. How can I believe what I read in Wikpedia if people can upload any picture they didn't take and add fake captions. --Idont (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great argument! Two women without scarves can surely not be Syrians! Your lack of knowledge is clear.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No evidence of original source or location to even claim that there is no copyvio or that the location is the Golan or Syria or anywhere else. The claimed source is not an RS.--Shuki (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syrianhistory.com/ is reliable for Syrian history images as its run by Sami Moubayed, so its RS. furthermore there is a lot of RS that shows that the Syrian refugees went deeper into Syria, and not to any other country, so it doesn't matter in what part of Syria it was taken, in the part that Israel occupies today or any other part of Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks pretty clear, so i agree with the comments way above. 89.138.28.54 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Copyvio per Template:PD-Syria (image reportedly published after 1954, therefore it is not yet public domain in Syria). The public domain tag currently present on the image page is incorrect - there is no basis under Syrian copyright law to claim that an image from 1967 is no longer copyrighted. To summarize, this appears to be a copyrighted image with an unknown author, and unclear authenticity. Marokwitz (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect, I have no idea where you got 1954 from, there are two conflicting sources about this, either way the image is free, one saying photographs are free ten years after they are created the other one saying 40 years: [12], either way its free. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The arguments for deletion based on copyright are incoherent, and the discussion keeps being distracted by questions of the image's merit. That's not for us to decide here. I detect an agenda. — Alarob (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another "new" SPA who just "happened" to find this discussion. Interesting. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is the funniest thing I've seen for ages. All this childishness over a single picture. A not especially good picture at that. Is it really worth all the Machiavellian shenanigans? There's now more socks here than there is in my bedroom drawer. What is it about the Middle-East that brings the juvenile out in people? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What other pictures of Syrian refugees from Golan are you referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a google image search on b/w photos, "golan refugees" for example. I know it is not evidence, and I the SyrianHistory site would of course know better than me, but it remains possible that this is from somewhere else. It would not be the first time that editors trust a caption more than the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to show me the specific images as you used it in your argument above. I have never seen any another images and when I google what you typed I cant find any other. Btw this one:[13] is not real as can be seen here:[14] "Computerized reproduction of photo" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this (but it may be a 1948 photo). Stuff does get mislabeled. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that photo would justify you saying about the other one "does not really fit in very well" with this photo, there are many different types of ethnic people in Syria and the clothes are very mixed, you could find people in Syria wearing clothes like this today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to their attire? Many different groups were relocated at the time, but the one you posted actually looks older. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sure there were different groups, but I would associate this style of clothing more with the Indian subcontinent. Could they be Bengali refugees in 1971, for example? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are are reasonable or not, whether or not the pic is what it is purported to be is no excuse for the behaviour shown in this discussion. It's gone beyond a straight-forward deletion request, it's now a competition and there are several people who seem to want to win at all costs. FFS it's just a picture, let's have some perspective here. This isn't directed at you Pieter by the way. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, it seems like some else thinks this pic is as described. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... sorry Fred, don't think so. That's from a blog called the Alternative Information Center (emphasis added). We deal with what's reliable not some gibberish from one borrowed blogger to another dealing with Alternative information. The fact of the matter is the photo is so fought with COPYVIO and reliability problems, that its immediate deletion is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether what you say is true about the site as I just came across it when googling images with the "1967 golan refugees" search term. Regardless, the way you are talking you seem to think that we should consider you to be a reliable source. So far you haven't given any reason whatsoever why it should be deleted other than the fact that you think it should be. So please, tell me who holds the copyright for this image? Tell me what evidence you have that proves that it isn't what it is purported to be. The car, the clothing, the style of photo all look to be from the 60s. There's nothing to say that these aren't refugees from the Golan Heights other than "no head scarves". Your evidence isn't looking too strong. Now as nominator you have to persuade the closing admin that the image needs to be deleted and why, and so far you're doing a pretty shitty job of it. So please stop with the paranoia, the rhetoric and the hyperbole and give us some facts to chew on as at the moment your signal to noise ratio is through the roof. Remember it's not up to us to prove that it shouldn't be deleted, it's up to you to demonstrate that it should. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, my guess is that the bitter "you are, no YOU are" things on this page stem from the bitter nature of the conflict in that region and thus it's not so surprising. The image isn't "just a picture" - it's an evocative one, showing women and children fleeing their homes, which you may well imagine would be something an occupying force (justified or not) would not like the world to see, since it evokes sympathy with people being forced from their homes - by foot, no less. It's hard to set those things aside for a lot of people, since it IS a terrible thing.
