Commons:Deletion requests/File:773ER Pakistan.jpg
file source is licenced under: Copyright © 2009 World News Network All rights reserved High Contrast (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok where does it say that? If you look below the photograph it says, "(photo: Public domain photo)" --Fast track (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- It says that on the bottom of the web page. But, you are correct, it is marked as "public domain". The only problem is, we have no way of knowing who the photographer is, and if they're the one who released into the public domain, or if somebody else uploaded the image, without their consent. So, we really can't know the validity of the PD status. --Rob (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly that's the problem: Without knowing the author it is quite hard to retrace the copyright status. --High Contrast (talk)
- It says that on the bottom of the web page. But, you are correct, it is marked as "public domain". The only problem is, we have no way of knowing who the photographer is, and if they're the one who released into the public domain, or if somebody else uploaded the image, without their consent. So, we really can't know the validity of the PD status. --Rob (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment The source World News Network says image is "public domain". Should World News Network be considered a reliable source regarding copyright statements? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not reliable. But, a high number of image on their site are useable. So, in other cases, it's a matter of taking the info they give, particularly a user id, and seeing if you can find the same image elsewhere (FlickR, or Commons). On an aside, one reason I've noticed them a lot, is they credit me falsely with lots of images I uploaded to Commons, which were taken by other people (e.g. usually U.S. government / public domain). --Rob (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep:I agree with you Rob! Unless the person can find the exact same photograph on FlickR or other reliable sources to this photogrpah then it should be deleted. Otherwise it should remain.. given the current details. --Fast track (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not reliable. But, a high number of image on their site are useable. So, in other cases, it's a matter of taking the info they give, particularly a user id, and seeing if you can find the same image elsewhere (FlickR, or Commons). On an aside, one reason I've noticed them a lot, is they credit me falsely with lots of images I uploaded to Commons, which were taken by other people (e.g. usually U.S. government / public domain). --Rob (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photo says its goes into Public domain. --80.194.30.187 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Renominated for deletion. At the last deletion request the source was not reviewed enough. It appears, that this article.wn.com website is declaring photos into the public domain without any basis. See http://article.wn.com/view/2007/09/19/Britney_Spears_pierde_la_custodia_de_sus_hijos/ which is clearly NOT public domain (photo Steve Granitz, WireImage). The whole source should be marked as inacceptable for Commons. Martin H. (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This request is added to File:Pregnant woman2.jpg. See some nice examples like File:Moussa Dadis Camara.jpg for wrong references, the source is File:Guinean army 2005-199.jpg. See also the external link search to see, that they are more a reuser then a provider. --Martin H. (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep:See previous reason on first debate. --Fast track (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)--Fast track (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep:No proof that it's not in public domain.Yousaf465 (talk)
- Delete There's no proof it's not in public domain, no proof it is, there's just no proof. The site seems to be a hodge podge of stuff taken automatically (without review) from sites, such as commons (including files we might delete subsequently as copyvios), FlickR, and it's own user uploads. They don't seem to have any system of reviewing claims. It's entirely possible, that this file was previously uploaded to Commons, picked up by wn.com, deleted by us as a copyvio, before being re-uploaded to Commons under a new name. We just don't know. Keeping this image, would require contacting the author, and confirming the license status. --Rob (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep:No proof that it's not in public domain.Yousaf465 (talk)
- Keep:See previous reason on first debate. --Fast track (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)--Fast track (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted and site added to Commons:Bad sources. It looks very much like the site is just grabbing images off the net and declaring them as Public Domain. See e.g. the Britney image uncropped here with a copyright claim by WireImages. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