In this case, it looks to me like the requesting user is not being honest - the original reasons seem to have been solidly refuted, yet that person merely repeats that the case is "clear" and doesn't even warrant anything more than immediate/speedy removal, and, as just above, seems to be resorting to casting illegitimacy on anything counter to the goal of deletion with no real facts or reasons - it's not enough to call a site unreliable because it has "Alternative" in its title or because it's a Syrian history site. That's just name-calling and it wreaks agenda, and for me as someone new here, I wish there was a reasonable authority that could come in and shut down this kind of thing that makes a mockery out of the ideals of this project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPI holds the copyright to this picture [15] which comes from the same blog as the photo in question. I was able to track it down to a book authored by Zeev Schiff (1974) page 300. So it appears that this blogger simply lifts photos from legitimate copyright holders and pastes them on his blog with whatever caption he fancies. Now it becomes clear to me why the photo has no author and a rather vague year. Others on this thread have accurately pointed out other discrepancies with the photo and corresponding caption. I think that under the totality of evidence, this photo is at best unreliable and more than likely infringes on copyright laws and when it comes to copyright laws and infringement, it is better to err on the side of caution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in question does not come from a blog, it comes from Syrianhistory.com. According to Syrian copyright law, the photo you linked to would have automatically fallen in PD either in 1983 or in 2013 if it hasn't already been PD some other way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what year the photo was taken. Once it hits PD status according to Syrian law it makes no difference what book it came from. Once it's public domain it stays there. It cannot then become copyrighted by the book's author. So if what you say is true, we need to found out its provenance so that it can have an accurate caption, not so that it can be deleted.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You do realise don't you, that the image you linked to above, from 1973, is also PD? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Freddy, that picture didn't originally come from the book. It originated with United Press International, which owns the rights to the photo. The book republished the photo with attribution which is the way it's supposed to be done if one is to operate within legal parameters. Like I said, there are real serious issues with the subject photo and when we are dealing with serious issues such as reliability as well as copyvio concerns, we best err on the side of caution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion request is about this photo:[16], which has been proven to be free and under PD above, while you are talking about this one:[17] which is a different photo. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then you've put the wrong file up for deletion, as you are talking about the 1973 image whereas the rest of us are discussing the 1967 image. As for the book, I'd be grateful if you could give us the title as Zeev Schiff has been involved in a few books with the discussed subject matter. This way we can all find out for ourselves, independently, whether the book contains the 1967 image that is under discussion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is clear. The blog is an unreliable source. The photo has no author, a vague date, inconsistencies in the caption have been pointed out by more than one editor on this thread (excluding me) and as I've shown, the blogger lifts works created by others, posts them on his blog and cites whatever caption fancies him raising serious infringement issues. There are lots of issues concerning this photo and erring on the side of caution is the most prudent course of action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has brought a blog here as a source for anything. Concerning the syrianhistory website it says in the caption it was taken in the six day war, so there is no problem with the date. What inconsistencies in the caption? Everyone who has "voted" to delete the image here is either an obvious sock and/or a notorious non neutral pro-Israel editor from Wikipedia (Shuki, Biosketch, Marokwitz, yourself, Stellarkid, Chesdovi). You haven't shown anything to back up your claim. No blogger has been presented here, concerning the other 1973 photo its PD according to one source and you haven't shown any source confirming that it isn't. Everything you have said about UPI is not proven [Personal attack removed --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jiujitsuguy keeps repeating phrases like "totality of evidence" and "unreliable" to apparently make it seem like his case is "clear", but provides no reasons at all that these sources are "unreliable" except personal opinion (dubious opinion at that, if that opinion seems to be based on things like "Alternative" being in the title). He continues to claim the source is a blog, for example, when this is not the case at all. He doesn't acknowledge AT ALL that the original reasons he requested (speedy no less) deletion have been soundly refuted, continuing to bugle the need for swift removal. This repetition of a point that has not been backed up is a tired tactic that needs to be retired. It's quite clear this user comes here with an agenda. What gives? Why does anyone take this seriously? Where are the mods who can put an end to this childishness? Why can't the Wiki* projects be a better place than that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete After looking at this pic, i find it highly doubtful this picture was taken at the Golan Heights. Both landscape and the outfit of the people are quiet strange (especially Indian clothing style on one of the women). A reliable source needed for such claim that it was taken at the Golan.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your comment I find it highly doubtful that you know anything about the Indian diaspora. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the original image here [18], which is said to be copyrighted. In any case, I still doubt it is authentic.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if whomever uploaded to Flikr says it's copyrighted. Once an image becomes Public Domain, it cannot then be copyrighted by anyone. It sounds like the Flikr uploader doesn't have a clue what he's doing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Greyshark09 having "found" the "original" image on Flickr of all places - did you see that it says "Uploaded on Nov 15, 2010"? If you still think that's the *original*, did you contact that user for a detailed and helpful response that would be MUCH more helpful to us here? Or are you just reaching for anything to justify your agenda? Why do you make a mockery of the Wiki* community? Do people like this get their deletion votes removed for being dishonest? This is pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
With regard to votes, point of order. These discussions do not depend on numbers of votes, they depend on which side gives the most compelling reasons to the closing admin. This is why sock voting makes no difference and why vote stacking can work against an argument, ie a load of new users or IPs all coming on and saying the same thing will demonstrate to the closing admin just what is going on. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification
  • Comment. I've voted already but would like to add that syrianhistory.com, whence the "refugees" photo originated, is full of photographs that were obviously taken by professional photographers and none of them have any attribution whatsoever as to their sources. The photos there are by no means only Syrian in origin; on the contrary, the overwhelming majority are of dignitaries from a long list countries. It's inconceivably that all these photos are uncopyrighted. Furthermore, I notice that per this page, we're required to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Here we (a) don't know who the author is, and (b) don't have a licensor - because that information doesn't accompany any of the photos at syrianhistory.com. We need to treat this site as an informal blog that doesn't consider itself subject to copyright laws. And as such, we shouldn't be relying on it to determine whether an image is public domain or not.Biosketch (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What license other images at that website have is of no importance here, the only thing that matters here is this one photo and its not under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license so there is no need to have the name of the photographer, this image has already been proven above to be PD. Were not relying on any blog or the Syrian history website that its PD, there are two other sources above were relying on for that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other photographs are of importance because they establish that Moubayed, or whoever it is that's behind the website, doesn't consider it subject to copyright restrictions; otherwise he'd have attributions for at least some of the historical photographs there. Furthermore, looking above, I don't see anywhere that you proved the photograph to be public domain, as you're claiming. What I do see, however, is you calling an editor a liar and calling me, a seasoned Wikipedia editor who's never even once been sanctioned or anything close, "a notorious non neutral pro-Israel editor from Wikipedia." This kind of behavior is altogether inappropriate.Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what copy rights other images have, only this one, evidence was presented here:[19] that its PD. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you brought it up, and as your contributions on Commons amounting to 54 edits hardly amount to being "seasoned", who are you on WP? I only ask so we gan gain perspective on your above claims. Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - I changed my mind; there is no reliable documentation or internal evidence for assuming that {{PD-Syria}} applies to this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - syrianhistory.com must make it clear that the image is PD or release its rights. We cannot assume things. The slanted roofed dwellings are typically uncommon in Arab buildings which generally have a flat roofs. I am also not aware of any ethnic Syrian minorities who wear saris. Am not sure if the 1973 Beetle Mexican sedan model had made it into Syria by '67. The Eucalyptus does grow in the area, but it also grows in Oz. Chesdovi (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not assuming this, other sources have been presented confirming that its PD:[20] Its difficult to see exactly what it is those in the back are

wearing. Do you have any evidence that the car in the picture is from 1973 and not an older model?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very un-arab style of those buildings in the background really shows that this "Golan" photo is a fraud. If they are evacuating, why are both men standing outside the car? It is obvious that they have parked and everyone has got out to go to a picnic somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is irrelevant, not to mention total fiction, unless of course you can back up your conjecture with facts. There are only two things to consider 1) is the image from a reliable source (if yes we are obliged to take the image on face value) 2) is its copyright status commensurate with the rules of Commons. So enough of Jackanory, let's get back to the important matters. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not going to a picnic somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. They are fleeing four Israeli brigades that occupied the land that their homes sat on in the Golan. The men are likely standing outside their car because it ran out of fuel and they are faced with choosing which of their possessions to abandon and which to carry the rest of the march to Damascus. The caption at Corbis reads: "Women and children on the march as a result of the Israeli advancement into Syria during the Six-Day War." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Hard to read though all this but the only relevant issues posed by the request seem to be:
    • copyvio - mere age and this [21] seem to refute this
    • Some vague claim of unreliability (?) - While the source site may have made some inadvisable decisions for how it presents and credits its media, this in no way means its material is falsified. The site in fact seems to be fairly legitimate/authoritative. No evidence beyond conjecture have been presented to justify the claim that it is not reliable, if that's what the request is based on.

    It's also pretty clear that most of the delete votes here are agenda-based (and the source of way too much irrelevant fluff). =( Sad. Hon89 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hon89's account was created on November 12, 2011, and this is Hon89's first and only contribution since. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)—[reply]
So you must be saying that new people are unwelcome to contribute, because surely you are not trying to avoid staying on topic by trying to find fault with the people who are participating, right? Maybe you should point out the policy that says that newcomers are unwelcome. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't participate yourself if you have nothing of value to add.Hon89 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not be the case, but what you don't do is attempt to 'out' someone in a deletion debate regardless of their shenanigans, what you do do is take it to COM:SPI. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the above comment from JJG hasn't been redacted, and for fairness, it should be pointed out that JJG's request for a checkuser on Hon89 was declined on the grounds that too much personal info would be given away should the result be confirmed. As such JJG's accusation is unproven and is just supposition and opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really worried, IP "votes" can be struck and asked to log in. But please do not strike the comments, because discussion is actually what decides copyright issues like this, not votes. --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not worried, I know how these RfDs go. I just believe in fairness and that a possibly innocent 'person's' name shouldn't be sullied until it's proof positive that they have done what they've been accused of. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I appreciate the well intentioned policy that tries to protect users, but in this case it was just my mistake and I'm sorry for just adding to the ridiculous part of this debate. I am under the impression that registered accounts' votes are taken more seriously, so I made an account and it was just me being dumb not realizing I could remove my non-account vote when I was logged into my account. I don't mean to give the impression of cheating, and I have removed my previous vote. Sorry again. I only wish the others here including the original user would be more transparent about their motivations, even if it's quite clear what they are anyway.Hon89 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. In contrast to the above claims, the source of this image is not SyrianHistory.com. The picture on SyrianHistory.com site has a watermark, while the image uploaded to commons does not. Furthermore the version on commons is higher resolution, making the source claim impossible. Evidently the image was copied from somewhere else. The image uploader should clarify the actual source. Marokwitz (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its from the same site, previously the images on that site didn't have watermarks, but that was changed later on. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So they reduced the image resolution and added a watermark? Do you have any evidence? Why would they add a watermark to deter copying, if the image is indeed public domain ? Marokwitz (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for what? I uploaded the image from the site before they changed it. Big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or more likely to demonstrate provenance attribution based on the likelihood that most people wouldn't know the image is actually in the public domain. Guesswork of course, but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell did this DR become a battle-ground for pro-Israelis? Accounts like "IsraelForever1000" coming out of nowhere? Who is warning these people? FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
en:User:CommonsNotificationBot gives notifications on talk pages, which is a good thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questioning someone's motives is not a personal attack. Neither is wondering why your introduction to Commons has been to go straight to Israeli-related deletion requests? It seems a strange way to take part. Most people's introduction to commons is to upload an image they got from the 'net. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your snarky, "Is that based on your wide knowledge of Commons and copyrights?" was a personal attack. My introduction to Commons was through w:Golan Heights, which I have been improving. A bot posted a notice about this deletion request on its talk page. Remember that just because you may have been introduced by uploading an image, that does not mean that everyone has to be introduced that way. Remember to assume good faith. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope you're using better grammar on the w:Golan Heights article. The use of sarcasm is not an "attack", it's sarcasm. Telling what I think of your good self and your lofty attitude could be considered to be an attack. Pointing out your unlikely familiarity of the darker depths of Commons is not though, neither is your knowledge of inter-wiki markup. I don't suppose you've ever worked in the fishmongery business have you? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "your" correctly -- English is my third language and I'm still better at it than you. For what it's worth, figuring out things like adding "w:" to a link to direct it to a Wikipedia article is very simple for people of reasonable intelligence. Unfounded claims of sock-puppetry are personal attacks. You may be trying to troll me, so I am going to ignore you in the future. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually sunshine, you didn't use it correctly. The correct way of saying it is "you are snarky", therefore if you wanted to contract it you would use an apostrophe. And people with "reasonable intelligence" might be more likely to use "en" as the prefix rather than "w" which could have related to Wiktionary, or Wikimedia. Just a thought. I always wonder what goes through a non-native English speaker's mind when they try to correct the grammar of a native English speaker. Must be that lofty manner again eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Corbis Rights Managed Photo by Terry Fincher Because of Fred the Oyster's personal attack on me, I was inspired to track down the photo's origin. Since I have such wide knowledge of Commons, copyrights, photography, and Israeli history, it took me only a few minutes. As I suspected, it's a Terry Fincher photo. It's a Rights Managed photo that is part of the Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS collection -- http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/HU006703/women-and-children-during-war. Everyone who responded "Delete" here due to copyright issues was clearly in the right, and, unfortunately, everyone who responded "Keep" appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now who's doing the personal attacks eh? People voted keep because they didn't make wild assumptions about its provenance and its location ("Women and children on the march as a result of the Israeli advancement into Syria during the Six-Day War.") basd on little or no evidence to the contrary. We didn't even wax lyrical about the year of the Herbie car. The strange thing is that I also did a Tineye search, before !voting, and the only image it pointed to was the image we're discussing now, It didn't lead to the Corbis image.
  • That wasn't a personal attack. Anyone who followed the source link could clearly see that the site included no authorship information. You can't just assume that a random image is in the public domain. So "Keep" responders were either biased, or too lazy to do even a superficial investigation. I guess there is also the possibility that some of them were just confused about copyright or who chose to ignore Wikimedia Commons's copyright policies. Tineye is sometimes useful, but not in this case. It is no substitute for decades of relevant life experience and a keen intellect -- both of which I possess. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, Damn, I think I've finally got it. Anything negative you say is fine and dandy as it is purely descriptive. Whereas anything negative I say is a personal attack. Right, got it. Thanks for that. How confused I must appear to be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone who responded "Keep" appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive"? Do You have problems with paranoia, or are you just cursed with the gift of hyperbole? On the bright-side though, at least we were right about its location, or do you just think the location naysayers were just being "extremely biased and nonconstructive"? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, and please do not use negative words to describe me. I think that the location naysayers were confused because they expected the rocky terrain of the Golan and the picture shows a flat plain that is probably close to the Purple Line. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean I'm not allowed to say no in a sentence that is directed at you? Now this is more like the lofty attitude we've come to know and love. Kindly descriptions of assumptions for people on your side of the argument, yet strangely acrimonious ones for the others. There's nothing like neutrality to keep a discussion going now is there? So what do you think my fellow lazy, young (can I quote you when my grand-daughter refers to me as old?), biased and low-intellect editors should do when we think the descriptions of us are personal attacks. Should we just throw the feeling to one side with a "tish tosh" because The Hammer says it cannot be so? I think there's only one person in this sub-thread showing bias and making attacks, and I have this suspicion that it isn't me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's goes Yehuda throwing in the anti-Semitism card. he seems to have lasted longer than many, but quicker than a few. You do realise that this is contrary to Godwin's Law don't you? When all arguments fail, throw in the anti-Semitism card. See? I knew you knew more about Wiki discussions than you're letting on. You see, throwing that taunt is a classic, admittedly a watered-down classic due to over use, but a classic debating technique nonetheless. Now there's a good Jewish chap, please point out examples of my anti-Semitism. Perhaps at this juncture I should mention that I take the piss out of the Jews, the Moslems, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Scientologists and the Amish. I'm an equal opportunities atheistic piss-taker. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to change my vote from keep to delete but have some questions (as no, I'm not a copyright expert). To a newcomer, it does look clear that the owner of the image is Corbis, but the copyright says "Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS", both of which seem to be US companies (Hulton-Deutsch having been bought by Getty), and the date being more than 30 years ago, does that have an impact or not?
YehudaTelAviv64, your aggressive style is not helpful (and surprisingly/shockingly pompous - are you joking? If you are, I'd advise against - too hard to "get the joke") . As was pointed out, your characterization of "everyone who responded 'Keep' appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive" is ridiculous, given there was no good/solid prior evidence to base the delete request upon... what is more "nonconstructive" is making statements such as you have. Similarly, stating "Everyone who responded 'Delete' here due to copyright issues was clearly in the right" is quite "nonconstructive" and preposterous - many of the delete votes made spurious claims and used misdirection as a debate tactic, several claiming that the location was wrong as well. You've more or less waved your hand and appologized for that behavior and labeled everyone who voted keep as biased. YOUR bias comes across clearly in your manner here and I hope reasonable people can see that for what it is.Hon89 (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that some of the "Delete" responses used spurious claims, which is why I specified "'Delete' here due to copyright issues'. So do not claim that I apologized for behavior that I did not apologize for. You are the one who is handwaving and accusing me of bias. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact you very specifically apologized for the people grasping at straws as it were: "I think that the location naysayers were confused because they expected the rocky terrain of the Golan and the picture shows a flat plain that is probably close to the Purple Line." Come on, it's all too clear that you are whitewashing previous questionable arguments. If you're so unbiased, why not let your arguments stand on their own without using the kind of language you have?Hon89 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The citation provided is certainly not an obscure blog, but the creator of the site is definitely not the one who created the photo as the public domain notice would seem to imply. From what I can tell Sami Moubayed was born about twelve years after the Six-Day War. I had not known of Corbis until seeing it brought up here, but it does appear to very much be an authority on this question and if it says this image is part of a copyrighted collection then this is most likely the case. Someone who knows more about fair use in the UK, where the rights are held, can comment on whether it would be acceptable to move it to Wikipedia under such a descriptor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's moot whether it's UK or US. Fincher was a freelancer so he most likely held the copyright rather than a client, but as he only died in October 2008 it means that the image is indeed copyrighted still. Mind you, I'm surprised there's no WP article on him as he was certainly notable, well at least notable enough to get an obit in the Guardian. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The fact that it was found on Corbis and its author and evidene of where it was taken proves that the image is real, it also proves that it was taken in Syria, so that also proves that its in the public domain.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The evidence proves its in the public domain. The corbis link proves it was taken in Syria and the Syrian copyright laws presented above proves its in the public domain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is by Terry Fincher, not a Syrian citizen, he did not live there, and he did not publish there; it is not justified to consider Syria as the country of origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt matter if it wasnt taken by a Syrian, the photo was taken in Syria, so it follows Syrian laws. Lets say there is a country where its legal to beat children, and someone from that country travels to a country where its illegal and the person beats children there, then the person is still going to jail, because you follow the laws of that country. Not the country where the person came from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On this I have to agreed. The best you can hope for SD is that the photo is PD in Syria, however the rest of the world is quite another matter. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source claims copyright to two American companies. Is copyright irrelevant to public domain? Or are you saying their claim could be wrong if the photo was taken in Syria? No matter where the copyright is, doesn't it expire (or something like that) after so many years? I'm a little surprised there's so much uncertainty here about things like this that I would think would be well established in this community.Hon89 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, it isn't where the photo was taken that counts, it's where it was first published and under what terms it was published. So if the pic wasn't published in Syria then Syria's copyright rules don't apply. My original keep !vote was based on the premise that this image was published in Syria. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted:

  • If the image was first published outside of Syria, then it will be under copyright for many years, most likely until 2079 (Terry Fincher, the photographer died in 2008). At the time of this photograph, Fincher worked for the Daily Express, so it seems most likely that it first appeared in the Daily Express.
  • It is also possible that it was taken for the Daily Express, but never used in the newspaper.
  • In either case, it seems very unlikely that it was first published in Syria.

Therefore it is a copyvio and must be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Golan_evacuation.jpg&oldid=337020220"